Academic Honesty Policies

The University exists primarily to sustain the pursuit of knowledge. Learning, to have true value, must be linked to a sense of honesty and integrity. It is the responsibility of every person in the academic community —faculty members, students, administrators— to ensure that dishonesty is not tolerated. Personal and communal integrity have always been fundamental in Jesuit education, and a sense of honor must be kept alive in every activity at Saint Joseph's University.

Academic integrity and ethical behavior serve as the bedrock of the university community, providing a framework within which learning can flourish. By upholding academic integrity and ethical standards, the University seeks to cultivate an environment characterized by mutual trust and intellectual integrity. This commitment not only fosters a culture of respect and accountability among students, faculty, and staff but also reinforces the value of academic rigor and the pursuit of knowledge. Ultimately, the goal is to uphold the highest ethical principles and promote a community where scholarly endeavors thrive, grounded in integrity and respect for academic excellence.

Furthermore, adherence to academic integrity principles extends beyond the confines of the University campus, shaping individuals who are prepared to contribute positively to society at large. Students who embrace these values develop critical thinking skills, ethical reasoning, and a sense of responsibility that prepares them for professional and personal endeavors beyond academia. For many academic programs, respect for academic integrity is also an essential component of protecting the safety of vulnerable members of society who put their trust in the skills, knowledge, and professionalism of our students and graduates. By instilling a deep appreciation for honesty and integrity in all academic pursuits, the university equips its students with the ethical foundation necessary to navigate complex challenges and make meaningful contributions to their communities and the world. Thus, this policy not only safeguards the integrity of the academic enterprise but also nurtures individuals who embody the highest standards of ethical conduct throughout their lives.

This policy is universally applicable, encompassing all members of the University community. These principles of academic integrity consistently extend across various domains, including, without limitation, coursework, research endeavors, community partner organizations, internships, clinical or fieldwork experiences, experiential learning, study tours, semester abroad, student-teaching placements, and other scholarly or academic activities or use of academic facilities or resources. Whether engaged in classroom discussions, formal assessments, laboratory experiments, field research, clinical work, student teaching activities or collaborative projects, all members of the academic community are expected to uphold the highest standards of honesty, transparency, and ethical conduct. Regardless of discipline or academic pursuit, adherence to these principles is fundamental to the integrity of the educational process and the credibility of academic achievements. From writing papers and conducting experiments to presenting findings and working with adults and children in professional settings, every aspect of academic engagement is governed by the ethos of integrity and ethical behavior outlined in this policy.

In coursework, academic integrity demands that students submit their own original work, properly attribute sources, and refrain from engaging in any form of cheating, plagiarism, fabrication, or unauthorized collaboration. Similarly, in research settings, integrity necessitates the rigorous and ethical pursuit of knowledge, adherence to research protocols, and transparent reporting of procedures and findings. In clinical or fieldwork contexts, integrity entails the ethical treatment of students, patients, clients, or research participants, as well as the accurate documentation and reporting of observations and interventions in an honest and transparent manner. In internships and student teaching, integrity requires honest reporting of hours, projects and work completed. Furthermore, in all scholarly activities, integrity entails a commitment to truthfulness, respect for intellectual property rights, and adherence to professional standards and ethical guidelines.

By applying these principles consistently across all academic domains, the University reinforces its commitment to fostering an environment of trust, respect, and intellectual honesty. Through adherence to these principles, students and faculty alike contribute to the preservation of the integrity of the academic enterprise, ensuring that the pursuit of knowledge remains a noble and ethical endeavor worthy of the highest esteem.

Students are expected to comply with this policy at all times. If a student observes others violating this policy, they are expected to report the alleged academic misconduct to the course faculty, Program Director or Department Chair. Faculty are also expected to comply consistently with this policy and report alleged violations of academic dishonesty.

A. University Community Any member of the academic community may report an academic honesty violation alleging that a student has committed an academic honesty violation.Such reports should be submitted in good faith. Knowingly submitting a false violation report is, in itself, a violation of the policy.

B. Course Faculty Primary responsibility for initial investigation and reporting of alleged infractions of this policy related to a course rests with the faculty member in whose course/under whose supervision the alleged infraction occurred (referred to in this policy as the“Course Faculty”). The Course Faculty also has the responsibility for determining the sanctions for violations occurring within the faculty member’s course.

C. Provost or Provost’s Designee In the event of a failure to investigate or impose sanctions by the Course Faculty, primary responsibility for investigating and reporting and/or determining the sanctions for violations occurring within a course, as applicable, rests with the Provost or their designee. Primary responsibility for investigating and reporting alleged violations outside courses rests with the Provost or their designee who is also responsible for determining the appropriate sanctions in those cases.

