I. Student Obligations
A student at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown (UPJ) has an obligation to exhibit honesty, and to respect ethical standards in carrying out his or her academic assignments. Without limiting the application of this principle, a student may be found to have violated this obligation if he or she:*
1. Refers during an academic evaluation to materials or sources, or employs devices, not authorized by the instructor.
2. Provides assistance during an academic evaluation to another person in a manner not authorized by the instructor.
3. Receives assistance during an academic evaluation from another person in a manner not authorized by the instructor.
4. Engages in unauthorized possession, buying, selling, obtaining, or using a copy of any materials intended to be used as an instrument of academic evaluation in advance of its administration.
5. Acts as a substitute for another person in any academic evaluation process.
6. Utilizes a substitute in any academic evaluation procedures.
7. Practices any form of deceit in an academic evaluation proceeding.
8. Depends on the aid of others in a manner expressly prohibited by the instructor, in the research, preparation, creation, writing, performing, or publication of work to be submitted for academic credit or evaluation.
9. Provides aid to another person, knowing such aid is expressly prohibited by the instructor, in the research, preparation, creation, writing, performing, or publication of work to be submitted for academic credit
or evaluation.
10. Presents as one's own, for academic evaluation, the ideas, representations, or words of another person or persons without customary and proper acknowledgement of sources.
11. Submits the work of another person in a manner which represents the work to be one's own.
12. Knowingly permits one's work to be submitted by another person without the instructor's authorization.
13. Attempts to influence or change one's academic evaluation or record for reasons other than achievement or merit.
14. Indulges, during a class (or examination) session in which one is a student, in conduct which is so disruptive as to infringe upon the rights of the instructor or fellow students.
15. Fails to cooperate, if called upon, in the investigation or disposition of any allegation of dishonesty pertaining to another student, or any other breach of a student's obligation to exhibit honesty.
16. Violates the canons of academic ethics.
*NOTE: There may be instances where the charging party may more appropriately invoke the University of Pittsburgh Student Code of Conduct and Judicial Procedures. This may occur where the alleged wrong mainly involves factual determinations and not academic issues.
II. Procedures for Adjudication
No student should be subject to an adverse finding that he or she committed an offense related to academic integrity, and no sanction should be imposed relating thereto, except in accordance with procedures appropriate for disposition of the particular matter involved. The degree of formality of proceedings, the identity of the decision maker or decision makers, and other related aspects properly reflect such considerations as the severity of the potential sanction, its probable impact upon the student, and the extent to which matters of professional judgment are essential in arriving at an informed decision. In all cases, however, the objective is to provide fundamental fairness to the student as well as an orderly means for arriving at a decision, starting first with the individual instructor and then designated administrative officers or bodies.
These Guidelines are not meant to address differences of opinion over grades issued by faculty in exercising good-faith professional judgments of student work. They are meant to address ways in which a faculty member deals with a student regarding an alleged breach of academic integrity. In matters of academic integrity the succeeding procedural steps must be followed:
1. Any member of the University community, who has evidence may bring to the attention of the instructor a complaint that a student has failed, in one or more respects, to meet faithfully the obligations specified in the above Section I.** Acting on his or her own evidence, and/or on the basis of evidence submitted to the instructor, the instructor will advise the student that he or she has reason to believe that the student has committed an offense related to academic integrity, and the student will be afforded an opportunity to respond. If the accused student and the instructor accept a specific resolution offered by either of them, the matter shall be considered closed if both parties sign a written agreement to that effect, and submit it to the office of the UPJ Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs (hereafter cited as VPASA). The VPASA's office will maintain a written record of the agreement, signed by the student and the instructor. These records are not to be added to the student's individual file and they are to be destroyed when the student graduates or permanently terminates registration. The VPASA's office may provide such information identifying an individual student for the following uses:
a. to an instructor who is involved with a student integrity violation at the initial stage and who wishes to use this previous record in determining whether a resolution between the faculty member and the student or an academic integrity board hearing may be most appropriate, especially in the case of repeat offenders; and,
b. to the UPJ Academic Integrity Review Board (hereafter referred to as AIRB) after a decision of guilt or innocence has been made in a case, but before a sanction has been recommended.
