UCR

UC Riverside Academic Senate



Academic Senate Bylaws


« Back to Table of Contents

1 Regents Standing Order 105

105.1 Organization of the Academic Senate

(a) The Academic Senate shall consist of the President, Vice Presidents, Chancellors, Vice Chancellors, Deans, Provosts, Directors of academic programs, the chief admissions officer on each campus and in the Office of the President, registrars, the University Librarian on each campus of the University, each lecturer who has full-time teaching responsibilities in any curriculum under the control of the Academic Senate and whose academic title is Senior Lecturer with Security of Employment or Lecturer with Security of Employment, and each person giving instruction in any curriculum under the control of the Academic Senate whose academic title title is Instructor, Instructor in Residence; Assistant Professor, Assistant Professor in Residence, Assistant Professor of Clinical (e.g., Medicine); Associate Professor, Associate Professor in Residence, Associate Professor of Clinical (e.g., Medicine), Acting Associate Professor; Professor, Professor in Residence, Professor of Clinical (e.g. Medicine), or Acting Professor; however, Instructors and Instructors in Residence of less than two (2) years' service shall not be entitled to vote. Members of the faculties of professional schools offering courses at the graduate level only shall be members also of the Academic Senate, but, in the discretion of the Academic Senate, may be excluded from participation in activities of the Senate that relate to curricula of other schools and colleges of the University. Membership in the Senate shall not lapse because of leave of absence or by virtue of transference to emeritus status. (Am 11 Jul 69; 17 Jul 70; 20 Mar 87)
(b) The Academic Senate shall determine its own membership under the above rule, and shall organize, and choose its own officers and committees in such manner as it may determine.
(c) The Academic Senate shall perform such duties as the Board may direct and shall exercise such powers as the Board may confer upon it. It may delegate to its divisions or committees, including the several faculties and councils, such authority as is appropriate to the performance of their respective functions.

105.2 Duties, Powers, and Privileges of the Academic Senate

(a) The Academic Senate, subject to the approval of the Board, shall determine the conditions for admission, for certificates, and for degrees other than honorary degrees. It shall recommend to the President all candidates for degrees in course and shall be consulted through committees appointed in such manner as the President may determine in connection with the award of all honorary degrees. (Am 19 Mar 71)
(b) The Academic Senate shall authorize and supervise all courses and curricula offered under the sole or joint jurisdiction of the departments, colleges, schools, Graduate Divisions, or other University academic agencies approved by the Board, except that the Senate shall have no authority over courses in the Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco Art Institute, in professional schools offering work at the graduate level only, or over non-degree courses in the University Extension. No change in the curriculum of a college or professional school shall be made by the Academic Senate until such change shall have been submitted to the formal consideration of the Faculty concerned.
(c) The Academic Senate shall determine the membership of the several faculties and councils, subject to the provisions of Standing Order 105.1(c), except the facilities of Hastings College of the Law, and San Francisco Art Institute, provided that the several departments of the University, with the approval of the President, shall determine their own form of administrative organization, and all Professors, Associate Professors, Acting Professors, Acting Associate Professors, and Assistant Professors, and all Instructors of at least two (2) years' service shall have the right to vote in department meetings.
(d) The Academic Senate is authorized to select a committee or committees to advise a Chancellor concerning a campus budget and to select a committee or committees to advise the President concerning the University budget.
(e) The Academic Senate shall have the right to lay before the Board, but only through the President, its views on any matter pertaining to the conduct and welfare of the University.
(f) The Academic Senate is authorized to advise the President and the Chancellors concerning the administration of the libraries of the University.
(g) The Academic Senate is authorized to select a committee or committees to approve the publication of manuscripts by the University of California Press.

3 Honors (En 5 Jun 75)

A. Dean's Honor List and Chancellor's Honor List Standards* (Am 29 May 97)

The Dean's Honor List is awarded quarterly based upon the completion of a minimum of 12 letter graded units with a GPA of 3.5 or higher, with no grade in any course below a B, and no grade of NC or I (incomplete). Students who are placed on the Dean's Honor list for all three quarters in a single academic year (Fall, Winter, and Spring) will be placed on the Chancellor's Honor List for that academic year. (Am 27 May 82, effective fall quarter 1982) (Am 29 May 97) (Am 22 May 03)

*These amended standards were approved by the Academic Council for the Assembly of the Academic Senate 17 Nov 82.

B. Standards for the Award of Honors at Graduation**

1. No more than the top two percent (by grade point average) in the June graduating class shall receive highest honors. No more than the next four percent of graduating students shall receive high honors, and no more than the next ten percent honors.
2. In determining rank in the June graduating class the following procedure shall be used:
(a) The grade point averages used to determine class rank shall be based on courses taken at the University of California.
(b) All students having a grade point average equal to that of the graduating student who falls at each percentage cutoff point specified in paragraph 1 shall be awarded the same category of honors as that student.
3. The grade point averages which mark the cutoff points for each honors category for the June graduating class shall be used as minimum criteria for the award of the same categories of honors to students in the August, December, and March graduating classes which follow.
4. Only students who have completed 60 or more quarter units of graded courses at the University of California are eligible to receive any category of honors upon graduation.
5. The college Executive Committees, or a committee they so designate, shall have responsibility for approving the list of graduates who are to receive each category of honors. In exceptional cases, they may waive the above requirements.
6. These requirements shall become effective in the fall quarter 1977.

**These criteria were approved by the Assembly of the Academic Senate 2 Jun 77.

4 Departmental Voting Rights -- Universitywide Bylaw 55 [188]

55 Departmental Voting Rights

A. General Provisions

1 According to the Standing Orders of the Regents, ". . . the several departments of the University, with the approval of the President, shall determine their own form of administrative organization . . ." No department shall be organized in a way that would deny to any of its non-emeritae/i Faculty who are voting members of the Academic Senate, as specified in Standing Order 105.l(a), the right to vote on substantial departmental questions, excepting only certain personnel actions as detailed in Article B of this Bylaw. [See Legislative Ruling 5.67] (Am 4 May 95)

2 In all matters other than those specified in paragraphs 1 to 5 of Article B of this Bylaw, the right to vote may be delegated to duly elected committees.

B. Designation of Voting Rights

1 All tenured Faculty in a department have the right to vote on all new departmental appointments that confer membership in the Academic Senate. Prior to such a vote, all the non-emeritae/i departmental members of the Academic Senate must be afforded an opportunity to make their opinions known to the voters. (Am 4 May 95)

2 Professors have the right to vote on all cases of promotion to the ranks of Professor, Professor-in-Residence, and Professor of Clinical (e.g. Medicine). Professors and Senior Lecturers with Security of Employment (SOE) have the right to vote on all cases of appointment or promotion to the rank of Senior Lecturer (SOE). (Am 5 May 88)

3 Professors and Associate Professors have the right to vote on all cases of promotion to the ranks of Associate Professor, Associate Professor-in-Residence, and Associate Professor of Clinical (e.g. Medicine). Professors, Associate Professors, Senior Lecturers (SOE) and Lecturers (SOE) have the right to vote on all cases of appointment to the rank of Lecturer (SOE). (Am 5 May 88)

4 For voting purposes, all cases that involve the removal of the Acting modifier from the title of a member of the Academic Senate shall be treated as promotions to the rank in question.