D. Office of Community Standards The Office of Community Standards (OCS) serves administrative and support roles in connection with this policy. This Division of Student Life will be a centralized location for organization of Academic Honesty Policy violations, will assist and support the Academic Integrity Council (AIC) in education for students and faculty, and provide other support for all involved in the process. After a Violation Report has been filed, OCS will notify the student, provide them with an attached copy of the Violation Report, inform them of their right to request an appeal hearing, request an acknowledgement of the student’s receipt of the Violation Report, and provide them with the email address of the Academic Honesty Board (AHB) Chair. OCS will follow up with reported students until they have acknowledged receipt of the Violation Report or take action, including, without limitation, to restrict or suspend access to one or more University systems until they do so. After reasonable attempts to contact the student, the violation report will be considered acknowledged for the purposes of this policy.

OCS will also meet with students reported for academic honesty violations. See Section VI “C” below. OCS will work with the AIC to educate students on academic integrity, and will direct students who have questions and/or need support in dealing with a case of alleged academic misconduct to appropriate individuals within the AHB or the AIC. Annually, OCS will provide data on all academic honesty violations and sanctions to the AHB Chair who will work with AHB and AIC members to create an end of academic year report described in Section IX below.

E. Academic Honesty Board Panels of members of the Academic Honesty Board (AHB or Board) conduct appeal hearings and second/subsequent offense hearings. Decisions of the Board shall be rendered by a simple majority of those present at a hearing (see section VIII). The AHB Chair shall vote only in the case of a tie. The AHB is composed of the AHB Chair, who chairs the Board, and a minimum of 20 additional members, 4 from the SJU College of Arts & Sciences, 4 from the Haub School of Business, 4 from the School of Education and Human Development, 4 from the School of Nursing and Allied Health, and 4 from the School of Health Professions. In addition, the Board consists of 10 student members including 2 students from each of the colleges and schools of the University, with at least 1-2 graduate or professional program students among the 10 student members. All faculty and student members shall be nominated by the Deans of each school and college or student government associations or the AHB/AIC Chairs and appointed by the Provost or designee, with consideration given to anyone interested in serving on the Board. Except as otherwise set forth in the policy, all appointments will be for two-year renewable terms. In the event that any student member of the Board has graduated or is no longer a student in good standing at the University or any faculty member of the Board is no longer a full-time faculty member, such student’s and such faculty’s service on the Board shall immediately cease and a replacement member shall be promptly appointed to the Board. Both the AHB Chair and their designee are collectively referred to in this policy as the “AHB Chair,” and, for clarity, any right, action or responsibility of the AHB Chair may be carried out by the AHB Chair’s designee. Members of the AIC, the director of the Office of Teaching and Learning, Deans, Associate Deans, Assistant Deans, Officers of the University, and Members of Administration may not serve on the Academic Honesty Board.

F. Academic Integrity Council The Academic Integrity Council (AIC) promotes academic integrity across the university, among students, faculty, and staff. Members of the AIC should include at least one faculty member and one student from each of the colleges and schools of the University, the Director of the Writing Center, one OCS staff member and at least 1-2 faculty members with previous AHB experience. Much of the AIC’s work is proactive and preventive in nature, and aims to celebrate academic honesty and integrity in all aspects of academia by creating and fostering an environment that supports academic integrity. This includes designing academic courses according to best practices in order to minimize the temptation and opportunities for dishonesty. The AIC’s work includes publicizing, educating, and promoting this policy (new student orientations, current and new faculty, consulting with faculty, working collaboratively with the Office of Teaching & Learning, identifying resources that students use, meeting with students who have committed academic honesty violations, and recommending clarifications and updates to this policy, as needed). Members of the AHB, the Director of the Office of Teaching and Learning, Deans, Associate Deans, Assistant Deans, Officers of the University, and Members of Administration may not serve on the Academic Integrity Council. In addition to their other responsibilities, the AHB Chair and the AIC Chair serve as resources for faculty members and students who have questions about the Academic Honesty Policy or who need support in dealing with a case of alleged academic misconduct. Questions about appeal procedures or the Academic Honesty Policy should be addressed to the AHB Chair or the AIC Chair. Questions about preparing for a hearing should be addressed to the Department Chair, professors, academic advisors, or the AIC Chair.

