2000-2001 Undergraduate Catalog
Indiana, Pennsylvania 15705

Academic Policies

1. Providing or receiving unauthorized assistance in coursework, with lab work, theses, dissertations, or during examinations (including qualifying and comprehensive exams) or quizzes.
2. Using unauthorized materials or devices, such as crib notes, during examinations or quizzes.
3. Plagiarizing papers, theses, dissertations, essays, reports, speeches and oral presentations, take-home examinations, computer projects, or other academic exercises by misrepresenting or passing off the ideas, words, formulas, or data of another as one's own. Plagiarism is dishonest and illegal. Writers are indebted to authors from whom they borrow exact words, ideas, theories, opinions, statistics, illustrative material, or facts (beyond common knowledge). Writers are also indebted if they summarize or paraphrase in their own words material from sources. All quoted material requires the acknowledgement of the source by the use of quotation marks or indentation (if exact wording is incorporated). In addition, both directly quoted and summarized material must be acknowledged by use of a note or parenthetical citation that indicates the author and/or date of publication and page number or numbers. If the writer indents a quotation, it must be clearly set off from the body of the text and must be documented in the aforesaid manner. To verify the various documentation procedures, writers should consult the style sheet in the particular discipline for which they are preparing the assignment (MLA, APA, Chicago, BC, etc.).
4. Using the same paper or work more than once without authorization of the faculty member(s) to whom the work is being submitted.
5. Possessing course examination materials before the administration of the exam, without the prior knowledge or consent of the instructor.
6. Intentionally evading IUP academic policies and procedures; for example, improperly processing course withdrawals, grade changes, or other academic procedures.
7. Falsifying information, including falsification/fabrication of research data and/or statistical analyses, forging signatures on various forms and documents, or altering or adding answers on academic exercises or exams after work has been graded.
8. Computer dishonesty, including: tampering with or making unauthorized change to another person's or the university's computer system, illegally copying computer software, personal use of another individual's computer account, unauthorized activity involving another individual's personal computer system or any system belonging to the university, and other unauthorized use or violations involving computer use.
9. Noncompliance: failure to follow through with sanction(s) imposed as a result of an academic violation.

Charges of academic integrity violations may be brought by faculty members or administrators. Students who observe or become aware of a violation of academic integrity by another student are strongly encouraged to report it to a university official. A faculty member/administrator who believes that a student has violated an academic policy may elect to resolve the matter by Informal Resolution, by Documented Agreement, or by Formal Adjudication. Sanction(s) may not be imposed upon a student believed to have violated an academic policy without following one of these three procedures.

If charges are brought, the accused student(s) shall have a fair and reasonable opportunity to answer, explain, and defend against the charges. The university shall have the burden of proof in all cases. Hearsay should not be used as the sole evidence to establish any fact necessary to establish guilt or innocence.

