Academic Integrity Violation Policy

Download as PDF

Academic integrity is expected in all student endeavors.  The College’s Academic Integrity Violation Policy defines academic integrity and academic dishonesty, including cheating, deliberate plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. Resolution of student violations under the Academic Integrity Policy is addressed in this procedure.

Alleged and confirmed academic integrity violations are held in strict confidence.  Information regarding alleged or confirmed violations and identities of alleged violators will be shared with faculty, students, administrators, or staff on a need-to-know basis necessary to this procedure.  Trends in academic integrity violations will be reported to College Committees, omitting any potentially identifying information.

All students, faculty, staff, and administrators are expected to report suspected academic integrity violations.  Suspected violations should be reported directly to the involved Course Faculty; the Provost may also be contacted for assistance. Investigating and reporting alleged violations is the responsibility of the involved Course Faculty.

Purpose

The Academic Integrity Policy fosters integrity at the College by:

  • Defining academic integrity and academic dishonesty.
  • Classifying violations by severity and describing typical consequences.
  • Outlining how offenses are reported, reviewed, and resolved.
  • Describing students’ rights, including limited avenues of appeal.
  • Clarifying the roles of Course Faculty, the Integrity Committee (IC), the Integrity Panel (IP), the Provost, and academic leadership.

Classifications of Integrity Offenses

  • Level 1: Incidental Violations
    Inadvertent, isolated, or suspicious concerns often stemming from inexperience and generally affecting minor assignments, drafts, or a small portion of coursework. Examples may include limited citation errors, poor paraphrasing, repeated mistakes in giving credit to sources because of lack of experience, or working with another student without explicit permission on a minor task.
  • Level 2: Significant Violations
    Intentional actions or repeated Level 1 behavior affecting more substantial coursework (major assignments, quizzes, or exams). Examples include unauthorized collaboration on a major task, using unauthorized materials or devices, altering quiz/test answers for rescore, submitting the same work in multiple courses without permission, cheating, intentionally using someone else’s words or ideas as your own without giving credit, or copying substantial portions of work.
  • Level 3: Egregious Violations
    Critical or repeated misconduct (including at least one prior Level 2), such as submitting work that is not one’s own, willful misuse or fabrication of data, stealing or distributing assessments, recording/photographing others’ work without permission, or falsifying official documents.

Multiple Violations: 

A student will be dismissed from the college following a third Integrity Panel Review (IPR) where all three (3) panels determined it was more likely than not an academic integrity violation occurred.  

Consequences of Integrity Offenses

  • Standard of Proof: Findings are based on whether it is more likely than not (preponderance of evidence) that an academic integrity violation occurred.
  • Level 1 (Incidental): May include additional instruction or tutoring, revision/repetition of work, reduced or no credit on the affected work, and related developmental steps. Multiple Level 1 incidents may be elevated.
  • Level 2 (Significant): May include any Level 1 consequence, grade reductions, failing the assignment or course, and referral to student support resources, as appropriate.
  • Level 3 (Egregious): May include any Level 2 consequence up to program dismissal or College suspension/expulsion, consistent with sanctions prescribed in the Academic Integrity Policy and the IP outcome.
  • Failure to complete assigned remediation may result in further discipline up to and including dismissal from the College.

Reporting and Review Process

Responsibility to Report: All students, faculty, staff, and administrators are expected to report suspected academic integrity violations. Reports should be made to the Course Faculty involved; the Provost may be contacted for assistance. Investigating and reporting alleged violations is the responsibility of the involved Course Faculty.

  1. Document the incident by notifying the Provost via the Google Early Intervention Form to ascertain whether prior violations are on record for the student in the Academic Integrity Violation Database. The Provost will notify faculty whether the student has a prior violation on record or not.
  2. Access the Academic Integrity Violation Student Notification Form located in the Employee Resources shared Google Drive and create a copy of the form. Complete all applicable sections with the information available at the time of submission.
  3. Notify the student electronically using the Academic Integrity Violation Student Notification form that he or she is suspected of violating the College’s Academic Integrity Policy, identifying the specific violation or violations, and requesting the student to provide any evidence relevant to the investigation. The student must meet with Course Faculty within five days to avoid automatic referral to the Academic Integrity Committee.  In the meeting, faculty will identify the alleged violation and ask the student to provide any evidence relevant to the investigation.
  4. Faculty may take 10 (ten) working days to complete an investigation after notifying the student of a suspected academic integrity violation. These working days include when students are on scheduled breaks and holidays.
  5. Schedule a meeting with the student. The purpose of the meeting is to review the Academic Integrity Violation Reporting Form and to present and discuss the evidence related to the alleged violation. The meeting shall occur within 5 (five) working days of the conclusion of the investigation. Failure on part of the student to meet with the faculty within the designated time will result in an Integrity Panel Review (IPR). The IPR is conducted by an Integrity Panel (IP).  IP is comprised of 6 members: 3 (three) students and 3 (three) faculty selected from the pool of Academic Integrity Committee (AIC) members or faculty employed by the college by the AIC Chair and Provost or Administrative Designee.  If the Course Faculty is the AIC Chair an appointed Integrity Committee member will fill the role as the AIC.