Academic Dishonesty. Any act or attempted act of academic dishonesty, including, but not limited to:

A. Fabrication. Presenting information for a course assignment, exam, lab procedure, practicum, internship, or any other academic requirement, that is fictitious or falsified. Examples include, but are not limited to, listing invented references for a report or paper or concealing the identity of the source of information presented in an assignment by omitting the secondary source identification.

B. Cheating. Deceiving or misrepresenting the acquisition of a skill or body of knowledge. Examples include, but are not limited to, copying from another student’s exam or assignment; providing or receiving the answers to an exam or assignment; allowing another student to copy; impersonating another student during a class or exam; the use or possession of unauthorized materials (e.g. books, notes, calculators, “cheat-sheets”, electronic devices, etc.); unauthorized and/or uncredited use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”).

C. Plagiarism. Intentionally presenting the words or ideas of a source as if they are the student’s own words or ideas. This applies to unpublished and published material. Examples include, but are not limited to: presenting in a written report a direct quote without quotation marks and/or an appropriate reference; paraphrasing without providing an appropriate reference; using the ideas or the organization of those ideas of another author; copying the language (e.g., extended phrase, sentence, paragraph, or an entire work) or graphic materials of a fellow student or another source and not giving credit to the author; submitting work not created by oneself but stolen, borrowed or purchased from another person or commercial source; reusing one’s own work developed for another purpose (self-plagiarism) or unauthorized and/or uncredited use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”).

D. Unauthorized Collaboration. Collaborating without specific permission from an instructor or in a manner that does not allow the faculty member to determine individual work. Examples include, but are not limited to: consulting with another student when consultation was prohibited; working on a group project and then submitting the group work as your own; working with a partner to whom you were not assigned; submitting a group project and including one’s own name without having equally contributed to the project; soliciting unauthorized collaboration from another student.

E. Facilitating Unauthorized Collaboration. Knowingly helping someone else to commit an act of academic dishonesty. Examples include, but are not limited to: giving someone a paper or homework assignment to copy from; giving someone a paper or homework assignment to consult if collaboration was prohibited;

F. Abuse of Academic Materials. Any act that damages, appropriates or disables academic resources so that others cannot use them. Examples include, but are not limited to, destruction of books, journals or periodicals; and deleting, or damaging computer files intended for others’ use; possessing or contributing to an unauthorized depository of course assignments, exams, etc. for purposes of sharing/selling with other students; unauthorized recording of lectures or use of other instructional materials.

G. Deception and Misrepresentation. Lying about or misrepresenting your identity, work, academic records or credentials in or outside of a classroom context. Examples include, but are not limited to, falsifying field notes or medical charts; forging signatures; altering documents; forging letters of recommendation; falsifying courses, grades, graduation status, or GPA on school or job applications; forging absence documentation from doctors’ or other offices; falsifying credentials in an application; and providing false information to an instructor concerning a formal academic exercise (e.g., giving a false excuse for missing a deadline, falsely claiming to have submitted work that was not received, or falsifying information on a peer assessment).

H. Electronic Dishonesty. Using network access inappropriately, in a way that affects a class or other students’ academic work. Examples include, but are not limited to, using someone else’s authorized computer account to send and receive messages; breaking into someone else’s files; gaining access to restricted files; disabling others’ access to network systems or files; and obtaining a computer account under false pretenses. For more information, please refer to the Access & Use Policy.

I. Other Academic Dishonesty. Other types of academic dishonesty relevant to the work in particular disciplines or particular courses including failure to comply with academic directives, instructions, or syllabus course expectations.

Some acts that would otherwise be academic misconduct may be unintentional – for example, accidentally failing to cite a small section of text that has quotation marks around it or collaborating with another student when the rules against collaboration were not clearly communicated by the professor. Course Faculty should address these unintentional acts by having a meeting or conversation with the student to address the alleged academic misconduct; it should be seen as an opportunity to provide further information and education about academic integrity standards (i.e., “a teachable moment”). Course Faculty who identify and characterize a student’s infraction as unintentional and therefore choose not to penalize it should forgo the formal reporting procedures described below. This classroom management should be handled in a fair and impartial manner.

NOTE: Faculty cannot implement any sanctions for an alleged academic honesty violation without formally reporting it, as outlined in Section VI A 1. If a student is sanctioned for an alleged violation that was not formally reported, they may contact the Department Chair, Program Director, OCS, or the Academic Honesty Board (AHB) Chair to request an appeal hearing.

A Course Faculty member who suspects that an academic honesty violation has occurred in their own course should follow Process A below. Any other university community member (e.g., a student, faculty member, department chair, administrator, etc.) who suspects that an academic honesty violation in a course has occurred should follow Process B1 below. Anyone who suspects that an academic honesty violation outside a course has taken place should follow Process B2 below.