C. Procedures

1. Faculty/administrators must use one of the following options to resolve alleged violations of academic integrity.
   1. Option I: Informal Resolution. The faculty member/administrator and student may meet informally, normally within seven class days of the observation or discovery of the incident, and agree to resolve the issue without submitting any formal documentation. If the violation pertains to work being judged by a committee (examples might include dissertations and comprehensive examinations, both oral and written), the meeting must involve a majority of the committee and the resolution must be agreed to by a majority of the committee. It is in the interest of both the faculty member/administrator and student to complete a statement that summarizes the incident, conference, and agreed-upon resolution. This factual statement should be signed by both parties and copies provided to the student and the faculty member/administrator. If agreement cannot be reached, or at the discretion of the faculty member/administrator, a more formal process as outlined in this policy may be initiated.
   2. Option II: Resolution by Documented Agreement
      1. The faculty member/administrator may schedule a conference with the student in an attempt to agree on the facts of the case and to reach a mutually agreeable resolution. This meeting must normally be scheduled/requested within seven class days of the observation or discovery of the alleged violation or of the failure of resolution by Option I. If an agreement is reached, the faculty member/administrator must complete a Documented Agreement Form outlining the agreement and have it signed by both parties: faculty member/administrator and student. If the violation pertains to work such as a thesis or comprehensive examination being judged by a committee, the meeting must involve a majority of the committee and the Documented Agreement Form must be agreed to and signed by a majority of the committee. Copies are distributed to the student, the faculty member(s)/administrator filing the agreement, and the department chair, who must also electronically record the information for subsequent entry into the computer database. The form must normally be filed within seven class days of the conference.
      2. If an agreement is reached and the form is filed, the matter is closed unless the student has a prior academic violation(s) on record. By signing off on the agreement, the student waives the right to appeal the sanctions agreed upon in the conference. If the student fails to fulfill the written agreement, the faculty member/administrator may file an academic integrity referral against the student for noncompliance.
      3. If a prior academic integrity violation(s) for the student is on record, the matter will be referred to an Academic Integrity Board (AIB). The AIB will review the case to determine if more severe sanctions are warranted (see Section D, Multiple Violations).
      4. If a documented agreement is not reached, the faculty member/administrator should initiate the formal adjudication process by filing an academic integrity referral form with the department chair, normally within seven class days of the conference with the student.
   3. Option III: Resolution by Formal Adjudication. A faculty member/administrator should pursue formal adjudication if:
      • he/she cannot reach or chooses not to attempt a mutually agreeable resolution with the student regarding the facts of the case or sanctions to be imposed,
      • he/she believes that the violation is so severe that it warrants a sanction of expulsion, suspension, involuntary withdrawal from part of IUP's academic or other programs, or awarding a failing grade on a project or examination (such as a graduate qualifying or comprehensive examination or dissertation) when resubmitting the project or retaking the examination is not possible.
        1. The faculty member/administrator should file an academic integrity referral form with the department chair, normally within seven class days of the observation or discovery of the violation or within seven class days of the failure to reach a resolution through Option I or Option II. If the violation pertains to work being judged by a committee, the form must be signed by a majority of the committee. The form will contain a description of the alleged violation, including the time, date, and place of occurrence, and the recommended sanction(s) if the student is found to have violated this policy.
        2. The department chair will forward a copy of the academic integrity referral to the student, normally within seven class days of receiving notification of the allegation, and contact the student to schedule a hearing to review the facts surrounding the allegation and recommended sanctions if the student is determined to have committed a violation.
        3. The hearing should be scheduled so as to allow the student a reasonable time to prepare a defense (normally within seven class days of being notified of the allegation by the department chair).
        4. This hearing will involve the student, the department chair, and the faculty member/administrator(s); the department chair may invite others with pertinent information. All parties must be given the opportunity to submit written, physical, and testimonial evidence, and for reasonable questioning of witnesses.
        5. The accused student may identify an advisor, who may be an attorney, to be present at the hearing. The advisor may only consult privately with the student unless otherwise determined by the university regarding a particular case.
        6. The student may waive his/her right to a hearing in writing. If so, the sanction recommended by the person filing the referral will be imposed. If the student fails to appear when a hearing has been scheduled, the hearing will be held in the student's absence and the department chair will render a decision based upon factual information presented by the faculty member/administrator.
        7. Following the hearing, the department chair will render a determination based on the information presented at the hearing. Normally within seven class days of the hearing, the department chair will forward a written report summarizing the hearing that includes the outcome, the factual basis for the determinations reached, the sanction(s) to be issued, and appeal procedures. Copies of this report will be sent to the student, the faculty member/administrator, and the provost/designee. The department chair will retain a copy for departmental files and electronically record the information for subsequent entry into the computer database.
        8. In the event that a department chair cannot or will not fulfill the above role, or in the event that the person filing the referral is an administrator or department chair, the provost or designee will determine the appropriate individual to fulfill the department chair's role and inform the student and the faculty member/administrator filing charges.
        9. If a prior academic violation(s) for the student is on record, the case must be referred to the Academic Integrity Board which will consider more severe sanctions (see Section D, Multiple Violations). Otherwise, if there is no appeal, the recommended sanction will be imposed.

Academic Integrity Board (AIB). The AIB will hear all cases in which appeals to the chair's decision are accepted by the provost/designee (see Appeals section C.1. and C.2.). The AIB will also review sanctions in cases of multiple violations (see Section D).

1. The AIB will be made up of four faculty members, one of whom will chair the board, and two students. A quorum requires the presence of four persons, at least one of whom must be a student. All members, including the chair, are voting members.
2. When an AIB hearing is called for, the AIB will be convened by the provost/designee (currently the assistant to the vice president for Student Affairs). The accused student shall be notified of the time, date, and place of the hearing and the names of those AIB members scheduled to review his/her case. If the hearing is an appeal, this notification will also include details of the charges, including the time, date, and place of the alleged offense(s) and the recommended sanction(s). If the hearing is a review of sanctions in a multiple violation case (see Section D), the notification should also indicate that more severe sanctions might be imposed. The hearing should be scheduled so as to allow the student reasonable time to prepare a defense.
3. Prior to the hearing a student appearing before an AIB may, with good cause, challenge any member on the board sitting in judgment of his/her particular case. When such a challenge is made, an alternate member will be appointed to the AIB.
4. The AIB will review all material and hear all evidence pertinent to the case from the accused and all witnesses. Members of the AIB shall be free to ask relevant questions to clarify information or resulting issues.
5. The student shall have a fair and reasonable opportunity to answer, explain, and defend against information and witnesses presented at the hearing, to submit written, physical, and testimonial evidence, and to call relevant witnesses on his/her behalf.
6. The accused student may identify an advisor, who may be an attorney, to be present at the hearing. The advisor may only consult privately with the student unless otherwise determined by the university regarding a particular case.
7. After hearing all evidence, the AIB will privately make its decision based reasonably upon the evidence presented. A majority vote of the AIB shall be required for any decision. If the AIB finds the student to have committed the misconduct or infraction, and the student has no prior academic violation(s) on record, it may accept, reduce (but not increase), or modify the recommended sanction. If the student does have a prior academic violation(s) on record, the AIB may increase the recommended sanction (see Section D, Multiple Violations).
8. If the student waives his/her right to a hearing in writing, or chooses not to appear at the AIB hearing, the case will be adjudicated based upon the evidence presented at the scheduled hearing.
9. All hearings are closed unless the student requests an open hearing in writing. The AIB chair has the authority to make the final decision regarding access of spectators at the hearing.
10. The AIB must submit a written report of the decision, normally within seven class days of its decision, to the student, faculty member/administrator, department chair, and provost/designee, who will electronically record the information for subsequent entry into the computer database.