**NOTE: If the instructor elects not to pursue a complaint submitted by a member of the University community, the complaint can be submitted to an individual appointed by the VPASA who can pursue the matter in place of the instructor.
2. If an agreed on resolution between the faculty member and the student cannot be reached, the faculty member will file a written statement of charges with the AIRB Chair. Such statement should set forth the alleged offenses which are the basis of the charges, including a factual narrative of events and the dates and times of occurrences. The statement should also include the names of persons having personal knowledge of circumstances or events, the general nature and description of all evidence, and the signature of the charging party. If this occurs at the end of a term, and/or the last term of enrollment, the "G" grade should be issued for the course until the matter is decided. In situations involving the student's last term before graduation, degree certifications can be withheld, pending the outcome of the hearing which should be expedited as quickly as possible.
3. The AIRB Chair will transmit the written statement of charges to the student, together with a copy of these regulations.
4. The letter of transmittal to the student, a copy of which shall also be sent to the instructor or charging party, will state a time and place when a hearing on the charges will be held by the AIRB chair.
5. In proceedings before the AIRB, the student shall have the right:
a. to be considered innocent until found guilty by clear and convincing evidence of a violation of the student obligations of academic integrity;
b. to have a fair disposition of all matters as promptly as possible under the circumstances;
c. to elect to have a private or public hearing;
d. to be informed of the general nature of the evidence to be presented;
e. to confront and question all parties and witnesses except when extraordinary circumstances make this impossible;
f. to present a factual defense through witnesses, personal testimony and other relevant evidence;
g. to decline to testify against himself or herself;
h. to have only relevant evidence considered by the AIRB; and,
i. to a record of the hearing, at his or her own expense, upon request (audio tape).
6. The hearing should provide a fair inquiry into the truth or falsity of the charges, with the charged party and the instructor or charging party afforded the right to cross-examine all adverse witnesses. At the level of the AIRB, legal counsel shall not be permitted, but a non-attorney representative from within the University community shall be permitted for both faculty and students. A law student can not be used as a representative at the AIRB.
7. Any member of the University community may, upon showing of relevancy and necessity, request witnesses to appear at the hearing. Witnesses who are members of the University community shall be required to appear and other witnesses may be requested to appear at a hearing. When necessitated by fairness or extraordinary circumstances, the AIRB may make arrangements for recorded or written testimony for use in a proceeding.
8. HEARING PROCEDURE: The hearing will be conducted as follows:
a. the Chair of the AIRB will not apply technical exclusionary rules of evidence followed in judicial proceedings nor entertain technical legal motions. Technical legal rules pertaining to the wording of questions, hearsay and opinions will not be formally applied. Reasonable rules of relevancy will guide the AIRB Chair in ruling on the admissibility of evidence. Reasonable limits may be imposed on the number of factual witnesses and the amount of cumulative evidence that may be introduced;
b. the alleged offense or offenses upon which the complaint is based shall be read by the AIRB Chair;
c. objections to procedure shall be entered on the record, and the AIRB Chair shall make any necessary rulings regarding the validity of such objections;
d. the charging party shall state his/her case and shall offer evidence in support thereof;
e. the accused or representative for accused shall have the opportunity to question the charging party;
f. the charging party shall be given the opportunity to call witnesses;
g. the accused or representative for the accused shall be given the opportunity to question each witness of the charging party after he/she testifies;
h. the charging party shall inform the AIRB Chair when his/her presentation is completed, at which time AIRB members shall be given an opportunity to ask questions of the persons participating in the hearing;
i. the AIRB shall recess, and the AIRB Chair shall make a determination as to whether the charging party has presented sufficient evidence to support a finding against the accused, if such evidence is uncontroverted. The parties may be required to remain in the hearing room during the recess or may be excused for a time period set by the AIRB Chair;
j. depending upon the determination of the AIRB Chair, the matter shall be dismissed or the accused shall be called upon to present his/her case and offer evidence in support thereof;
k. the accused may testify or not as he/she chooses;
l. the charging party shall have the opportunity to question the accused if the accused voluntarily chooses to testify;
m. the accused or a representative for accused shall have the opportunity to call witnesses;
n. the charging party shall have the opportunity to question each witness of the accused after he/she testifies;
o. the accused shall inform the AIRB Chair when his/her presentation is complete, and the AIRB members shall have an opportunity to ask questions of the accused as well as the accused’s witnesses;
p. the AIRB Chair shall have an opportunity to address the hearing board on University regulations, or procedure in the presence of all parties, but shall not offer other comments without the consent of all parties; and,
q. the hearing shall be continued and the members of the hearing board shall deliberate in private until a decision is reached and recorded.