A. Course Faculty Member reporting a Violation in their own course:

1. Interview
   If a Course Faculty member suspects that an academic honesty violation has taken place, the Course Faculty should first conduct an interview with the student as soon as possible, typically no later than 10 days after discovery. Subject to the exceptions described in this section, the interview is a required step prior to the reporting process. The goal of the interview is to discuss the Course Faculty member’s concern(s) with the student and give the student the opportunity to provide an explanation that may or may not alleviate the suspected violation of this policy. Failure on the part of the Course Faculty to conduct this interview will not result in the reversal of a Violation Report. If a Course Faculty makes at least two efforts (e.g., emails, contacts the student LMS) within a 5-business day time period to notify the ‘student of the alleged violation and receives no response from the student, or if the student does not follow through with a scheduled interview appointment, the Course Faculty should (1) notify the student by email that they are moving forward with filing a Violation Report, (2) file the Violation Report without the required interview, and (3) maintain documentation of those interview attempts. An interview can be (privately) conducted before a student leaves the classroom at the end of a class session (e.g., in-person or on Zoom) or it can be scheduled. It can be conducted in person, by Zoom, by telephone or by email if needed.
    

2. Violation Report
   After the interview has been completed, the Course Faculty has 2 options:

   Option 1 - Do Not File a Violation Report. The Course Faculty may choose to do nothing because (a) the academic honesty concern has been eliminated by the student’s explanation; (b) the Course Faculty believes the student’s unintentional action would have been a violation had it been intentional and the interview became a teaching moment; or, (c) the Course Faculty is unsure that a violation occurred and therefore chooses not to move forward with filing a Violation Report or to impose any sanction.
   
   Option 2 - File a Violation Report. The Course Faculty may notify the student at the end of the interview or very soon after that they are convinced that a violation has occurred and that they intend to file a Violation Report. The Course Faculty should make reasonable efforts to file the Violation Report within 3 business days after the interview.

   Violation Reports under the Academic Honesty Policy must be filed electronically by submitting a form designated by the University. This report is subject to Section VI A1 above regarding the student interview. The report should specify the course and student, detail the circumstances of the violation and the violation type (listed in Section IV), briefly report on the required interview that the Course Faculty conducted with the student, and identify the selected sanction (listed in Section VII).

   The AHB Chair, the AIC Chair or the relevant Department Chair can assist Course Faculty in completing a Violation Report. Faculty should refer to the information below to determine the most appropriate resource for their question:

   AIC Chair/Department Chair:

   - How to determine if the behavior or assignment constitutes a violation
   - How to interview a suspected student
   - How to report an alleged violation
   - What specific sanction to impose
   - How to prepare for an appeal hearing

   AHB Chair:

   - General Academic Honesty Policy questions or procedures
   - Appeal Hearing procedures
    

B. Process for Reporters Other than Course Faculty:

1. Academic Honesty Violation in a Course: Any university community member (e.g., a student, faculty member other than Course Faculty, department chair, administrator, etc.) who suspects that an academic honesty violation in a course has occurred should report it. That person will be referred to in this Policy as a “Reporter”. The Reporter should file a Violation Report using the appropriate form. The Violation Report should include information about all parties allegedly involved (the student(s) name(s), the Course Faculty name if known, the specific course number if known, the type of violation (see Policy Section IV above) along with a detailed description of the alleged violation (e.g., what did the student allegedly do, what did the Reporter witness, etc.). Reports cannot be submitted anonymously though the identification of the Reporter will not be made known to the student or the Course Faculty member without the permission of the Reporter who, if needed, may be asked to participate as a witness in a subsequent hearing. The AHB Chair will confirm receipt of the Reporter’s submission, request any necessary additional information and then forward all relevant information to the Provost’s designee. To the extent practicable, the Provost’s designee and the AHB Chair will make reasonable efforts to inform the Course Faculty for the course in which the alleged policy violation occurred. If the Course Faculty member receives such information and is then-currently a faculty member at the University, the Course Faculty promptly will follow Process A (Interview and Violation Report) above. If the Course Faculty is not then-currently a faculty member at the University, the Provost’s designee shall file a Violation Report and such Violation Report shall be automatically submitted for an Appeal Hearing.
    
