Academic Integrity

Students and Faculty Obligations and Hearing Procedures

This document supplements the University of Pittsburgh's Guidelines on Academic Integrity. No attempt to use it should be made without consulting the parent document.

Effective September 1991 and Revised September 1995

Academic Integrity: Student Obligations | Academic Integrity: Faculty Obligations (See Also: Pitt's Guidelines on Academic Integrity)

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: STUDENT OBLIGATIONS

I. STUDENT OBLIGATIONS

A student has an obligation to exhibit honesty and to respect the ethical standards of the library and information professions 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 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 procedure.

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 ethics of the library and information professions.

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 related 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 dean's office. The dean'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 SIS dean'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 SIS Academic Integrity Hearing Board after a decision of guilt or innocence has been made in a case, but before a sanction has been recommended.

2. If an agreed-upon resolution between the faculty member and the student cannot be reached, the faculty member will file a written statement of charges with the dean's designated academic integrity hearing officer. 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. Wesley Lipschultz is the SIS Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board. He 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 Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board.

5. In proceedings before the SIS Academic Integrity Hearing Board, the student shall have the right to:

a. Be considered innocent until found guilty by clear and convincing evidence of a violation of the student obligations of academic integrity;

b. Have a fair disposition of all matters as promptly as possible under the circumstances;

c. Elect to have a private or public hearing;

d. Be informed of the general nature of the evidence to be presented;

e. Confront and question all parties and witnesses except when extraordinary circumstances makes this impossible;

f. Present a factual defense through witnesses, personal testimony and other relevant evidence;

g. Decline to testify against himself or herself;

h. Have only relevant evidence considered by the Academic Integrity Hearing Board; and,

i. Be provided a record (audio tape) of the hearing, at his or her own expense, upon request.

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 SIS Academic Integrity Hearing Board, 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 Academic Integrity Hearing Board.

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 Chair of the SIS Academic Integrity Hearing Board 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 SIS Academic Integrity Hearing Board shall 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 Chair of Academic Integrity Hearing Board 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 Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board;

c. Objections to procedure shall be entered on the record, and the Chair of Academic Integrity Hearing Board 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 charging party;

f. The charging party shall be given the opportunity to call witnesses;

g. The accused or representatives for 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 Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board when his/her presentation is completed. At this time Academic Integrity Hearing Board members shall be given an opportunity to ask questions of the persons participating in the hearing;

i. The Academic Integrity Hearing Board shall recess, and the Chair of Academic Integrity Hearing Board 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 period set by the Chair of the Academic Integrity Board;

j. Depending upon the determination of the Chair of Academic Integrity Hearing Board, 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 Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board when his/her presentation is complete, and the Academic Integrity Hearing Board members shall have an opportunity to ask questions of the accused as well as the accused's witnesses;

p. The Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board 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 Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board should find out from the appropriate dean(s) whether prior offenses and sanctions imposed have occurred.

12. The Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board shall then transmit to the charged party and the instructor copies of all actions taken by the hearing authority and the dean. If a sanction is imposed, the notice to the student will make reference to the student's opportunity, by petition filed with the Provost, to appeal to the University Review Board.

III. TIMELINES

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 seek review of the Provost or to petition the University Review Board for an appeal from a decision of an academic integrity hearing board or investigatory committee 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. Individual colleges, schools or campuses can add other sanctions approved by the dean of the academic unit and the Provost. Such sanctions must be made known to students.

In administering sanctions, SIS must strive to achieve consistency in its application. That is, within SIS, 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 SIS 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 HEARING BOARD

The Academic Integrity Hearing Board shall be composed of both faculty and students. Officers of the student organizations (The Doctoral Guild and SISGO) will call a meeting and appoint two student members, one from each department. The dean will appoint one faculty member from each department. Members will serve as a standing committee for the academic year. The dean will also designate the Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board to serve as moderator. The Chair will vote only in the case of a tie vote.