5 All cases of nonreappointments or terminations of Assistant Professors, Assistant Professors-in-Residence, and Assistant Professors of Clinical (e.g. Medicine), or Lecturers and Senior Lecturers, shall be voted upon by those Faculty eligible to vote on promotions to the ranks of Associate Professor, Associate Professor-in-Residence, Associate Professor of Clinical (e.g. Medicine), or appointments to the titles Lecturer (SOE) and Senior Lecturer (SOE), respectively. (Am 5 May 88)

6 All cases of advancement within any rank that confers membership in the Academic Senate shall be voted upon by those persons entitled to vote on promotion or nonreappointment to the rank in question under the provisions of Paragraphs 2 to 5 of this Article B. (En 4 May 1995)

7 In none of the instances specified in Paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Article B may the right to vote be delegated to a committee. The actual method of voting shall be determined by the eligible voters; subject, however, to the provision that no voter may be denied the option to require a secret ballot. In cases of advancement within rank, the eligible voters for each rank in question shall either follow the same procedures used for promotions and non-reappointment or may, by two thirds majority vote and subject to the approval of the divisional Committee on Academic Personnel or its equivalent, delegate the authority for such actions to a duly elected committee or other agency, or adopt some other method acceptable to the divisional Committee on Academic Personnel or its equivalent. Any such method or delegation of authority shall remain in effect for at least one calendar year (twelve months). Thereafter, upon the request of any Faculty member entitled to a vote on the cases in question under the provisions of Paragraph 6 of this Article B, the eligible voters shall reconsider the question of how such cases shall be handled. (Am 4 May 1995)

8 The tenured Faculty members of a department shall establish the method by which personnel matters other than those listed in Paragraphs 1 to 6 of this Article B are determined. The method adopted must have the approval of the divisional Committee on Academic Personnel or its equivalent.

C. Extension of Voting Privileges to non-Emeritae/i Faculty.

Voting privileges on personnel matters within any department may be extended to one or more of the classes of non-Emeritae/i Academic Senate members of that department, as a class, who are not otherwise entitled to vote under the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article B of this Bylaw, upon at least a two-thirds majority vote by secret ballot of those Faculty entitled to vote on the cases in question under the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article B of this Bylaw. Any extensions of the voting privilege under this Article C must remain in effect for at least one calendar year (twelve months); thereafter, any Faculty member entitled to a vote on the cases in question under the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article B of this Bylaw may request reconsideration. Following a request for reconsideration, and prior to any subsequent vote on the cases in question, the Chair or other appropriate departmental officer shall put the question of renewal of privileges to a vote. An extension of voting privileges will be renewed only upon at least a two-thirds majority vote by secret ballot of those Faculty entitled to vote on the cases in question under the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article B of this Bylaw. (Am 4 May 95) [See Legislative Ruling 5.67]

D. Rights and Privileges of Emeritae/i Faculty. (En 4 May 95)

1 Emeritae/i members of the Academic Senate retain membership in the departments to which they belonged at the time of their retirement. They do not have the right to vote on departmental matters, except as provided in this Article D.

2 With the exception of personnel actions, Emeritae/i members of the department have the right to receive the same notice of meetings as other Academic Senate members. They have the right of access to materials relevant to those meetings, the privilege of the floor at those meetings, and the right to make their opinions known to the voting members.

3 Emeritae/i, while recalled to service in a department from which they have retired, regain voting rights on all departmental matters, except personnel matters, during the period of such service. They may be accorded voting privileges on personnel matters only as a class consisting of all recalled Emeritae/i and only as specified in paragraph 4.c of this Article D.

4 Additional privileges in a department from which they have retired may be extended, either to all Emeritae/i as a class of the whole, or to all Emeritae/i recalled to active service, during the period of such service, as follows.

a. Voting privileges on all non-personnel matters may be extended to all Emeritae/i upon a majority vote by secret ballot of the total non-Emeritae/i Academic Senate membership of that department.
b. The privilege of notice of meeting on personnel actions, access to materials, and/or privilege of the floor may be extended to Emeritae/i upon at least a two-thirds majority vote by secret ballot of those Faculty entitled to vote on the cases in question under the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article B of this Bylaw.
c. Voting privileges on personnel matters may be extended to Emeritae/i upon at least a two-thirds majority vote by secret ballot of those Faculty entitled to vote on the cases in question under the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article B of this Bylaw.

5 Any extensions of privilege to Emeritae/i under paragraph 4 of this Article D must remain in effect for at least one calendar year (twelve months); thereafter, any Faculty member entitled to a vote on the question of an extension of privilege under the provisions of paragraph 4 of this Article D may request reconsideration. Following a request for reconsideration, and prior to any subsequent vote on the cases in question, the Chair or other appropriate departmental officer shall put the question of renewal of privileges to a vote. An extension of privilege will be renewed only under the procedures specified for the initial extension of voting privileges by paragraph 4 of this Article D.

E. Reappointed Emeriti/ae and Phased Retirees

Emeriti/ae, while recalled to service in a department, regain voting rights on all departmental matters, except personnel matters. They may be accorded voting rights on personnel matters only as a class and only as specified in Paragraph C. Senate members on phased retirement retain the departmental voting rights they had in that department or those departments in which appointment continues. (En May 89)

5 Policies on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline

5.1 University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline (UC Policy)

UC Policy APM016

5.2 The Faculty Code of Conduct (UC Policy APM-015)(Am July 17, 2006)

UC Policy APM015

5.3 Rules of Procedure for Implementation of Policies on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline at UCR

5.3.1 Applicability and Principles

At UCR the following implements the University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline (set forth in its entirety in APM-016) and the Faculty Code of Conduct (APM-015) and applies to all members of the Academic Senate and to academic staff whose instructional duties are not subject to direct supervision. These procedures adhere to the five principles for Enforcement and Sanctions (Part III, Section A) articulated in the Faculty Code of Conduct (APM-015).

No disciplinary sanctions for professional misconduct shall be imposed by the administration except in accordance with the procedures set forth below.   In circumstances where these procedures are silent, the policies and procedures contained in APM-015, APM-016, and UC Academic Senate Bylaw 336 shall govern.

The procedures set forth below describe several stages in the process: (a) an allegation of faculty misconduct, (b) efforts for informal resolution, (c) filing of a formal complaint, (d) inquiry by the Committee on Charges of the Academic Senate, (e) determination by the Chancellor1 to initiate disciplinary action by filing charges with the Committee on Privilege and Tenure of the Academic Senate, (f) disciplinary hearing by a Hearing Committee of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure, and (g) imposition of disciplinary sanctions by the Chancellor.

If the matter involves an alleged violation of the University of California Policy on Integrity in Research, the allegation should be filed according to the UCR Policy and Procedures for Responding to the Allegations of Research Misconduct.

If the matter involves an alleged violation of the University of California Policy on Sexual Harassment, the allegation may be filed according to the UCR Policy and Procedures for Responding to Reports of Sexual Harassment, instead of or in addition to filing an allegation under these Rules of Procedure.

This document indicates the timelines for the conduct of separate steps of the process, and it is important that such matters proceed expeditiously. However, it is recognized that these timelines may not always be adequate. Where individuals or committees require additional time to complete a step(s) in this process, all members involved shall be informed of the reasons for the delay and provided with a revised timeline for this step of the process, with a commitment that the step will be completed as promptly thereafter as possible.

All proceedings covered under this document are to be treated as confidential. No participant in such proceedings shall reveal or disclose the identity of the complainant, the accused Faculty member, witnesses, the nature of the allegation, the evidence, or the deliberations of any decision maker, other than to individuals who have a legitimate need for such information in order to conduct the proceeding or as may be required by law.(Am 20 Feb 07)



1 For the purposes of this document, the Chancellor shall be taken to mean the Chancellor or the appropriate Chancellor's designee, such as the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost. This shall apply in all cases with the exception of imposing discipline, which shall not be delegated by the Chancellor.

5.3.2 Allegation Procedures and Channels

Allegations against a member of the Faculty in violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct may originate from members of the faculty, staff, students, the administration, and other members of the University community. Allegations shall be accepted for inquiry only on the basis of a written signed statement by the complainant.   Allegations by a complainant shall be addressed to the Chair of the accused Faculty member's department or to the Dean for units with no Chairs, unless this will present a potential conflict of interest, in which case the allegation will be directed to the administrator to whom this Chair or Dean reports.

The Faculty member accused of alleged misconduct shall be promptly informed of the allegation, in writing, by the recipient of the signed allegation. It shall also be the accused Faculty member's right to examine all relevant documents assembled in connection with the allegation and to be heard at each step in the progress of the case.