2. Process for an Academic Honesty Violation Outside a Course: 
   Any university community member (e.g., a student, faculty member, department chair, administrator, etc.) who suspects that an academic honesty violation has occurred outside a course, including, without limitation, in a study tour, study abroad or experiential learning setting, should report it. The Reporter should submit a Violation Form as outlined in section B1. Whenever a violation outside a course is alleged, such Violation Reports shall be automatically submitted for an Appeal Hearing. If the Violation Report is determined to be substantiated, sanctions will be determined by the AHB in collaboration with the Provost or the Provost’s designee.

C. Student Notification of a Violation Report

Once a Violation Report has been filed, OCS will promptly contact the student notifying them of the Violation Report. The notification will include: (1) an attached copy of the Violation Report detailing the alleged violation, the course in which it occurred and the sanction specified by the Course Faculty; (2) notice of the student’s right to request an Appeal Hearing and how to do that, including the email address of the AHB Chair; (3) instructions on how to acknowledge receipt of the Violation Report and how to schedule a meeting with the OCS, both of which are required within 7 business days of the student’s receipt of a Violation Report; and (4) the email addresses of the AHB and AIC Chairs and a link to the Academic Honesty Policy for students’ reference.

The meeting between the student and a member of OCS will review the content of the Academic Honesty Policy and discuss available student support resources. The student will be reminded that no additional sanctions will be imposed other than what was determined by the Course Faculty, but if a substantiated second/subsequent academic honesty violation is filed against them during their remaining time at SJU, that second violation will trigger a Second/Subsequent Offense Hearing, the result of which is typically suspension or expulsion. After 7 business days, if OCS has not received a reply from a student, the student will receive a notification reminding them that additional action will be taken, including, without limitation, suspension or restriction of certain University systems access, if they do not acknowledge receipt of the Violation Report and meet with a member of OCS within two weeks. If the student does not acknowledge receipt of the Violation Report and meet with a member of OCS before that deadline, OCS will take steps, including suspension or restriction of access to certain systems, and will notify them of such actions until they meet both of those requirements and the Violation Report will be considered substantiated.

If a Violation Report is filed against a student who has a previous Violation Report on record, OCS will send a notification to the student alerting them of the Violation Report with a copy of that notification to the AHB Chair. OCS will promptly follow up by notifying the student that multiple academic honesty violations have been reported and their right to request an Appeal Hearing and indicate how to do that. This notification will include an attached copy of the Violation Report detailing the alleged violation and the full violation history including all previous Violation Reports, the courses in which they occurred and the sanctions specified by the Course Faculty(s). The AHB Chair will be copied on this notification. If the student does not request an appeal hearing or is not granted an appeal hearing regarding the second/subsequent Violation Report after the expiration of the 7 business day deadline, a “Second/Subsequent Offense Hearing” will be scheduled by the AHB Chair.

D. Student Response to Violation Report

The student has two options for response to a Violation Report:

Option 1 - Accept the Violation Report. The student may accept the Violation Report, follow the instructions in the email and complete the required Academic Integrity Education Module.

Option 2 - Request an Appeal Hearing. The student may request an Appeal Hearing within 7 business days of being notified of the alleged violation (see section VIII A). The request must explain why the student believes the Violation Report is unsubstantiated (i.e., why the student believes they did not commit the violation alleged in the Violation Report) and provide some sort of evidence or documentation. OCS will acknowledge receipt of the Appeal Hearing Request and send it along with the Violation Report to the AHB Chair. The AHB Chair will forward the Appeal Hearing Request and the corresponding Violation Report to at least 5 AHB members (3 faculty members and 2 student members), and communicate the Board’s decision on the Appeal Hearing Request to the student and Course Faculty as soon as possible. The student should continue to attend classes and complete all assignments during this time.

Students will receive a sanction for a first offense. Sanctions are penalties intended to both deter future acts of academic dishonesty and/or be educational. The sanction assigned for a particular act of academic dishonesty is decided at the discretion of the Course Faculty from the list below. A Course Faculty’s choice of sanction is not subject to appeal and Appeal Hearings will not be granted due to a Course Faculty’s choice of sanction provided that the Course Faculty’s syllabus includes a detailed statement regarding the Academic Honesty Policy and the assigned sanction is included in the approved list below.

Faculty are required to include on their course syllabi a statement on Academic Honesty, a reference and/or link to the SJU Academic Honesty Policy and an explicit statement that academic honesty violations are subject to a range of sanctions that may include, individually or in combination, education only, an “F” or “0” for the assignment/assessment, a course grade letter deduction, or an “F” for the course. Faculty are strongly advised to explicitly discuss academic honesty with their students and advise their students of their sanctioning practices at the beginning of each semester.