In electing or appointing members to the Academic Integrity Hearing Boards, 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 dean to provide all new Academic Integrity Hearing Board members with an orientation designed to familiarize the new members with the academic integrity guidelines for the given unit. Hearing board memberships should be elected or appointed in a way to insure continuity of membership as well as an orderly turnover of the membership.

VI. REVIEW AND APPEAL

A student or faculty member may seek to have the SIS dean's final decision (or a determination that the charges are not subject to adjudication) reviewed by the Provost, who may seek the advice of the University Review Board, or the student may appeal to the University Review Board, whose recommendation shall be made to the Provost.⁽¹⁾ The action of the Provost, taken with or without the advice of the University Review Board, shall constitute an exhaustion of all required institutional remedies.⁽²⁾

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: FACULTY OBLIGATIONS

I. FACULTY OBLIGATIONS

A faculty member accepts an obligation, in relation to her or his students, to discharge her or his duties in a fair and conscientious manner in accordance with the ethical standards generally recognized within the academic community, as well as those of the library and information professions.

Without limiting the application of the above principle, members of the faculty are also expected (except in cases of illness or other compelling circumstance) to conduct themselves in a professional manner, including the following:

1. To meet their classes when scheduled;

2. To be available at reasonable times for appointments with students, and to keep such appointments;

3. To make appropriate preparation for classes and other meetings;

4. To perform their grading duties and other academic evaluations in a timely manner;

5. To describe to students, within the period in which a student may add and drop a course, orally, in writing, or by reference to printed course descriptions, the general content and objectives of a course; and announce the methods and standards of evaluation, including the importance to be assigned various factors in academic evaluation, and, in advance of any evaluation, the permissible materials or references allowed during evaluation;⁽³⁾

6. To base all academic evaluations upon good faith professional judgement;

7. Not to consider, in academic evaluation, such factors as race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin, and political or cultural affiliation, and life style, activities, or behavior outside the classroom unrelated to academic achievement;⁽⁴⁾

8. To respect the confidentiality of information regarding a student contained in University records; and to refrain from releasing such information, except in connection with intra-University business, or with student consent, or as may be permitted by law;⁽⁵⁾

9. Not to exploit their professional relationship with students for private advantage; and to refrain from soliciting the assistance of students for private purposes in a manner which infringes upon such students' freedom of choice;

10. To give appropriate recognition to contributions made by students to research, publication, service, or other activities;

11. To refrain from any activity which involves risk to the health and safety of a student, except with the student's informed consent, and, where applicable, in accordance with the University policy relating to the use of human subjects in experimentation; and

12. To respect the dignity of students individually and collectively in the classroom and other academic contexts.⁽⁶⁾

II. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

Any member of the University community having evidence may bring to the attention of the appropriate department chair (Library Science or Information Science) and/or SIS dean a complaint that a faculty member has failed, in one or more respects, to meet faithfully the obligations set forth above. The chair or dean, in his or her discretion, will take such action by way of investigation, counseling, or action—in accordance with applicable University procedures—as may appear to be proper under the circumstances. The faculty member's and student's interest in confidentiality, academic freedom, and professional integrity in such matters will be respected.

III. INDIVIDUAL GRIEVANCES

In order to provide a means for students to seek and obtain redress for grievances affecting themselves individually, the following procedures should be followed. These are not intended and shall not be used to provide sanctions against faculty members.

IV. PROCEDURES

Where an individual student alleges with particularity that the actions of a faculty member have resulted in serious academic injury to the student, the matter shall (if requested by the student) be presented to the SIS Academic Integrity Hearing Board for adjudication. Serious academic injury includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the awarding of a lower course grade than that which the student has earned or suspension from a class. However, this is not intended to address normal grading decisions of faculty in exercising good-faith professional judgment in evaluating a student's work.

It is the responsibility of the student, before seeking to have a grievance adjudicated, to attempt to resolve the matter by personal conference with the faculty member concerned, and, if such attempts are unavailing, to call the matter to the attention of the department chair for consideration and adjustment by informal means. If a matter remains unresolved after such efforts have been made, the following grievance procedures shall be employed:

1. The aggrieved student will file a written statement of charges with the dean's designated Chair of the Academic Integrity Administrative Officer, Wesley Lipschultz.