Preliminary Outcomes by Course Faculty

  • No violation supported: Faculty meet with the student to discuss expectations, College values, and may refer the student to the Academic Support Services.
  • Violation supported; If a violation occurred and the student has no prior violations on record, Course Faculty choose Option One or Option Two.
    • Option One - Faculty Imposed Sanction: 
      • Faculty determine sanction and a remediation plan (per the Academic Integrity Policy’s sanctions) and complete the Academic Integrity Violation Reporting (AIVR) form. Faculty may impose sanctions up to course failure.
      • Faculty meet with the student to present the AIVR.
      • On the AIVR, the student indicates (a) admits responsibility/accepts sanction, or (b) does not admit and/or does not accept, or (c ) admits responsibility, but does not accept the sanction, or (d) does not admit responsibility, but accepts the sanction. The student may return the signed AIVR by the next working day.
      • If the student admits and accepts, Faculty forward the AIVR and supporting documents to the Provost; Faculty retain copies until course end, then destroy them. The Provost records the violation, retains originals for at least five years post‑graduation/dismissal, and monitors remediation (directly or via an appointed liaison).
      • If the student does not admit and/or does not accept, or fails to sign the form by the deadline, the Provost forwards the case to the AIC Chair within 2 working days to trigger an IPR.
      • If a student does not admit responsibility but accepts the sanction, the Provost will record an academic integrity violation in the student's file.
      • Note: If a case is forwarded because the student requested IPR, the eventual IP outcome cannot impose a harsher sanction than originally imposed by Course Faculty.
    • Option Two - Faculty Referral for More Severe Sanction
      • Faculty complete an AIVR and inform the student that the alleged violation may warrant a sanction more severe than course failure.
      • The student may sign the AIVR by the next working day. 
      • Faculty forward the AIVR and supporting documents to the Provost, who sends them to the AIC Chair within 2 working days, triggering an IPR.

Cases with Prior Violations or When a Student Requests an IPR

If the student has a prior violation on record or requests an IPR, the Provost notifies Course Faculty to complete an AIVR with recommended sanctions and remediation. Faculty meet with the student, then forward documents to the Provost, who forwards them to the AIC Chair within 2 working days to schedule an IPR.

Integrity Panel Review (IPR)

Receipt of an AIVR by the AIC Chair triggers an IPR conducted by the Integrity Panel (IP).  Information about the violation or alleged violator(s) to this point is strictly limited to the involved Course Faculty, Provost, and AIC Chair. The AIC Chair will schedule a meeting with the involved Course Faculty to review the policy.

  • Conflicts of Interest: Prospective members must decline if a conflict exists (e.g., personal relationships, prior knowledge, or direct involvement). Prior to the IPR, the student may challenge the presence of any voting member on the Panel because of bias or conflict of interest. Prior contact between participants is likely in an intimate college campus setting and does not per se indicate bias or conflict of interest.  The AIC Chair and Provost will determine sufficient proof of bias that may interfere with an IP member’s ability to judge the case fairly and solely on the evidence presented.  If all available AIC members have a conflict of interest, the AIC Chair and Provost will appoint non-conflicted students or faculty from the College at large to serve on the IP.
  • Scheduling and Notice: An IPR is held within 10 working days of AIVR receipt. At least 5 working days before the IPR, the AIC Chair sends written notice to the student(s), Course Faculty, and IP members with the meeting time and place. This timeline may be adjusted by mutual agreement when significant scheduling conflicts exist.
  • Participation and Recording: The student, Course Faculty, and IP members attend. The hearing is recorded and is not open to the public; no legal representation is permitted. Course Faculty may bring a non‑testifying support person. The student may bring one non‑testifying Bryan College of Health Sciences student or an employee advocate.
  • Student Rights and Clinical Safety: Students may continue course activities while the process and any appeal are pending, except alleged clinical violations that may pose patient‑safety concerns; in such cases, the student may be restricted from clinical participation pending resolution.
  • Evidence Rules: Prior violation history is not provided to the IP until after a finding that it is more likely than not that a current violation occurred.
  • Deliberation & Standard: The IP deliberates privately (off‑record) and decides by simple majority whether it is more likely than not that a violation occurred.  The IP will render its decision, upon due deliberation, on the record.  The IP may request the presence of the AIC Chair during deliberation for questions of procedure, and/or the Provost for questions of due process.  A tie vote does not establish a violation.
  • Sanctions: If a violation is found, prior records (if any) are disclosed; the student may address the IP regarding prior violations. The IP then affirms or amends the Course Faculty’s recommended sanction and remediation plan, consistent with policy. If no violation is found, no sanction is assigned and the case is not recorded.  For cases in which the student requested the violation be forwarded for an IPR, the IP cannot impose a harsher sanction than was originally imposed by the Course Faculty.
  • Decision & Effective Date: The AIC Chair notifies the student, Course Faculty, and the Dean of the Academic Program in writing within 3 working days. When a violation is found, the penalty is effective immediately.

Appeal Process

A student may appeal only if the sanction includes suspension or expulsion, or if course failure results in dismissal from the academic program.

  • Initiate Appeal: Submit a written appeal to the Provost within 5 working days of receiving the IPR decision. Upon request, a transcript of the hearing will be provided.
  • Written Rationale (within 5 working days): The student submits reasons why the record does not support the IP’s findings and/or why due process was violated causing substantial prejudice, and/or why the sanction is grossly disproportionate.
  • Integrity Appeal Panel (IAP): Convened by the Provost; composed of 3 students, 3 faculty (none from the original IPR), and the Dean of the Academic Program (voting). The Provost facilitates. If conflicts exist, the Dean’s role may be delegated; conflicted members are replaced from the College at large.
  • Scope & Standard: The appeal is decided solely on the IPR record and written submissions. The IAP reviews within 5 working days and decides by simple majority:
    • Uphold findings and sanctions; or
    • Uphold findings and reduce sanctions; or
    • Overturn findings (violation removed from the student’s record).
  • Final Notice: The Provost notifies the student, Dean of the Academic Program, AIC Chair, and Course Faculty of the IAP decision within 3 working days. The IAP decision is final and not appealable.