Sanctions for an Academic Honesty Violation include one or more of the following:

• All substantiated first offense academic honesty violations will require completion of an Academic Integrity Education Module.
• An “F” or “0” for the assignment, quiz, exam, report, project, participation, etc. with the opportunity for the student to make up, in part, the grade through a make-up assignment
• An “F” or “0” grade for the assignment, quiz, exam, report, project, participation, etc. with no opportunity for the student to make it up
• A letter grade deduction from the final course grade (for example, the Course Faculty would replace the student’s final course grade of “B-” with a “C-” or the student’s final course grade of “D” with an “F”)
• A grade of “F” for the course
• Professional probation or suspension of experiential learning if indicated by the applicable department or program
• Suspension or expulsion (must have Provost approval if assigned for a first violation)

Administrative notes on sanctions:

• A sanction of “F” or “0” for the assignment may not be dropped regardless of a Course Faculty’s typical grading policy (e.g., even if they drop the lowest homework assignment or quiz, the penalized grade may not be dropped)
• Regardless of the sanction(s) chosen by the Course Faculty, students involved in an alleged violation of this policy may not apply to withdraw from the course until such time as the academic honesty matter is closed. If they so choose, once their case is closed, students may withdraw from the course if they did not receive an “F” for the course or if they were not suspended/expelled as a result of the Academic Honesty Violation.
• Students may not withdraw from the course or subsequently apply for grade replacement if they received an “F” for the course as a penalty for an Academic Honesty Violation
• Action may still be taken against a student under investigation or found guilty of an Academic Honesty Violation if the student withdraws from the University prior to the resolution of the Violation Report. The University may still choose to hold a hearing, even after a student has withdrawn from the institution. The student will be provided with notice of any hearing.

Sanction Reviews

A student who receives an F for a course as a sanction, may request a Sanction Review if the criteria described below are met. Once a student receives notification of a Violation Report, they may request a Sanction Review by sending an email to the AHB Chair within seven (7) business days following the notification. Their request for a Sanction Review must include the following:

1. A statement from the student regarding the alleged violation: the student must either (1) explicitly acknowledge having committed the violation indicated in the Violation Report OR (2) claim that the Violation Report is unsubstantiated (i.e., the student must claim not to have committed the alleged violation) and simultaneously submit a request for an Appeal Hearing (See section VIII) as part of their request for a Sanction Review. A request for a Sanction Review that does not include either of those clear statements will be denied and an explanation will be provided to the student. The student may edit and resubmit their request as long as they are still within the 7 business day deadline.

2. A copy of the relevant course syllabus and/or the course’s academic honesty statement that fails to state explicitly that their instructor may penalize a student for acts of academic dishonesty by assigning them an F for the course; and/or an allegation supported by facts that the instructor unfairly gave the student an F for the course because another student (in the same course with the same instructor) committed the same violation but did not receive the same penalty. A request that does not include either the course syllabus or the course’s academic honesty statement and/or an allegation supported by facts indicating unfairness due to how another student’s violation was handled will be denied and an explanation will be provided to the student. The student may still attach the required document/information and resubmit their request as long as they are still within the 7 business day deadline. Note that the conditions that must be met to constitute “the same violation” above are intended to be very strict.

The strict conditions required for two violations to count as the same are meant to grant wide discretion to instructors to determine sanctions in their courses. Only in the most clear cases of unfairness will overturning a sanction be considered.

Upon receipt of an emailed request for a Sanction Review, the AHB Chair will consult with at least 2 AHB faculty members to determine if the criteria above are met and all required items (described in #1 and #2 above) are included as per the Policy. If not, the AHB Chair will deny the student’s request and provide an explanation to the student. If the criteria are met and the required items are included and the student has simultaneously requested and been granted an Appeal Hearing through that process, the AHB Chair will convene an Appeal Hearing. If after that Appeal Hearing the AHB determines that the Violation Report is unsubstantiated, the Violation Report and the sanction will be expunged and the Course Faculty will be required to grade the assignment on its merits. If the AHB determines that the Violation Report is substantiated, following their deliberations they will also evaluate the documents provided for the Sanction Review and make a decision by a simple majority vote. If the student is not granted an Appeal Hearing or if the student acknowledges having committed the violation, the AHB Chair will consult with a panel of 5 AHB faculty members for a Sanction Review to determine if the sanction should be overturned.