The recipient of the allegation shall advise both the complainant and the accused Faculty member to obtain and become familiar with this document (Rules of Procedure for Implementation of Policies on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline at UCR), as well as the Faculty Code of Conduct (APM-015), the University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline (APM-016), and the UC Academic Senate Bylaw 336 (Privilege and Tenure Divisional Committees' Disciplinary Cases).

If the complainant is a student, the complainant shall be given the option of retaining anonymity until the filing of a formal complaint with the Committee on Charges, with the understanding that such anonymity may preclude the opportunity for informal resolution prior to consideration by the Committee on Charges.

The channels for processing a matter involving allegations in violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct that do not pertain to allegations of research misconduct or sexual harassment shall be from the Department Chair (in those Schools and Colleges that have Chairs) to the Dean of the School or College to the Chancellor to the Committee on Charges of the Academic Senate.

If the normal level of the channel appears inappropriate to the individual making the allegations, the complainant may address the allegations, in writing, directly to the next level in the channel.(Am 20 Feb 07)

5.3.3 Informal Resolution

The goal of informal resolution is to resolve the concerns at the earliest stage possible. The recipient of the signed allegation shall attempt to resolve the matter informally within twenty-one days of receiving the allegation.   Informal resolution of the matter may result in withdrawal of the complaint by the complainant prior to the matter reaching the Committee on Charges or may result in a formal settlement, including conditions or the acceptance of disciplinary sanction(s) by the accused Faculty member (SBL 336.C). In cases where a settlement resolving disciplinary charges is entered into after a matter has been referred to the Committee on Privilege and Tenure, the Chancellor shall meet with the Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure prior to finalizing the settlement.

If efforts to resolve the matter informally within twenty-one days prove unsatisfactory to the complainant and/or the accused Faculty member, the recipient of the signed allegation shall forward the signed allegation to the next step in the process as soon as an impasse has been reached, along with his or her written statement describing the efforts to resolve the matter informally and the reasons for forwarding the matter.   When the file is forwarded, a copy of the recipient's written statement shall be provided to the complainant and the accused Faculty member.(Am 20 Feb 07)

5.3.4 The Formal Complaint

If the matter has not been settled to the satisfaction of the complainant at some step in the process described above, and if the Chancellor is unable to resolve the matter informally, the Chancellor shall furnish the complainant with the Academic Complaint Form. To complete the Academic Complaint Form, the complainant must identify the relevant section(s) of the University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline and include a full statement of the facts that allegedly constitute a violation of the University Faculty Code of Conduct. The Form must be signed by the complainant and submitted to the Chancellor. Materials elaborating the evidence may be appended to the Academic Complaint Form.

The Chancellor shall promptly transmit the signed formal complaint to the Committee on Charges of the Academic Senate. At the same time, the Chancellor shall transmit the signed formal complaint to the accused Faculty member, along with a statement that the matter has been transmitted to the Committee on Charges.(Am 20 Feb 07)

5.3.5 Inquiry by the Committee on Charges of the Academic Senate

The Committee on Charges shall promptly determine whether the allegations in the complaint, if true, would constitute a violation of the University Faculty Code of Conduct. If the Committee on Charges determines this issue affirmatively, it shall ask the Chancellor for any supporting evidence from earlier stages in the procedure and shall conduct an inquiry to determine whether there is probable cause to warrant a disciplinary hearing before the Committee on Privilege and Tenure of the Academic Senate. For this purpose, the probable cause standard means that the facts as alleged in the complaint, if true, justify the imposition of discipline for a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct and that there is credible evidence to support the claim.  

The Committee on Charges shall treat all steps in its inquiry as confidential. In conducting its inquiry, the Committee on Charges may, at its discretion, conduct interviews in private with the complainant and other individuals relevant to the case. The Committee on Charges shall make every effort to complete its inquiry and make a determination of probable cause and reports its findings to the Chancellor within sixty days after receiving the formal complaint.

If the Committee on Charges finds no probable cause to warrant a disciplinary proceeding, the Committee shall promptly (within fifteen days) transmit its decision, in writing, to the Chancellor, along with a report of the substantive review made by the Committee.   The Committee also shall recommend that all existing references to the matter be expunged from personnel files, and from the records of the Department Chair and the Dean of the School or College.

If the Committee on Charges finds probable cause to warrant a disciplinary hearing, the Committee shall promptly transmit its decision, in writing, to the Chancellor, along with a report of the inquiry made by the Committee and the complete file assembled by the Committee on Charges during its inquiry.(Am 20 Feb 07)

5.3.6 Determination by the Chancellor to Initiate Disciplinary Action

The Chancellor shall make a final determination of probable cause within thirty days of receiving the recommendation from the Committee on Charges.

If the Chancellor concurs with the Committee on Charges on a no-probable-cause finding, this decision shall be immediately transmitted, in writing, to the Chair of the Committee on Charges. The Chancellor   shall promptly (within fifteen days) notify both the complainant and the accused Faculty member, in writing, of the finding of no probable cause by the Committee on Charges, of the concurrence by the Chancellor, and of the substance of the inquiry made by the Committee on Charges.   The only record of the case shall be a statement prepared by the Committee on Charges and placed in its permanent file in the Academic Senate. That statement shall include the following information: the date, name of the accused Faculty member, name of the complainant, a brief statement of the allegations, and the decision by the Chancellor to dismiss the case on recommendation of the Committee on Charges.

If the Chancellor determines that there is probable cause to warrant a disciplinary hearing, the Chancellor shall immediately notify the Chair of the Committee on Charges, in writing.

If the Chancellor does not concur with the recommendation of the Committee on Charges, the Chancellor shall inform the Chair of the Committee on Charges, in writing, of the reasons for the decision.

Upon a determination of probable cause, the Chancellor shall initiate notice of proposed disciplinary action, which requires that the Chancellor prepare written charges to be submitted to the Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure of the Academic Senate, with a full statement of the facts underlying the charges and the disciplinary sanction(s) the Chancellor proposes in this case.   The types of discipline that may be imposed on a member of the faculty are as follows, in order of severity: written censure, reduction in salary, demotion, suspension, denial or curtailment of emeritus status, and dismissal from the employ of the University.

At the same time that the Chancellor submits the formal charges to the Committee on Privilege and Tenure, the Chancellor shall also notify both the complainant and the accused Faculty member, in writing, of the decision to file a formal complaint with the Committee on Privilege and Tenure.(Am 20 Feb 07)

5.3.7 Disciplinary Hearing by the Committee on Privilege and Tenure

The Committee on Privilege and Tenure shall follow the procedures detailed in UC Academic Senate Bylaw 336 (Privilege and Tenure Divisional Committees' Disciplinary Hearings) with regard to prehearing procedures, early resolution, hearing and posthearing procedures, and relation to prior grievance cases.

At the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing, the Hearing Committee of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure shall promptly make its findings of fact, conclusions supported by a statement of reasons based on the evidence, and recommendation. These shall be forwarded promptly to the parties in the case, including the complainant and the accused Faculty member, the Chancellor, the Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure, and the Chair of the University Committee on Privilege and Tenure. The findings, conclusions, recommendations, and record of the proceedings shall be confidential to the extent allowed by law and UC policy. The Hearing Committee may, however, with the consent of the accused Faculty member, authorize release of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations to other individuals or entities, to the extent allowed by law (SBL 336.D.10).

If the Committee on Privilege and Tenure determines that there is clear and convincing evidence that the accused Faculty member has violated the Faculty Code of Conduct, the Committee shall also recommend an appropriate sanction that shall not be more severe than the maximum sanction specified in the formal charge from the Chancellor.(Am 20 Feb 07)

5.3.8 Imposition of Disciplinary Sanction

The authority to impose disciplinary sanctions and the procedures for imposition of sanctions are detailed in the University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline, (APM-016, Section II Types of Disciplinary Sanctions).   The final decision to impose disciplinary sanction shall be made by the Chancellor and shall not be delegated.