2. If the dean's designated Academic Integrity Administrative Officer determines that the charges are subject to adjudication under the terms of the Academic Integrity Guidelines, he will transmit the charges to the faculty member, together with a copy of these regulations.

3. The letter of transmittal to the faculty member, a copy of which shall also be sent to the student, shall state the composition of the Informal Inquiry Committee that has been named to meet with the involved parties to make an informal inquiry into the charge. The purpose of this committee is to provide a last effort at informal resolution of the matter between the student and the faculty member.

4. The committee shall meet with the faculty member, the student, and others as appropriate, to review the nature of the problem in an attempt to reach a settlement of the differences. This is not a formal hearing and formal procedural rules do not apply. On completion of these meetings if no mutually agreeable resolution results, the committee may produce its own recommendation for a solution to the conflict.

5. Should the committee recommend that the faculty member take some corrective action on behalf of the student, its recommendations shall be provided to the faculty member. As promptly as reasonable and at least within five working days after the faculty member receives the recommendations of the committee, the faculty member shall privately take that action which he or she elects, and so advise the student and chair of the committee of that action.

6. Should the committee conclude that the faculty member needs to take no corrective action on behalf of the student, this finding shall be forwarded to both the faculty member and the student.

7. If the student elects to pursue the matter further, either because he or she is dissatisfied with the resulting action of the faculty member or the conclusion of the committee, he or she should discuss this intent with the chair of the committee who should review the procedures to be followed with the student. If the student wishes to proceed with a formal hearing, the chair of the committee shall advise the Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board that the case appears to involve a student's claim of serious academic injury, and that the formal hearing procedure must be initiated.

8. The formal hearing should provide a fair inquiry into the truth or falsity of the charges, with the faculty member and the student afforded the right to cross-examine. At the level of the SIS Academic Integrity Hearing Board, legal counsel shall not be permitted, but a representative from within the University community shall be permitted for both faculty and students.

9. A suitable record (e.g., 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 charges have been proved 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 remedial action to be taken.

11. The proposed decision shall be submitted to the SIS dean, who will make an independent review of the hearing proceedings. The dean 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. The dean may limit the scope of any further proceedings or require that part or all of the original proceedings be reconvened. Upon completion of such additional proceedings, if any, the dean shall issue a final decision. The dean may reject any findings made by the Academic Integrity Hearing Board, may dismiss the charges, or may reduce the extent of the remedial action to be taken. If the dean believes remedial action to be taken may infringe upon the exercise of academic freedom, he will seek an advisory opinion from the Senate Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom before issuing his or her own decision. The decision of the dean shall be in writing, shall set forth with particularity any new findings of fact or remedies, and shall include a statement of the reasons underlying such action.

12. The dean shall then transmit to the faculty member and to the student copies of all actions affecting them taken by the hearing authority and the dean. Suitable records shall be maintained as confidential and retained in the office of the SIS dean.

V. REMEDIAL ACTION

Remedies in a student's behalf should usually be those agreed to willingly by the faculty member. Other remedial action to benefit a student may be authorized by the dean only upon recommendation of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board and limited to:

allowing a student to repeat an examination;
allowing a student to be evaluated for work that would otherwise be too late to be considered;
directing that additional opportunities be afforded for consultation or instruction;
elimination of a grade that had been assigned by a faculty member from the transcript;
changing of a failing letter or numerical grade to a "pass" or "satisfactory" grade, so as not to affect adversely a student's grade average;
allowing a student to repeat a course without paying tuition or any other penalty, schedule and program permitting.

If some action is contemplated that might be deemed to infringe upon the academic freedom of the faculty member, the dean shall seek an advisory opinion from the Senate Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom (TAF). In such cases, the Senate TAF may identify other acceptable remedies or render such advice as may be appropriate in the particular situation.