The AHB panel must consult with the Course Faculty to request additional information or documentation. The AHB panel will vote and determine by a simple majority if the sanction should be upheld or overturned. If it is overturned, the student and Course Faculty will be notified and the Course Faculty will be required to select a lesser sanction. If it is upheld, the student and the Course Faculty will be notified and an explanation of the AHB panel’s vote will be provided. In all of these scenarios, the AHB Chair votes only in case of a tie, relevant only if one of the AHB Sanction Review panel members abstains from voting.

There are two types of hearings conducted by the panels of the members of AHB: Appeal Hearings and Second/Subsequent Offense Hearings.

A. Appeal Hearing

Once a student receives email notification of a first Violation Report, they may request an Appeal Hearing by sending an email to the AHB Chair within seven (7) business days following the notification. Their emailed Appeal Hearing Request must include (1) their specific grounds for their appeal hearing request and (2) some sort of reasoning or evidence for their argument. Recognized grounds for an appeal hearing include a claim that the Violation Report is unsubstantiated (i.e., the student claims they did not commit the alleged violation and explains why), the existence of new evidence that was unavailable at the time of the interview with the professor, or procedural errors violating the Academic Honesty Policy on the part of the professor:

• The Course Faculty imposed a penalty but did not file a Violation Report,
• The Course Faculty made no attempt to interview the student who also claims not to have committed the alleged violation;
• The Course Faculty discovered the alleged violation more than 10 business days before notifying the student of the alleged violation, etc.).

Note that these actions, in themselves, are not grounds for dismissal of a case but would likely result in an Appeal Hearing. Appeal Hearings will not be granted due to the Course Faculty’s choice of sanction. Sanctions are non-appealable (See Section VII).

Upon receipt of an Appeal Hearing Request, the AHB Chair, in consultation with at least three AHB faculty members and two AHB student members, will review the Violation Report and the student’s Appeal Hearing Request, to determine if there are valid grounds for an Appeal Hearing to be granted. If an Appeal Hearing is granted, the AHB Chair will inform both the Course Faculty who reported the violation and the accused student that an appeal hearing was granted and the AHB Chair will schedule an Appeal Hearing with the AHB as soon as possible given scheduling variables.

Note: A scheduled hearing supersedes all classes, examinations, and University functions. If either the Course Faculty or the accused student fails to appear at a hearing without receiving prior appropriate approval from the AHB Chair, the hearing will be conducted in their absence. Requirements for the procedures for an Appeal Hearing are as follows:

• The appeals panel will consist of a quorum of at least 6 AHB members, one of which is the AHB Chair and at least two of which are student members. The Chair votes only in the case of a tie.
• The appeal hearing will be chaired by the AHB Chair.
• The appeal hearing will follow the procedures outlined below.
• Formal rules of evidence are not observed. Findings are based upon more likely than not standard.
• No recording (audio or video, in person or on Zoom including AI) will be made or permitted.
• Attendance is limited to only those individuals playing a role in the hearing including the Course Faculty and the student, anyone the AHB invites to attend, and any witnesses or an Advisor whose attendance is preapproved in writing by the AHB Chair, including an approved Advisor as described in the immediately following paragraph. No other individuals, including family, friends, attorneys or advisors, may attend or otherwise be present in the hearing.
• Both parties in a hearing have the right to request the attendance of a witness(es). If the witness is not able to attend the hearing in person, they may provide a written statement that will be presented at the hearing. In-person witnesses may be asked to leave the room before or after their testimony.
• With advance permission from the AHB Chair, both parties may be accompanied by an Advisor. The Advisor must be a University Community member (i.e., Academic Advisor, Department Chair, Trusted Professor, Office of Student Success staff member, Athletic Advisor, Athletic Coach, etc.) and may not be an attorney. The Advisor may confer quietly with their advisee, exchange notes, and suggest questions to their advisee. The Advisor does not have a speaking role during the hearing and may only speak to the person they were invited to support. The Advisor may not make a presentation or otherwise represent either party during the hearing. The Advisor may also attend as moral support.
• If the Course Faculty or the accused student fail to attend the scheduled hearing or if either cancels their attendance within 48 hours of the scheduled hearing, unless they provide the AHB Chair written documentation that justifies a postponement of the hearing, the hearing will continue without their presence and/or the case will be closed at the discretion of the AHB Chair in consultation with at least 2 AHB faculty members and 2 AHB student members.

• Specific procedures that are followed at an Appeal Hearing and suggestions for both faculty and student on how to prepare for an Appeal Hearing can be found here.