If the Chancellor's decision differs from the findings and recommendation of the Hearing Committee of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure, the Chancellor shall meet with the Hearing Committee prior to reporting the decision to explain the reasons for his or her decision.

Within forty-five days after receiving the findings from the Hearing Committee of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure, the Chancellor shall report his or her decision, in writing, to the Committee on Privilege and Tenure, the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost, the Dean of the School or College, the Department Chair, the accused Faculty member, and the complainant.(Am 20 Feb 07)

5.3.9 Role of the Complainant

Complainants have a legitimate interest in being kept informed as the process proceeds and, within appropriate parameters, should be able to participate in various stages of the process. In the inquiry stage by the Committee on Charges, the complainant must be willing to meet with the Committee on Charges should that Committee consider such appearance necessary to the inquiry. The complainant does not have a right to receive written statements submitted by the accused Faculty member or any other evidence uncovered in the course of the inquiry by the Committee on Charges, nor does the complainant have a right to be present during any interview that may occur as part of the inquiry. (Am 29 May 12)

If it is determined by the Committee on Charges or the Hearing Committee of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure that the allegations brought by the complainant are both groundless and malicious, that finding may serve as a basis for counter charges by the accused Faculty member.(Am 20 Feb 07)

5.3.10 Provision for Interim Suspension in Extreme Emergency

If in the judgment of the Chancellor there is a high probability that the continued assignment of a Faculty member to regular duties will be immediately and seriously harmful to the University community, the Chancellor may place the Faculty member on full or partial interim suspension with full pay. Such a suspension is a precautionary action and not a form of discipline. Before imposing such an interim suspension, the Chancellor shall, to the extent feasible under the circumstances in the individual case, consult with the chairs of the Committee on Charges and the Committee on Privilege and Tenure. The Chancellor shall promptly provide the Faculty member with a written statement of the reason for such suspension and shall promptly refer the matter to the Committee on Privilege and Tenure. The Committee on Privilege and Tenure shall promptly provide an opportunity for a hearing to the Faculty member and report its findings and recommendations with respect to the propriety of the suspension to the Chancellor.(Am 20 Feb 07)

6 Academic Integrity for Students at the University of California, Riverside (Approved by Educational Policy on April 2, 2012 after consultation with the Graduate Council) (En Nov 04) (Am 29 May 12)

6.1 Policy

University Of California Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations, and Students, section
100.00 Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline states that "Chancellors may impose discipline for the
commission or attempted commission (including aiding or abetting in the commission or attempted
commission) of the following types of violations by students...:

102.1 All forms of academic misconduct including but not limited to cheating, fabrication, plagiarism, or facilitating academic dishonesty.

102.2 Other forms of dishonesty including but not limited to fabricating information, furnishing false information, or reporting a false emergency to the University."

6.2 Principles of Academic Integrity

At the University of California, Riverside (UCR) honesty and integrity are fundamental values that guide and inform us as individuals and as a community. The culture of academia requires that each student take responsibility for learning and for products that reflect their intellectual potential, curiosity, and capability. Students must represent themselves truthfully, claim only work that is their own, acknowledge their use of others' words, research results, and ideas, using the methods accepted by the appropriate academic disciplines and engage honestly in all academic assignments. Anything less than total commitment to honesty circumvents the contract for intellectual enrichment that students have with the University to become and educated person, undermines the efforts of the entire academic community, and diminishes the value of an education for everyone, especially for the person who cheats. Both students and faculty are responsible for ensuring the academic integrity of the University.

These guidelines establish definitions for academic misconduct and procedures for the adjudication of academic integrity cases by the Office of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity Programs (SCAIP) for undergraduate students and Graduate Division for graduate student cases.

Misunderstanding of appropriate academic conduct will not be accepted as an excuse for academic misconduct. If a student is in doubt about appropriate academic conduct in a particular situation, he or she should consult with the instructor in the course to avoid the serious charge of academic misconduct. (Am 29 May 12)

6.3 Types of Academic Misconduct

6.3.1 The following provides definitions of academic misconduct to assist students in developing an understanding of the University's expectations, recognizing that no set of written guidelines can anticipate all types and degrees of violations of academic integrity. To the extent that these definitions are not exhaustive, duly appointed representatives of the University will judge each case according to its merits.

Academic misconduct is any act that does or could improperly distort student grades or other student academic records.

Cheating. Fraud, deceit, or dishonesty in an academic assignment, or using or attempting to use materials, or assisting others in using materials that are prohibited or inappropriate in the context of the academic assignment in question.

Fabrication. Making up data or results and recording or reporting them, including laboratory or field research results. In the context of student academic integrity, this also includes falsifying academic or university documents and providing false information or testimony in connection with any investigation or hearing under this policy.

Plagiarism. The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. This includes the copying of language, structure, or ideas of another and attributing (explicitly or implicitly) the work to one's own efforts. Plagiarism means using another's work without giving credit.

Facilitating academic dishonesty. Assisting another in violating the policy of Academic Integrity, such as taking an exam for another student or providing coursework for another student to turn in as his or her own effort.

Unauthorized collaboration. Working with others without the specific permission of the instructor on assignments that will be submitted for a grade. This applies to in-class or take-home tests, papers, labs, or homework assignments. Students may not collaborate without faculty authorization.

Interference or sabotage. Damaging, removing, or otherwise harming another student's work or University materials and systems to affect the academic performance of others.

Failure to comply with research regulations such as those applying to human subjects, laboratory animals, and standards of safety.

Retaliation of any kind against a person who reported or provided information about suspected or alleged misconduct and who has not acted in bad faith. (Am 29 May 12)

6.4 UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

Requirements and Expectations

Research
To foster intellectual honesty, with regard to undergraduate research, all academic units at UCR are encouraged to develop statements that fit the distinctive research climate and needs of their individual disciplines. These guidelines may cover responsibilities of research supervisors, assignment of credit for publications, training of research apprentices, requirements for record keeping of experimental procedures and data storage.

Policies relevant to research and agencies funding research are posted on the UCR Office of Research website. (Am 29 May 12)

Courses
Faculty members, teaching assistants, and other instructional personnel are encouraged to include statements addressing academic integrity as part of the syllabus for every course and to educate students about expectations and standards in the context of the course in order that students may not, through ignorance, subject themselves to the charge of academic misconduct. Instructors are further encouraged to inform students of campus resources available for dealing with academic difficulty.

Undergraduate Procedures

Throughout the process of reviewing allegations of academic misconduct, this policy articulates deadlines for action based on calendar days. If the day of a deadline falls on a weekend, holiday, or day the University is otherwise closed, that deadline will be moved to the next day the University is open.

6.4.2 I. Faculty Actions

Research
In cases of alleged academic integrity violations in undergraduate research, faculty members, teaching assistants, and other instructional personnel should report suspicion of fraudulent or unethical research practice by students, including but not limited to undergraduate student researcher employees, immediately to the Chair of the department, Dean of the school or Director of the organized research unit. The report must then be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for Research who will be responsible for coordinating further actions. (Am 29 May 12)

Courses
If a faculty member, teaching assistant, or other instructional personnel suspects that an act of academic misconduct has occurred in a course, she or he must promptly communicate with the student regarding the alleged act of misconduct and the information upon which the allegation is based within 30 calendar days of discovery of the alleged act. Under special circumstances, the instructor may make a request for an extension of time through the Vice Provost for Administrative Resolution. If the discovery is made by a teaching assistant, reader, grader, or tutor, he or she should immediately communicate to the Faculty member in charge of the course, so that the Faculty member in charge can proceed with the investigation.

Whenever possible, the communication should take place through an in-person consultation and should be conducted in a manner that respects each student's privacy and maintains an environment that supports teaching and learning. When a meeting is not possible or practical, an instructor may communicate with the student in writing. Written communication will be sent to the student's University e-mail address. When multiple students are involved, faculty members are encouraged to communicate with each student separately.