D. Sanctions

Multiple Violations

1. Students with multiple academic violations of record will be subject to additional sanctions, including possible suspension or expulsion from the university.
2. Information about prior violations is not relevant to determining whether a student has violated this policy. However, such information is pertinent in determining the appropriate sanction.
3. If a student found in violation of this policy through either Resolution by Documented Agreement or Resolution by Formal Adjudication has a prior academic integrity violation of record, the case will be referred to an AIB.
4. For cases previously resolved by Documented Agreement or through Formal Adjudication at the department chair's level, the AIB will schedule a new hearing. This hearing will review all information pertinent to the determination of an appropriate sanction but will not reconsider the issue of whether the policy violation occurred. After considering the severity of the current and prior violations, the AIB may determine that a more severe sanction is appropriate.
5. For cases being heard by an AIB, the AIB should request information on prior violations only after determining that a violation has occurred. Information on prior violations should be used in determining the appropriate sanction.
6. The AIB must submit a written report of the decision, normally within seven class days of its decision, to the student, faculty/administrator, department chair, and provost/designee who will electronically record the information for subsequent entry into the computer database.
7. The student may appeal any new sanction(s) to the provost/designee. The provost/designee may deny the appeal or, on the basis of denial of a fair and reasonable hearing, new evidence, or excessively harsh sanctions, direct the appeal to be heard by a second AIB. The provost/designee will electronically record the information for subsequent entry into the computer database.

Sanctions

1. The following sanctions may be agreed upon by the student and faculty member/administrator through informal resolution or documented agreement. All grade reductions require the approval of the instructor of record. If the work is graded by a committee, a grade reduction requires the approval of the majority of the committee.
   1. Single Grade Reduction: Reduction of grade or failure on project, examination, quiz, or other academic exercise on which the student is alleged to have cheated.
   2. Course Grade Reduction: Reduction of course grade or failure in the course. If the violation involves a project spanning multiple courses (such as a dissertation or multiple semester internship), the grade reduction may apply to all courses involved.
   3. Constructive or Educational Task: A task which requires the student to examine his/her dishonest behavior and which may benefit the student, campus, or community.
   4. Other: Sanctions deemed appropriate and tailored to a specific violation as determined by the faculty member/administrator. Any reasonable sanction or combination of sanctions for a given violation may be agreed upon by the student and faculty member/administrator.
2. In addition to the above, the following sanctions might be imposed through formal adjudication.
   1. Letter of Warning: A warning letter may be issued indicating that the student has been found in violation of an academic policy and that failure to comply with policies in the future may result in further disciplinary action to be handled as a second offense. The letter of warning will remain in effect for a period of time as specified by the individual or board hearing the case.
   2. Disciplinary Probation: Disciplinary probation, which is for a period of time specified by the individual or board hearing the case, is an indication that a student's status at the university is seriously jeopardized. If the student is found in violation of another IUP policy during the probationary period, a more serious sanction will be levied, including possible involuntary withdrawal from part of IUP's academic or other programs, suspension or expulsion from the university.
   3. Involuntary withdrawal from part of IUP's academic or other programs: A student may be denied the right to participate in some segment of IUP's programs. Such involuntary withdrawal might be imposed on either a temporary or permanent basis.
   4. Suspension: A student may be suspended from the university for a specified period of time, not to be less than the remainder of the current semester. Suspension requires that a student remove him/herself from university premises, not attend classes or social activities, and not be present on university or Student Cooperative Association property during the period of suspension.
   5. Expulsion: Expulsion may be considered under any of the following circumstances: when there is a very serious violation of the academic integrity policy, when a student is proven to have violated the academic integrity policy on more than one occasion, or when a student appears before the board after already having been suspended. Expulsion from the institution is permanent. Appeals to the sanction of expulsion must be submitted to the Office of the President. If necessary, the president will consult with legal counsel in these cases.

