1. Home
  2. Graduate Education Policies
  3. GCAC Academic Policies
  4. GCAC-800 Student Conduct and Performance Policies
  5. GCAC-805 Academic Integrity (NEW POLICY - Effective Fall 2025)
  6. P1 - Academic Integrity Procedure

P1 - Academic Integrity Procedure

Policies

Procedure

A. When Academic Misconduct is Suspected

  1. Faculty members and instructors are responsible for engaging with the academic integrity process when they believe a student has violated academic integrity policies, even when the suspected violation is minor or appears to be unintentional.
    1. The “supervising educator” is the person responsible for engaging with the academic integrity process and for submitting the academic integrity claim, when appropriate.
      1. For course-based violations, this person is the instructor of record.
      2. For non-course-based violations, this person is the assessment committee chair.
      3. If the course/assessment is supervised by a team or a committee and the person who should serve as the “supervising educator” is unclear, the resolution will be determined by policies in the program handbook, or by the graduate program head if handbook policies are unclear.
    2. If the course/assessment is supervised by a team or a committee and members cannot agree i) that the student has violated academic integrity policies or ii) on an academic outcome to propose on the academic integrity form, then the resolution will be determined by the graduate program head (or designee) based on the Graduate Sanctioning Guidelines.
  2. When an academic integrity violation is suspected, the supervising educator should make attempts to meet with the student to discuss the situation and to share the evidence supporting the concern.
    1. The supervising educator should consider both the confidential nature of the information and the goal of maintaining an environment that supports teaching and learning.
    2. If multiple students are involved, each should have separate confidential conversations.
  3. If conversation with the student eliminates the concern, the inquiry will end, the student will not be penalized in any way, and no formal record of the concern will be created.
  4. If attempts to discuss with the student are unsuccessful or the conversation with the student does not resolve concern, or the student accepts responsibility for the violation, the supervising educator will discuss the situation and their proposed outcome(s) with the Graduate Program Head (GPH) and/or the Director of Graduate Studies (DGS), who will ensure that proposed outcomes align with program and Graduate Council guidelines.
    1. If the GPH/DGS is the instructor, one of a team alleging the violation, or the adviser of the student facing the allegations, then a designee will conduct this outcome review.
    2. If the GPH/DGS (or their designee) finds inconsistencies with program or Graduate Council guidelines, then they will work with the supervising educator to resolve those inconsistencies. If it is determined that the student did not violate academic integrity policies, then the inquiry will end, the student will not be penalized in any way, no formal record of the concern will be created, and the student will be notified.
  5. To continue, the supervising educator should share the proposed outcome(s) with the student and provide a rationale for that proposal, after which they will submit an academic integrity claim via the Digital Academic Integrity System (DAISY).
    1. If a disability accommodation or other unusual circumstance requires a non-digital submission, the supervising educator should contact their academic integrity administrator, who can provide another version of the academic integrity form.
      1. If an academic integrity claim is submitted outside of DAISY, then the academic integrity administrator must contact the Office of the Registrar to request a course hold, if appropriate, and the Office of Student Accountability and Conflict Response to inquire about previous academic integrity violations.
      2. If an academic integrity claim is submitted through DAISY, the system will automate these processes, and the academic integrity administrator will receive related notifications.
  6. Students must have at least five business days to respond through the academic integrity process. Throughout the academic integrity process, the academic integrity administrator may grant extensions for legitimate circumstances and breaks in the academic calendar.
  7. Students are expected to continue to participate actively in an affected course or program, as the outcomes may be different than those proposed by the supervising educator.
    1. Once they have been notified of an academic integrity concern, students may not drop/withdraw from the course unless allegations of wrongdoing are dismissed.
      1. Students who drop after this notification will be returned to the course. If the course uses the Canvas learning management system, the instructor of record must add the student to the course Canvas roster to renew the student’s access.
      2. This ‘no drop’ policy may be waived by The Fox Graduate School for exceptional circumstances that involve the health and well-being of the student.
        1. At the request of the student, the chair of the Graduate Academic Integrity Committee will confer with the GPH and/or DGS/PIC for the program supervising the affected work, or their representative, to determine if the course drop is warranted. After and if needed, the academic integrity administrator will contact the Office of the Registrar to request the removal of the course hold.
        2. Even if the student is permitted to drop the course, the academic integrity process will continue. Although course-specific outcomes may be moot, a violation can be recorded and considered if the student were to violate again. Also, the student’s home program and the Office of Student Accountability and Conflict Response may follow their policies and procedures to respond to a violation, albeit outside of the academic integrity process.
  8. If the student does not respond to contest the allegation or the proposed outcome(s) before the deadline, the academic integrity process will continue as if they have accepted responsibility for the violation and the proposed outcome(s). If exceptional and legitimate circumstances (e.g., covert military assignment, serious health situation) prevent the student from responding to the allegations or from requesting an extension before the deadline, then the chair of the Graduate Academic Integrity Committee in consultation with the with the GPH and/or DGS/PIC for the program supervising the affected work (or their representative) may reset the academic integrity process, even if it has concluded.
  9. Regardless of the student’s decision to accept or to contest the allegations, academic consequences may not be applied before the conclusion of the academic integrity process.