9. A suitable record (audio recording) shall be made of the proceedings, exclusive of deliberations, to arrive at a decision.
10. The proposed decision, which shall be written, shall include a determination whether the charges have been proven by clear and convincing evidence, together with findings with respect to the material facts. If any charges are established, the proposed decision shall state the particular sanction or sanctions to be imposed. Prior violations or informal resolutions of violations may be considered only in recommending sanctions, not in determining guilt or innocence. Once a determination of guilt has been made, and before determining sanctions, the AIRB Chair should find out from the VPASA whether prior offenses and sanctions imposed have occurred.
11 . The proposed decision shall be submitted to the VPASA, who will make an independent review of the hearing proceedings. The VPASA may require that the charges be dismissed, or that the case be remanded for further proceedings whenever he or she deems this to be necessary. Upon completion of such additional proceedings, if any, and within a reasonable time the VPASA shall issue a final decision. The VPASA may reject any findings made by the AIRB adverse to the student, and may dismiss the charges or reduce the severity of any sanction imposed, but the VPASA may not make new findings adverse to the student or increase the severity of a sanction, except in the case of repeating offenders of Academic Integrity Guidelines.
12. The AIRB Chair shall then transmit to the charged party and the instructor copies of all actions taken by the hearing authority and the VPASA. If a sanction is imposed, the notice to the student will make reference to the student's opportunity, by petition filed with the VPASA, to appeal to the UPJ President.
III. Timeliness
It is the responsibility of all parties, including administrative officers, to take prompt action in order that charges can be resolved quickly and fairly. Failure of the instructor to utilize these procedures diligently may constitute grounds for dismissal of charges. Parties have the right to petition the UPJ President for review of the decision of the AIRB within five (5) working days of the date of the decision letter.
IV. Sanctions
The alternative sanctions which may be imposed upon a finding that an offense related to academic integrity has been committed are the following:
1. Dismissal from the University without expectation of readmission.
2. Suspension from the University for a specific period of time.
3. Reduction in grade, or assignment of a failing grade, in the course in which the offending paper or examination was submitted.
4. Reduction in grade, or assignment of a failing grade, on the paper or examination in which the offense occurred, or other sanctions approved and made known to a student by the VPASA.
In administering sanctions, UPJ must strive to achieve consistency in their application. That is, the same sanctions should be applied for the same offenses, unless extenuating circumstances can be documented, e.g. the student is a repeat offender.
The imposition of such sanctions may be considered by UPJ in the preparation of any report concerning a student submitted to a government agency, accrediting body, or other person or institution in accordance with the requirements of law or the written consent of the student.
V. Academic Integrity Review Board (AIRB)
The UPJ AIRB shall be composed of both faculty who do not hold administrative appointments and students. The board shall consist of five faculty members (one selected representative from each division), and five students, four of whom shall be selected from the student body by the Student Senate. The fifth student shall be the chair of the appropriate designated committee of the Student Senate. An eleventh person, a member of the faculty, shall be elected by the Faculty Senate to serve as Chair of the AIRB.
In electing or appointing members to the AIRB, emphasis should be placed on obtaining faculty members with expertise and/or concerns related to academic integrity matters. Regardless of the selection process, it is the responsibility of the VPASA to provide all new AIRB members with an orientation designed to familiarize the new members with the academic integrity guidelines for the given unit.
VI. Review and Appeal
A student or faculty member may seek to have a VPASA's final decision (or a determination that the charges are not subject to adjudication) reviewed by the UPJ President, who may choose to convene a review board whose recommendations may be made to the President.1 Action taken by the President with or without the advice of a review board shall constitute an exhaustion of all required institutional remedies.2