The Faculty member or the student may request the assistance of the Ombudsperson at the conference to assist in a fair and focused discussion about what may have occurred.

The student must be given the opportunity to respond to the allegation of misconduct. When communication is made in writing, students will be given 14 calendar days to respond.

After conferring with the student and/or considering the student's written response, the faculty member may determine there has been no misconduct, in which case she or he may dismiss the allegation and take no further action.

If the faculty member determines that it is more likely than not that the student committed an act of academic misconduct, regardless of the student’s intent to engage in misconduct, the instructor may then pursue one of the following actions:

A. In cases where the student does not dispute the facts upon which the charges are based, the instructor may impose an appropriate academic sanction, taking into account the clarity of course expectations, the level of the student’s experience or knowledge of principles of academic integrity, the nature of the assignment, and the degree of intentionality and pre-meditation of the misconduct. These admissions of guilt and the sanction the instructor imposes are final.

Actions taken must be documented through the Academic Misconduct Referral form, or a referral memo to SCAIP, the central location where all records of incidents of academic dishonesty are kept on file. It is essential that the form or referral memo include the student's name and student identification number, the name of the class in which the act took place, the date or time period in which the act occurred, a description of the academic misconduct, a summary of actions taken, all original documentation supporting the charge, and the academic sanctions assigned.

B. In cases where the student disputes the facts upon which the charges are based, the instructor will refer the case to SCAIP. The Academic Misconduct Referral form or memo must include the student's name and student identification number, the name of the class in which the act took place, the date or time period in which the act occurred, a description of the academic misconduct, a summary of actions taken by the instructor, all original documentation supporting the charge (except where prohibited by law), and the academic sanctions recommended. Faculty members are encouraged to forward a copy of the course syllabus and other written communication that addresses academic integrity standards and expectations for the course. Faculty are further encouraged to evaluate the assignment or examination on its merits and to make note of the grade to be assigned in the event that the student is not found responsible for violation of the University's policies or where insufficient evidence exists to hold the student responsible.

Faculty members who will not be available to participate fully in resolving allegations (e.g., Individuals holding part-time or temporary appointments, those on sabbatical or other leave, or those leaving University employment) must provide a copy of all documentation to the immediate supervising administrator: department chair, program director, center director, or dean of school, who will serve as a proxy for the Faculty member to conclude the case.

If grades are awarded while the case is in progress, the Faculty member is expected to assign a temporary grade placeholder of Grade Delay “GD” pending the outcome of the review process.

The Faculty member is encouraged to evaluate the disputed assignment or examination on its merits and to note the grade to be assigned in the event that the student is not found responsible for violation of the University of California Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline or where insufficient evidence exists to hold the student responsible.

C. Violations that the instructor believes to be particularly egregious shall be referred directly to the School or College Academic Integrity Committee in the instructor's School or College for review. (Am 29 May 12)

The student may not avoid the imposition of a sanction by withdrawing from a course. If the student is found not responsible for academic misconduct, the student will be permitted to request a withdrawal from the course with a grade of "W" using Undergraduate Enrollment Adjustment Procedures. (Am 29 May 12)

6.4.3 II. Administrative Actions

Research
The Vice Chancellor for Research, in consultation with the original recipient of the report, will review the description of the academic misconduct and documentation supporting the charge and determine if unethical conduct may have occurred, and if so, may undertake a preliminary inquiry or formal investigation following the guidelines outlined in UCR Policy on Integrity in Research, posted on the Office of Research Affairs website at {{http://www.ora.ucr.edu/ORA/announce/integrit.h tm}} In the event that the preliminary inquiry or formal investigation finds probable cause to warrant disciplinary proceedings, charges of misconduct will be processed in accordance with existing procedures for adjudicating alleged academic misconduct in courses. (Am 29 May 12)

Courses
Below are the steps for the investigation and review process.


A. In cases where the student does not dispute the facts upon which the charges are based, SCAIP, upon receipt of the Academic Misconduct Referral form, will follow up with the student in writing to formally advise the student of the academic sanctions assigned by the instructor as well as appropriate disciplinary sanctions assigned by the University.

The decision shall be forwarded in writing to the student within 20 calendar days of the review; and communicated to the instructor, school or college and/or division in accordance with legitimate educational interest criteria as articulated by the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act.

Students with a record of previous academic misconduct will be referred to the Academic Integrity Committee in their School or College for a formal hearing (Review Stage 2) hearing, with a recommendation that suspension or dismissal be considered.

B. In cases where the student disputes the facts upon which the charges are based, upon receipt of the Academic Misconduct Referral Form, SCAIP will notify the student of their alleged violation of the University of California Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline, the factual basis for the charges, and the plan to conduct a Review Stage 1 Administrative Review of the case. The student will be advised that the Administrative Review is intended as a thorough exposition of all related facts and written materials associated with the alleged misconduct, and that it is not intended as an adversarial criminal or civil legal proceeding. It is not modeled on these adversarial systems; nor does it serve the same functions; rather, it is an academic process unique to the community of scholars that comprise a University. The student will also be informed of his or her right to be assisted by an advisor of his or her choice. Such written notification will occur within 20 calendar days of the receipt of the referral by SCAIP and will be sent to the student’s University e-mail address.

1. Review Stage 1, Administrative Review, process:

The Administrative Review conducted by SCAIP involves meetings with the student, the Faculty member, and others who may have relevant information. The student will have the opportunity to discuss any extenuating circumstances, causes, and motivations that may have contributed to the alleged misconduct. If SCAIP deems it necessary, the Administrative Review will be scheduled such that both the faculty member and the student can attend. The purpose of an Administrative Review is to explore and investigate the incident giving rise to the appearance of academic dishonesty, and to reach an informed conclusion as to whether or not academic dishonesty occurred. In keeping with the ultimate premise and justification of academic life, the duty of all persons at a Review is to assist in a thorough and honest exposition of all related facts. A Review is not in the character of a criminal or civil legal proceeding. It is not modeled on these adversarial systems; nor does it serve the same functions; rather, it is an academic process unique to the community of scholars that comprise a University.

The review will:
* explain fully the alleged violation of the Standards of Conduct
* review written materials associated with the alleged misconduct
* give the student and the instructor the opportunity to present their accounts of the incident and present any witnesses or other individuals who may have relevant information about the incident
* address how the student's alleged conduct was judged, why the behavior is unacceptable, the impact of conduct on others in the community, causes and motives of the conduct, and alternatives for balancing personal circumstances with needs and expectations of the community

2. Outcome of the Administrative Review:

If SCAIP determines it is more likely than not that the student is responsible for academic misconduct, the academic sanctions recommended by the faculty member as well as appropriate disciplinary sanctions will be assigned taking into account the clarity of course expectations, the level of the student's experience or knowledge of principles of academic integrity, the nature of the assignment, and the degree of intentionality and premeditation of the misconduct.

The decision shall be forwarded in writing to the student within 20 calendar days of the review and communicated to the instructor, school or college and/or division in accordance with legitimate educational interest criteria as articulated by the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. In cases where the instructor has held a grade in abeyance pending the outcome of an Administrative Review, she or he shall submit a final grade with the Registrar that is consistent with the decision of SCAIP as to the question of misconduct.

3. Appeals of Decisions by Faculty Members and/or from Review Stage 1.

Academic Integrity Committees, described in Section C function as the appellate bodies for decisions made at Review Stage 1. Section E below more fully explains appeal procedures.