B. Proposing and determining academic outcomes for academic integrity violations

  1. To propose academic outcomes, supervising educators should consult the information in Academic Integrity Sanctioning Guidelines.
  2. To determine academic outcomes, The Graduate Academic Integrity Committee and the corresponding Hearing Committee will follow the policies and procedures mentioned below.

C. The Graduate Academic Integrity Committee (GAIC) and the Adjudication Committee

  1. The graduate academic integrity committee (GAIC) will include at least one member of the Graduate Faculty and one graduate student from each school or college offering graduate programs.
    1. When an academic integrity claim needs adjudication, an Adjudication Committee will be formed. No members may have a professional or personal relationship with the student facing allegations.
    2. This committee will include:
      1. A chair, who will vote on determinations only when a tie needs to be broken
      2. Two faculty members and two graduate student members from the GAIC
      3. One additional member of the Graduate Faculty with subject matter expertise, who may or may not be a member of the GAIC.
      4. One tenured faculty member from the program housing the educator that filed the academic integrity claim, preferably the appropriate Director of Graduate Studies.
        • If the program cannot provide a qualifying faculty member, the Graduate Program Head may request a waiver.
      5. A non-voting representative of The Fox Graduate School and/or a non-voting member with a strong understanding of academic integrity procedures.

D. Preparing for the adjudication

  1. The Fox Graduate School will identify an academic integrity administrator to oversee pre-adjudication processes. If this person is not the chair of the GAIC, who will be the primary contact for questions from instructors, administrators, and students, and who will be responsible for supervising GCAIC communications about academic integrity claims, then they will work closely with the chair. When an AI form is submitted to the Fox Graduate School, the academic integrity administrator will confirm that the form has been signed by both the submitting instructor and the student. If it has not, then they will remedy the oversight before continuing. If the chair must recuse themself, then after signatures are secured, the Fox Graduate School, in consultation with the chair, will appoint and train a substitute.
  2. The academic integrity administrator will confirm that the student has had an opportunity to review and respond to any information submitted by the instructor, that the instructor has had an opportunity to review and respond to follow-up remarks and information submitted by the student, and that the student has had an opportunity to review and respond to follow-up remarks and information submitted by the instructor. If this part of the process is incomplete, the administrator will remedy before continuing.
  3. The GAIC chair will contact the student and the supervising educator separately to introduce themself, to answer questions, to explain that the adjudication committee will only consider information that has been submitted, as there will be no live testimony, and to ask each if there are graduate students or instructors who should be prohibited from serving on the committee to avoid bias and conflict-of-interest. The chair should not pry unnecessarily into the nature of those concerns. If either person shares concerning information, the chair may direct them to appropriate resources and report to university offices.
  4. The chair will form The Adjudication Committee, in consultation with The Fox Graduate School as needed.
  5. The GAIC chair will notify people who will serve, provide training as needed, and confirm that committee members have a firm understanding of their role in the adjudication process. After, the GIAC chair will make clear the importance of confidentiality throughout and after the adjudication and establish a committee meeting time.
  6. In advance of the meeting, the GAIC chair, or their designee, will review the claim to see if more information is needed (e.g., relevant program guidelines/information, assessment instructions, relevant student training). If information is solicited outside of DAISY, the chair will ensure that both the student and the instructor have a chance to review and comment on the information submitted by the other, and additional comments/information will be added to the claim file for the Adjudication Committee.
  7. The academic integrity administrator will house the claim file, provide Adjudication Committee members with access, and take reasonable steps to maintain confidentiality.