   

At the conclusion of the Appeal Hearing, the Course Faculty, the student(s), and any Advisors or witnesses in attendance will be dismissed. The AHB will deliberate and determine whether the Violation Report should be affirmed or reversed. The AHB will use the preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., more likely than not), to make this determination. If the AHB determines that it is more likely than not that the student violated the Academic Honesty Policy, the Violation Report will be affirmed. If the AHB determines that it is not more likely than not that the student violated the Academic Honesty Policy, the Violation Report will be reversed. If the AHB panel determines that:

(a) a policy violation has not occurred (i.e., the Violation Report is reversed), any sanctions previously applied will be revoked and the Violation Report will be expunged; furthermore, the Course Faculty will be instructed to grade the assignment on its merits.

(b) a policy violation did occur (i.e, the Violation Report is affirmed), then the sanction chosen by the Course Faculty will be upheld. The sanction chosen by the Course Faculty cannot be increased or decreased or in any way changed by the AHB.

The AHB’s decision will typically be communicated by the AHB Chair to the student and the Course Faculty simultaneously within 7 business days. The AHB’s decision at an Appeal Hearing is final and may not be appealed.

B. Second/Subsequent Offense Hearing

If a second/subsequent academic honesty violation is filed against a student, the AHB Chair receives notification from OCS. The Chair is required to wait for the Appeal Hearing Request deadline (7 business days) to expire and must then schedule a Second/Subsequent Offense Hearing. The purpose of a Second/Subsequent Offense Hearing is to determine what additional sanctions, if any, should be imposed. If imposed, additional sanctions may include those listed in section VII, with Course Faculty consent required for sanctions that affect course grades. Additional sanctions may also include suspension and expulsion. Since suspension is the most typical sanction for a second/subsequent offense, this hearing is an opportunity for the student to make a case as to why suspension (or expulsion) would not be the appropriate outcome. Since an expulsion is the most typical sanction for a third offense, this hearing is an opportunity for the student to make a case as to why expulsion would not be the appropriate outcome. The procedures for a Second/Subsequent Offense Hearing are as follows:

• The AHB panel will consist of a quorum of at least 6 AHB members, one of which is the AHB Chair and at least two of which are student members. The Chair votes only in the case of a tie.
        - The hearing will be chaired by the AHB Chair.
        - Formal rules of evidence are not observed. Findings are based upon more likely than not standard.
• The hearing will follow the procedures outlined below.
• The purpose of a Second//Subsequent Offense Hearing is not the same as that of an Appeal Hearing. Therefore, the Board will presume that the filed Violation Reports are substantiated
• No recording (audio or video, in person or on Zoom including AI) will be made or permitted.
• Attendance is limited to only those individuals playing a role in the hearing including the student, anyone the AHB invites to attend, and anyone whose attendance is preapproved in writing by the AHB Chair, including an approved Advisor as described in the immediately following paragraph. No other individuals, including family, friends, attorneys or advisors, may attend or otherwise be present in the hearing.
• With advance permission from the AHB Chair, the student may be accompanied by an Advisor. The Advisor must be a University Community member (i.e., Academic Advisor, Department Chair, Trusted Professor, Office of Student Success staff member, Athletic Advisor, Athletic Coach, etc.) and may not be an attorney. The Advisor may confer quietly with their advisee, exchange notes, and suggest questions to their advisee. The Advisor does not have a speaking role during the hearing and may only speak to the person they were invited to support. The Advisor may not make a presentation or otherwise represent their Advisee during the hearing. The Advisor may also attend as moral support.
• Specific procedures that are followed at a Second/Subsequent Offense Hearing and suggestions for the student on how to prepare for a Second/Subsequent Offense Hearing can be found here.

During a Second/Subsequent Offense hearing, the student will have an opportunity to explain to the Board why the violations occurred. The student can explain any extenuating circumstances that may have led to the incidents and why they do not believe that suspension or expulsion would be the Board’s appropriate decision. The Board will have the opportunity to question the student. Following questioning, upon request by the Board the student will leave the hearing. The Board will deliberate and reach a decision, which will be sent by email to the student and the SJU Registrar's Office within 7 business days by the AHB Chair.

OCS in collaboration with AHB shall retain in accordance with the University’s Records Management and Retention Policy a file on each hearing specifying the names of the principals, the pertinent dates, the specific charge, and its final disposition. OCS will maintain in accordance with the University’s Records Management and Retention Policy a separate file of all academic violations including the corresponding filed Violation Reports. At the end of each academic year, the AHB Chair will convene a panel of members of the AHB and the AIC (at least 3 faculty and 2 students) to review data compiled by OCS to identify trends, outliers, educational needs, etc. AHB Chair will then submit a de-identified summary report on all academic honesty violations, outcomes, and sanctions to the University Provost.