C. Cases involving a student with a record of previous academic misconduct or cases that are sufficiently complex to require additional consultation shall be referred directly by SCAIP for a Stage 2 review by the Academic Integrity Committee in the relevant college/school for a formal hearing. (Am 29 May 12)

6.4.4 III. Academic Integrity Committees

1. Review Stage 2, College/School Academic Integrity Committees for Cases Involving Undergraduate Students

An Academic Integrity Committee will be established in each of School or College to:
* hear cases referred by SCAIP that are sufficiently complex to require additional review
* hear serious and repeated violations of academic misconduct upon referral from an instructor or SCAIP
* consider appeals of decisions and/or sanctions imposed by SCAIP

The Academic Senate’s Committee on Committees will appoint four to six faculty members to the undergraduate Academic Integrity Committees for each college and one to three faculty members to the undergraduate Academic Integrity Committees for each school with an undergraduate curriculum to serve one-year terms, effective September 1-August 31. Each committee should include faculty who are available to participate in hearings during the summer months. (Am 28 May 13)

In addition, SCAIP will solicit and review applications from interested undergraduate and graduate students and make recommendations to the Associated Students of UCR and Graduate Student Association regarding students to be appointed to serve on each college/school committee for one-year terms, effective September 1-August 31. The final endorsement of student members will rest with the Committee on Committees.   Students are not eligible to serve if they have been suspended or are on academic or disciplinary probation, have been evicted from University Housing for reasons related to conduct, or have a case pending before SCAIP. (Am 20 February 07)

In all cases an effort will be made to appoint members who represent the disciplinary diversity within each college/school, whenever possible. Staff support to the committees will be provided by the office of the Vice Provost for Administrative Resolution, the office of the AVC/Dean of Students, and SCAIP.

2. Hearing Panels

SCAIP will schedule a hearing panel of three to five members, from the relevant AIC for each case. A quorum of the committee consists of three persons, with at least one faculty member and one student for School or College Committees. In the absence of a quorum, the hearing will be rescheduled. Staff support to the Committee will be provided by the Vice Provost for Administrative Resolution or his/her designee.

The purpose of an Academic Integrity Committee Hearing is to explore and investigate the incident giving rise to the appearance of academic dishonesty, and to reach an informed conclusion as to whether or not academic dishonesty occurred. In keeping with the ultimate premise and justification of academic life, the duty of all persons at a hearing is to assist in a thorough and honest exposition of all related facts. A hearing is not in the character of a criminal or civil legal proceeding. It is not modeled on these adversarial systems; nor does it serve the same functions; rather, it is an academic process unique to the community of scholars that comprise a University.


The Vice Provost for Administrative Resolution or his/her designee will serve as a non-voting administrative chair to facilitate the hearing. The administrative chair shall rule on all questions of procedure and evidence, including but not limited to: the order of presentation of evidence, admissibility of evidence, applicability of regulations to a particular case, and relevance of testimony.

3. Hearing Procedures

Preparation: Prior to the hearing, panel members will receive and review a copy of the notification of charges and documentary evidence provided by the instructor, the University, and the student.

Introductory comments: At the beginning of the hearing, the administrative chair will ask all present at the hearing to introduce themselves for the record. The administrative chair will ask any panel members to disqualify themselves from participation if they believe for any reason that they cannot render a just and fair decision and will permit the student to request that a member be disqualified if the student believes for an appropriate reason that a panel member cannot render a just and fair decision. If a student or faculty member of the hearing panel is disqualified, another member will be appointed to fill the same role, if needed for a quorum. The chair will read aloud the charges of academic misconduct and the student will be asked to respond to the charges by (a) accepting responsibility, (b) accepting responsibility and noting that there are mitigating circumstances, or (c) denying responsibility for the alleged violation of the University of California Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline.

Presentation of accounts: The faculty member and the student will be given the opportunity to present their accounts of the incident and present any witnesses or other individuals who may have relevant information about the alleged academic misconduct. Hearing panel members will be given an opportunity to ask questions of the faculty member, the student, and witnesses. Each party will then be asked if there is additional information needed, or if any discrepancies or questions need to be presented or addressed.

Deliberation: The hearing panel will deliberate in private to decide, by a majority vote, if a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the student is responsible or not responsible for alleged violation of University of California Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline.


If the student is found to be responsible for violations of the Policy, the Committee shall be informed of the student's prior record to determine whether the student has been found responsible for previous academic misconduct. Based on this information, the Committee will determine the sanction(s) to be assigned.

Notification of decision: Once the hearing panel has reached a decision, the parties involved will reassemble, and the results of the deliberation will be presented. Within 20 calendar days, the Vice Provost for Administrative Resolution or his/her designee will send written notification to the student, the faculty member, and the dean or his/her designated associate dean for student academic affairs of the college/school detailing the decision and the sanctions imposed by the hearing panel.
The notification will also outline the appeal process.

Records: An audio recording of the hearing, but not the deliberations, shall be made and retained in SCAIP as part of the record for as long as the disciplinary record is retained, or for seven years from the date of decision, whichever is shorter (see Section F below). The student may obtain a copy of the recording upon paying the expense of making such copy. Either the student with conduct under investigation or the faculty member may arrange for a stenographer to make a full transcript of the proceedings at his/her own expense. If one party has the proceedings transcribed, arrangements shall be made before the hearing as to how to apportion the cost if both parties want copies. Other than for the purpose of the official record as provided above, mechanical or electronic devices for recording or broadcasting shall be excluded from the hearing.

4. Students may appeal the decision of Stage 2 review by the Academic Integrity Committees in writing to the Campus Academic Integrity Executive Committee. (Am 29 May 12) (Am 28 May 13)

Campus Academic Integrity Executive Committee
The Vice Provost for Administrative Resolution or his designee shall select one faculty member and one student from each Academic Integrity Committee to serve as the Campus Academic Integrity Executive Committee for undergraduates. The Campus Academic Integrity Executive Committee also serves as the appellate body for primary decisions made at Review Stage 2 for undergraduate students. The Executive Committee will also review, on an annual basis, cases addressed by SCAIP and Academic Integrity Committee actions to provide oversight and direction and to ensure that policies and procedures are appropriate and properly applied. (Am 29 May 12)

6.4.5 IV. Appeals

1. Channels for Appeals

Stage 1 Review decisions made by SCAIP may be appealed through the School or College Academic Integrity Committee in the faculty member’s School or College. Appellate decisions of a School or College Academic Integrity Committee are final.

Stage 2 Review decisions made by a School or College Academic Integrity Committee may be appealed to the Campus Academic Integrity Executive Committee. Appellate decisions of the Campus Academic Integrity Executive Committee are final.

2. Criteria for Appeals

Appeals must be based on one or more of the following:
* New evidence not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing, the absence of which can be shown to have had a detrimental impact on the outcome of the hearing
* Procedural error that can be shown to have had a detrimental impact on the outcome of the hearing
* Errors in the interpretation of University policy so substantial as to deny one of the parties a fair hearing
* Grossly inappropriate sanction having no reasonable relationship to the charges

3.   Appeal Procedures

* The Faculty member or the student may appeal a decision in writing to the appropriate body for appeal, as described above. The appeal must be made within 14 calendar days after the written decision is made available.
* Appeals must be authored and signed by the submitting party. Appeals produced by advisors or other non-parties will not be considered.
* The filing of a timely appeal suspends the imposition of sanctions until the appeal is decided. Grades or degrees will be withheld pending conclusion of the appeal.

* When an appeal has been filed, the relevant parties may be requested to respond in writing to the matters in question before a decision about the appeal is made. The non-appealing party, whether student or Faculty member, will be notified of the appeal as soon it has been received by the appropriate appellate body and will be given an opportunity to submit a written statement for consideration during the appeal process.
* The appellate body will determine whether the grounds for appeal have been satisfied and whether further process is necessary to resolve the appeal. Findings of fact will be accepted as determined by the original adjudicating body, unless the appellate body determines that the original adjudicating body acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or unfair manner.
* The appellate body will make a decision based on the written submissions within 20 calendar days, or indicate in writing what further process is necessary for final resolution.