No action detrimental to the faculty member shall be taken, except as in strict accordance with established University procedures. An adjustment hereunder in the student's behalf shall not be deemed a determination that the faculty member was in any way negligent or derelict.

VI. REVIEW AND APPEAL

A student or faculty member may seek to have a dean's final decision (or a determination that the charges are not subject to adjudication) reviewed by the Provost, who may seek the advice of the University Review Board, or the student may appeal to the University Review Board, whose recommendation shall be made to the Provost. The action of the Provost, taken with or without the advice of the University Review Board, shall constitute an exhaustion of all required institutional remedies.

If any such determination may be deemed to have a possible adverse effect upon the faculty member's professional situation, the faculty member may seek the assistance of the Tenure and Academic Freedom Committee of the University Senate.

VII. TIMELINESS

It is the responsibility of all parties, including administrative officers, to take prompt action in order that grievances may be resolved quickly and fairly. While no explicit time limit could apply to all cases, failure to use diligence in seeking redress may constitute grounds for denial of a hearing or other relief, especially if prejudice results. Parties have the right to seek review of the Provost or to petition the University Review Board for an appeal from a decision of an academic integrity hearing board or investigatory committee within five (5) working days of the date of the decision letter.

VIII. INQUIRY COMMITTEE AND FORMAL HEARING BOARD

The informal investigatory committees and the formal hearing boards shall be composed of both faculty who do not hold administrative appointments and students, and shall consist of at least one student and one faculty member from each department, appointed by the dean for each separate instance. Members of this committee may not be faculty or students who serve on the Formal Academic Review Board.

GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES AGAINST SENIOR ADMINISTRATORS

A student complaint of arbitrary or unfair treatment against the SIS dean should be made to the Provost or appropriate Senior Vice Chancellor. There must be a prompt review and decision on the grievance. Members of the faculty who may be called upon to review and advise on the grievance should be drawn from outside SIS.

FOOTNOTES

1. The University Review Board and its jurisdiction are described in the University of Pittsburgh's Guidelines on Academic Integrity.

2. In implementation, the decision of the Provost shall be binding also on matters of interpretation of codes and procedures, determination of serious injury, and determination that an allegation is subject to adjudication by the procedures provided herein.

3. As each school develops its code, it should recognize that what is expected of faculty hereunder is intended to provide students with a notion of what is required in the course, and how they will be evaluated; a general statement of broadly defined parameters would therefore suffice. If a course is deemed experimental in content, evaluation techniques, or grading practices, the students should be so advised. By academic evaluation is meant a measurement or grading of a student's academic performance, such as in written or oral examinations or papers, research reports, or class or laboratory participation.

4. If the student charges such discrimination, the Chair of the SIS Academic Integrity Hearing Board will consult with the SIS affirmative action officer to ensure compliance with civil rights legislation and regulations. In such cases, the University Senate Tenure and Academic Freedom Committee may be consulted at any time.

5. References or recommendations may be given in good faith by a faculty member on his or her own behalf, without documentation of a student's consent if it may be reasonably perceived that the student initiated the request for a recommendation, in response to apparent bona fide inquires, such as those from institutions which state that the student has applied for employment, for admission to graduate school, or for a professional license. See fuller statements concerning University records in the Student Code of Conduct and Judicial Procedures.

6. Students are advised that other University policies may more appropriately apply to a given grievance or avenue of redress, including, but not necessarily limited to, the University of Pittsburgh Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedure.

*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.

**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 dean who can pursue the matter in place of the instructor.

The University of Pittsburgh, as an educational institution and as an employer, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or marital, veteran, or handicapped status. This is a commitment made by the University, and is in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations.

8/15/96

School of Information Sciences

Academic Integrity

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: STUDENT OBLIGATIONS

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: FACULTY OBLIGATIONS

More Than ...

School of Information Sciences

Academic Integrity

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: STUDENT OBLIGATIONS

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: FACULTY OBLIGATIONS

About SIS

More Than ...