Suspension and expulsion can be recommended by a faculty member/administrator, department chair, and AIB but can be imposed only by the president's designee for suspension and expulsion (currently the vice president for Student Affairs), who is responsible for verifying that due process was followed.

E. Appeals

Appeals: These appeal procedures apply to cases resolved through formal adjudication. Cases of academic integrity that are resolved through informal resolution or documented agreement cannot be appealed, as the facts of the case, the decision, and sanction(s) have been agreed to by the student and the individual making the charge.

1. If, after receiving the department chair's report on the outcome of the hearing, the faculty/administrator or the student disagrees with either the decision, the sanction, or both, he/she may appeal to the provost/designee, normally within seven class days of receiving the report. This appeal must be in writing and must describe in detail the grounds for the appeal. These reasons may include the following:
   1. Denial of a fair and reasonable hearing
   2. New evidence (applies when there is an acceptable reason why the information was not presented at the original hearing)
   3. Excessively harsh sanctions. Students cannot appeal on the basis of excessively harsh sanctions if the sanctions are specified on the course syllabus, have the prior approval of the department, and apply only to the specific course in which the alleged violation occurred.
2. The provost/designee may deny the appeal or direct the appeal to be heard by an AIB within seven class days. All appeals involving sanctions of involuntary withdrawal from part of IUP's academic or other programs, suspension, or expulsion will be heard by an AIB.
3. Unless the recommended sanction is suspension or expulsion, the decision of the AIB is final and will be implemented by the provost/designee, who will electronically record the information for subsequent entry into the computer database.
4. Suspension or expulsion may be recommended by the AIB but can only be implemented by the vice president for Student Affairs (the president's designee for suspension and expulsion), who is responsible for verifying that due process was followed.

F. Records and Recordkeeping

Records and Recordkeeping

1. Records of Informal Resolution. Although no official forms are filed at this level of resolution, it is strongly recommended that a faculty member/administrator and student who reach an informal agreement put the agreement in writing with a copy to each participant. This protects each party in the event of any future attempt at renegotiation.
2. Records of Resolution by Documented Agreement. Documented agreement resolutions are recorded on the computer database of disciplinary files maintained by the assistant to the vice president for Student Affairs. They are not considered formal disciplinary records until and unless the student is found in violation of this policy a second time. They are internal university records used for monitoring students for multiple violations only. If a second documented agreement form is filed or a student is found in violation of the policy through formal adjudication, the student will then have a formal disciplinary record which includes records of both violations. This formal record is maintained according to the IUP judicial system recordkeeping policies.
3. Records of Formal Adjudication. Records of academic integrity cases resolved through formal adjudication are recorded on the computer database of disciplinary files maintained by the Office of the Assistant to the Vice President of Student Affairs. They are maintained as formal disciplinary records in accordance with IUP judicial system recordkeeping policies. Records of cases involving suspension or expulsion must be maintained for a minimum of two years.

G. Operational Notes

1. In cases where a violation is alleged at or near the end of the semester and resolution by informal resolution, documented agreement, or formal adjudication cannot be completed before grades are submitted, the faculty member should submit a designation of "Incomplete" (I) for the student. The "I" designation will remain on the student's record until the case has been resolved. Once the case has been resolved, the "I" designation will be replaced with the appropriate grade.
2. If the violation is alleged during the semester when classes are in session, the accused student should continue attending all classes and continue to complete course requirements during the resolution of the academic integrity case.
3. The provost/designee may extend any deadline which cannot be met for what he/she deems legitimate reason.
4. Requests to constitute the AIB for hearings will be directed to the provost/designee (currently the assistant to the vice president for Student Affairs).
5. The university may withhold transcripts, grades, diplomas, or other official records pending the disposition of cases, if such action is reasonably necessary to preserve its ability to enforce its rules.
6. The provost/designee may modify the procedural provisions of these rules by the issuance of written orders to deal with particular unusual procedural situations, so long as no order shall contradict the rules of the Board of Governors of the State System of Higher Education governing due process for students, and no such rule shall deny fundamental fairness to students by, for example, effectively constituting a denial of notice or opportunity to be heard.
7. This policy will be reviewed by the Senate Academic Committee after five years.

The various forms described in this policy are available from the assistant to the vice president for Student Affairs, 215A Sutton Hall, deans' offices, or department chairs. Questions concerning the Academic Integrity Policy and Procedures can be directed to the assistant to the vice president for Student Affairs, 215A Sutton Hall.

Implementation: The policy is targeted for implementation in June, 1998, pending completion of the computer screens that will support a decentralized system focused in the departments.

Approved by Council of Trustees -- May 15, 1998

---

Table of Contents | Index of Courses

---

This information is maintained by the Office of the Registrar, with approval from the University Senate. Last Modified at 9:55 AM on 7/15/00.