* The appellate body may approve, reject, or modify the decision and sanction in question. The action taken shall be communicated in writing to the student, the faculty member, SCAIP, and/or the original adjudicating body within 20 calendar days after receipt of the appeal and related documents. The decision of the appellate body is final. (Am 29 May 12)

6.4.6 V. Maintenance Of Records

SCAIP shall serve as the central location where all written, audio, and electronic records of incidents of academic misconduct are kept on file. The records will be readily available for review by the Deans and Associate Deans of each College or School, the Dean of the Graduate Division, the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost and the Vice Provost for Administrative Resolution, in accordance with legitimate educational interest criteria as articulated by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

The file of a student found in violation of campus regulations (including the transcripts or recordings of the hearing) will be maintained by the SCAIP for a period of at least seven years from the date of the letter providing notice of final disciplinary action, unless otherwise determined by the Vice Provost for Administrative Resolution. When a student is suspended as a result of a violation of the University of California Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline, the fact that suspension was imposed must be posted on the academic transcript for the duration of the suspension. When a student is dismissed as a result of a violation of this policy, the fact that dismissal was imposed must be posted on the academic transcript permanently. (Am 29 May 12)

6.4.7 VI. Scheduling for Hearings and Appeals

6.4.7.1 In general, Academic Integrity Committees will conduct hearing panels September through June, the main academic year. In special circumstances, including hearings involving graduating seniors and those involving course sequences and prerequisites, SCAIP and the Academic Integrity Committees will work to expedite the process and endeavor to hold summer hearings on a limited basis. (Am 29 May 12)

6.5 GRADUATE STUDENTS

6.5.1 Requirements and Expectations in Research

To foster intellectual honesty with regard to graduate student research, all academic units at UCR are encouraged to develop statements that fit the distinctive research climate and needs of their individual disciplines. These guidelines may cover responsibilities of research supervisors, assignment of authorship or credit for publications, training of research apprentices, requirements for record keeping of experimental procedures and data storage.

It is the responsibility of each individual engaged in research at UCR to be informed of University policies relating to research and of the policies and procedures of the agencies funding research. Relevant policies are posted on the UCR Office of Research website.

6.5.2 Allegations of Misconduct in Research

All allegations of research misconduct by graduate students should be immediately reported to the Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs in the Graduate Division. The Associate Dean will then inform the Vice Chancellor for Research who serves as the UCR Research Integrity Officer and who, in furtherance of the University's obligations and responsibilities, has been delegated the administrative authority by the Chancellor with respect to the oversight, implementation, maintenance and updating of the Policy and Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct at the University Of California, Riverside. All complainants should consult the Policy and Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct at the University Of California, Riverside prior to bringing an allegation of research misconduct to the Associate Dean.

The Vice Chancellor for Research or his/her designee will review the description of the research misconduct and all documentation supporting the charge. He/she will determine, together with the Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs, if misconduct may have occurred, and if so, may undertake a preliminary inquiry or formal investigation, following the guidelines outlined in the UCR Policy on Integrity in Research, posted on the UCR Office of Research website. In the event that the preliminary inquiry or formal investigation finds probable cause with respect to research misconduct to warrant disciplinary proceedings, charges of misconduct will be processed in accordance with procedures for adjudicating alleged academic misconduct in courses, as outlined below, beginning with Review Stage 1.

6.5.3 Requirements and Expectations in Courses

Instructional personnel responsible for courses (herein referred to as Faculty) are encouraged to include statements addressing academic integrity as part of the syllabus for every course and to educate students about expectations and standards of the course in order that students may not, through ignorance, subject themselves to the charge of academic misconduct. Faculty are further encouraged to inform students of campus resources available for dealing with academic difficulty.

6.5.4 Allegations of Misconduct in Courses

Below are the steps for the investigation and review process.

6.5.4.1 Initiation of Cases

If a Faculty member suspects that an act of academic misconduct has occurred in a course, he or she must promptly communicate with the student regarding the alleged misconduct and the information upon which the allegation is based; the notification process must occur within 30 calendar days from the discovery of the alleged act. The Faculty member may make a request for an extension of time through the Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs. If the discovery is made by a student, teaching assistant, reader, grader or tutor he or she should immediately communicate to the Faculty member in charge of the course, so that the Faculty member in charge can proceed with the investigation.

Whenever possible, communication with the student should take place through an in-person consultation and should be conducted in a manner that respects the student's privacy and maintains an environment that supports teaching and learning. When multiple students are involved, Faculty are encouraged to communicate with each student separately. The Faculty member or the student may request the presence at the consultation meeting of the Ombudsperson.

When an in-person meeting is not possible, the Faculty member may communicate with the student in writing. Written communication should be sent to the student’s University e-mail address.

The student must be given the opportunity to respond to the allegation of misconduct. When communication is made in writing, students will be given 10 calendar days to respond.

After conferring with the student and/or considering the student’s written response, the Faculty member may determine that there has been no misconduct, in which case the Faculty member may dismiss the allegation and take no further action.

If the Faculty member determines that it is more likely than not that the student committed an act of academic misconduct, regardless of the student’s intent to engage in misconduct, the case moves to Stage 1 in the review process.

Faculty members who will not be available to participate fully in resolving allegations (e.g., Individuals holding part-time or temporary appointments, those on sabbatical or other leave, or those leaving University employment) must provide a copy of all documentation to the immediate supervising administrator: department chair, program director, center director, or dean of school, who will serve as a proxy for the Faculty member to conclude the case.

If grades are awarded while the case is in progress, the Faculty member should assign a temporary grade placeholder of Grade Delay “GD” pending the outcome of the review process.

6.5.4.1.1 Student Admits Responsibility

If the student admits responsibility for the alleged misconduct, the Faculty member may immediately impose an appropriate academic sanction. The faculty member must document the case and the sanction on the Graduate Academic Misconduct Referral form and send the form to the Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs. Faculty members are advised to consult with the Graduate Advisor for the student’s program and with the Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs prior to imposing the academic sanction.

6.5.4.1.2 Student Does Not Admit Responsibility

If the student does not admit responsibility but the Faculty member makes a determination of misconduct, the Faculty member will refer the case to the Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs using the Graduate Academic Misconduct Referral Form. The referral form must include the

student’s name and student identification number, the name of the class in which the act took place, the date or time period in which the act occurred, a description of the academic misconduct, a summary of actions taken, all original documentation supporting the charge (including a copy of the course syllabus and other written communication that addresses academic integrity standards and expectations for the course) and the academic actions and disciplinary sanctions recommended by the Faculty member. Faculty members are advised to consult with the Graduate Advisor for the student’s program and with the Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs prior to recommending sanctions.

The Faculty member also will evaluate the disputed assignment or examination on its merits and note the grade to be assigned in the event that the student is not found responsible for violation of the
University of California Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline or where insufficient evidence exists to hold the student responsible.

Upon receipt of the Academic Misconduct Referral Form, the Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs will notify the student of the University of California Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline that was allegedly violated, the factual basis for the charges, and the plan to conduct an Initial [Administrative] Review of the case. The student will be advised that the Initial [Administrative] Review is intended as a thorough exposition of all related facts and written materials associated with the alleged misconduct, and that it is not intended as an adversarial criminal or civil legal proceeding. The student will also be informed of his or her right to be assisted by an advisor of his or her choice. Such written notification will occur within 20 calendar days of the receipt of the referral by the Associate Dean and will be sent to the student’s University e-mail address.

A student may not avoid the imposition of a sanction by withdrawing from a course. A student officially notified of alleged academic misconduct may not withdraw from the course until the determination of responsibility is made and any sanctions are imposed. A sanction for a violation of academic integrity that affects the course grade will be applied. If the student is found not responsible for academic misconduct, the student will be permitted to withdraw from the course in accordance with campus regulations.

6.5.4.2 Review Stage 1: Initial [Administrative] Review

The Initial [Administrative] Review, conducted by the Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs, involves meetings with the student, the Faculty member, and others who may have relevant information. The student will have the opportunity to discuss any extenuating circumstances, causes, and motivations that may have contributed to the alleged misconduct. If the Associate Dean deems it necessary, a joint meeting will be scheduled at a time when both the Faculty member and the student can attend. If the Faculty member is unavailable for a timely Initial [Administrative] Review, the immediate supervising administrator will be asked to serve in place of the Faculty member.