E. During the adjudication

  1. The Adjudication Committee chair will begin the meeting by providing a neutral summary of the facts of the case. This summary should include:
    1. Information about the student’s level of experience/their year in the program
    2. The student’s decision to contest (e.g., contests both the allegations and/or the sanctions)
    3. The name of the supervising educator who submitted the form, their program, the nature of the work in question
    4. The role and value of the work in the course or degree program
    5. Information provided by the supervising educator
    6. Information provided by the student
  2. Recognizing the complexity of these situations and that no one is an expert in all domains, the chair will provide committee members with an opportunity to add/correct information that may have been inadvertently omitted or misunderstood.
  3. If the student contests responsibility for the alleged violation, the committee will determine if there is evidence of an academic integrity violation. The committee will use a preponderance of the evidence as the evidentiary standard. That is, the committee should determine if, based on the information in the claim file, it is more likely than not that the student violated academic integrity policies. The committee may only consider the information submitted. Possible outcomes should not be considered at this time. Those considerations should happen only if and after responsibility has been determined.
    1. The Adjudication Committee must vote to determine if there is a preponderance of evidence of a violation. The majority opinion carries the decision. The chair should not vote unless needed to break a tie. If the vote determines that there is no violation, the adjudication ends and there are no academic consequences for the allegation.
  4. If the Adjudication Committee determines there is evidence of a violation or the student contests only the proposed academic outcome(s), then the chair will summarize the relevant section(s) of The Academic Integrity Sanctioning Guidelines with the committee to determine the severity of the violation.
    1. If the proposed outcome is consistent with the committee’s determination of severity and those guidelines, then the committee should support it. Otherwise, the committee should determine an appropriate academic outcome. However, the committee should not determine an outcome that is harsher than the one proposed by the supervising educator, as that could have a chilling effect on contesting.
      1. The Adjudication Committee must vote to determine the outcome(s). The chair should not vote unless needed to break a tie.
    2. If the recommended academic outcome is termination from the program and/or the committee believes the student should be terminated from the program, the GAIC chair will pass that recommendation on to the student’s program.
  5. The Adjudication Committee may elect to send a recommendation for an ‘administrative outcome’ outcome to the Office of Student Accountability and Conflict Response (OSACR).
    1. If the violation was clearly unintentional and on a low-stakes course assignment or on a small portion of the assignment, the committee should consider recommending an educational intervention.
    2. If the committee determines that the violation is moderately severe, the committee should consider recommending an educational intervention and a Formal Warning, which notifies the student that they should change their behavior to avoid harsher outcomes for academic misconduct.
    3. If the committee determines that the violation is more than moderately severe, the committee should consider recommending Conduct Probation, which would make the violation reportable to outside organizations if the conduct record is shared.
    4. When academic misconduct interacts with non-academic violations of the Student Code of Conduct, the committee may consider recommending Conduct Suspension or Conduct expulsion, but the chair should discuss with the chair of the GIAC and The Fox Graduate School before submitting that recommendation.
  6. After the adjudication concludes, the Adjudication Committee chair will share information with the GAIC chair, who will ensure that all relevant information is shared with the student and the supervising educator.

F. Determining programmatic outcomes for academic integrity violations

  1. If students are notified about this sharing before the academic integrity process begins (e.g., in the program handbook), the GAIC chair (or their designee) will share outcomes, recommendations, and other relevant information with the student’s GPH.
  2. If a program wants to consider the impact of an academic integrity violation on the student’s trajectory through their program, the program will use the following process.
    1. The Program Head will convene a Program Committee no later than four weeks after discussing the violation with the GAIC chair.
    2. This committee should take care to complete work expeditiously and take reasonable steps to maintain confidentiality.
    3. The Program Committee will include:
      1. The Program Head
      2. The DGS/PIC (if needed, this person can be replaced with a senior faculty member from the program)
      3. The student’s academic, thesis, or dissertation adviser
    4. If the Program Head believes that there could be a conflict of interest with a committee member, they may select an appropriate substitute.
    5. Disagreements about the constitution of this committee will be resolved by the lead academic officer for graduate education at the college/campus.
  3. If the Program Committee wants to terminate the student from the program, they must do so following policy GCAC-803 and notify the Graduate Associate Dean for Student Affairs.
  4. If the Program Committee determines that the student should no longer receive funding, they may choose to withhold new funding but may not discontinue funding for the current semester. If the program alters funding decisions because of an academic integrity violation, the program must notify the Graduate Associate Dean for Student Affairs.
  5. In accordance with policy AD 11, information regarding academic integrity violations and outcomes must remain confidential and may be shared only with others who have a legitimate educational need to know.

Further Information

Academic Integrity Sanctioning Guideline

Academic Integrity Resources