6.5.4.2.1 Outcome of the Initial [Administrative] Review

If the Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs determines that it is more likely than not that the student is responsible for academic misconduct, the academic actions recommended by the Faculty member, as well as any disciplinary sanctions imposed by the University, will be assigned.

The determination shall be forwarded by the Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs in writing to the student within 20 calendar days of the Initial [Administrative] Review; notice will be sent to the student’s University e-mail address and communicated to the Faculty member and to the dean of the college/school in accordance with legitimate educational interest criteria as articulated by the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. In cases where the Faculty member has held a grade in abeyance pending the outcome of an Initial
[Administrative] Review, he or she shall submit a final grade to the Registrar that is consistent with the determination by the Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs as to the question of misconduct. Either the student or faculty member can appeal the decision of the Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs.

Cases involving a student with a record of previous academic misconduct or cases that are sufficiently complex to require additional consultation shall be referred directly by the Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs for a Stage 2 review by the Graduate Academic Integrity Committee for a formal hearing.

6.5.4.3 Review Stage 2: Complex Cases and Appeals from Stage 1

Review Stage 2 is reserved for cases involving a student with a record of previous academic misconduct or cases that are sufficiently complex or egregious to require additional consultation by the Graduate Academic Integrity Committee [GAIC] for a formal hearing. Review Stage 2 also serves as the stage for appeals of decisions made at Review Stage 1. Appellate decisions at Review Stage 2 are final.

The Academic Senate’s Committee on Committees will appoint faculty to the Graduate Academic Integrity Committee to serve one-year terms, effective September 1-August 31, and will appoint one faculty member from the GAIC to serve as chair. The GAIC will consist of at least one member from each school and at least two members from each college and should include faculty who are available to participate in hearing during the summer months.

In addition, the Graduate Division will solicit and review applications from interested graduate students and make recommendations to the Graduate Student Association of UCR regarding students to be appointed to serve on the GAIC for one-year terms, effective September 1-August 31. The final endorsement of student members will rest with the Committee on Committees.   Students are not eligible to serve if they have been suspended or are on academic or disciplinary probation, have been evicted from University Housing for reasons related to conduct, or have a case pending before the Graduate Division, GAIC, or Graduate Council.

Faculty and student members should represent the disciplinary diversity within each college/school, whenever possible. Staff support to the committee will be provided by the Graduate Division.

6.5.4.3.1 Hearing Panels

For each Stage 2 case, the chair of the GAIC will schedule a hearing panel of three to five GAIC members. A quorum is required for a hearing to proceed and consists of three persons, including at least one faculty member and one student.

The Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs or designee will serve as a non-voting member of the hearing panel. The chair of the hearing panel shall rule on all questions of procedure and evidence, including but not limited to: the order of presentation of evidence, admissibility of evidence, applicability of regulations to a particular case, and relevance of testimony.

6.5.4.3.2 Hearing Procedures

1.   Preparation: Prior to the hearing, panel members will receive and review a copy of the notification of charges and documentary evidence provided by the Faculty member, the University, and the student.

2.   Introductory comments: At the beginning of the hearing, the chair will ask any panel members to disqualify themselves from participation if they believe that they cannot render a just and fair decision, and will permit the student to request that a member be disqualified if the student believes for an appropriate reason that a panel member cannot render a just and fair decision. If a student or Faculty member of the hearing panel is disqualified, another member will be appointed to fill the same role, if needed for a quorum. The chair will read aloud the charges of academic misconduct, and the student will be asked to respond to the charges by (a) accepting responsibility, (b) accepting responsibility and noting that there are mitigating circumstances, or (c) denying responsibility for the alleged violation of the University of California Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline.

3.   Presentation of accounts: The Faculty member and the student will be given the opportunity to present their accounts of the incident and to present any witnesses or other individuals who may have relevant information about the alleged academic misconduct. Hearing panel members will be given an opportunity to ask questions of the Faculty member, the student, and witnesses. Each party will then be asked if there is additional information needed, or if any discrepancies or questions need to be presented or addressed.

4.   Deliberation: The hearing panel will deliberate in private to decide, by a majority vote, if a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the student is responsible or not responsible for alleged violation of University of California Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline.

5.   Determination of sanctions: If the student is found to be responsible for violations of policies, the hearing panel shall be informed of the student’s prior record of academic misconduct. Based on this information and the recommendation of the faculty member, the committee will determine the disciplinary sanctions to be assigned, how and for how long the record of the sanctions will be maintained on the student’s permanent record, and the conditions that must be met for the record to be removed, if any.

6.   Notification of decision: Once the hearing panel has reached a decision, the parties will reassemble, and the results of the deliberation will be presented. Within 20 calendar days, the Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs will send written notification to the student, the Faculty member, and the dean or his/her designated associate dean for student academic affairs of the college/school detailing the decision and the sanctions imposed by the hearing panel. The notification will also outline the appeal process.

7.   Records: An audio recording of the hearing, but not the deliberations of the hearing panel, shall be made and retained by the Graduate Division as part of the record for as long as the disciplinary record is retained, or for seven years from the date of decision, whichever is shorter (see Section 6 below). The student may obtain a copy of the recording upon paying the expense of making such copy. Either party may arrange for a stenographer to make a full transcript of the proceedings at his/her own expense. If one party has the proceedings transcribed, arrangements shall be made before the hearing as to how to apportion the cost if both parties want copies. Other than for the purpose of the official record as provided above, mechanical or electronic devices for recording or broadcasting shall be excluded from the hearing.

6.5.4.4 Review Stage 3: Appeals from Stage 2 and Annual Assessment of Cases

Review Stage 3 is reserved for appeals of primary decisions made at Review Stage 2, and for annual assessment of cases adjudicated at Review Stages 1 and 2. For each Stage 3 case, the Chair of the Graduate Council or designee shall select a 3-5 member subcommittee of the Graduate Council to serve as an appeal panel. Each Stage 3 hearing will be conducted according to the Hearing Procedures described above in Section 4.3.2.

The Graduate Council additionally conducts annual assessments of cases adjudicated at Review Stages
1 and 2 for the purpose of providing oversight and ensuring that policies and procedures are appropriately and consistently applied.

6.5.5 Appeals

Decisions of the Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs may be appealed to the GAIC. Appellate decisions by the GAIC are final. Primary decisions of the GAIC may be appealed to the Graduate Council. Appellate decisions by the Graduate Council are final. In any decision that includes a sanction of dismissal of a graduate student, the Dean of the Graduate Division will be the final arbiter.

6.5.5.1 Criteria for Appeals

Appeals must be based on one or more of the following:

• New evidence not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing, the absence of which can be shown to have had a detrimental impact on the outcome of the hearing
• Procedural error that can be shown to have had a detrimental impact on the outcome of the hearing
• Errors in the interpretation of University policy so substantial as to deny one of the parties a fair hearing
• Grossly inappropriate sanction having no reasonable relationship to the charges

6.5.5.2 Appeal Procedures

1.   The Faculty member or the student may appeal a decision in writing to the appropriate body for appeal, as described above. The appeal must be made within 10 calendar days after the written decision is made available.

2.   Appeals must be authored and signed by the submitting party. Appeals produced by advisors or other non- parties will not be considered.

3.   The filing of a timely appeal suspends the imposition of sanctions until the appeal is decided. Grades or degrees will be withheld pending conclusion of the appeal.

4.   When an appeal has been filed, the relevant parties may be requested to respond in writing to the matters in question before a decision about the appeal is made. The non-appealing party, whether student or Faculty member, will be notified of the appeal within 10 calendar days and will be given an opportunity to submit a written statement for consideration within 20 calendar days.

5.   The appellate body will determine whether the grounds for appeal have been satisfied and whether further process is necessary to resolve the appeal. Findings of fact will be accepted as determined by the original adjudicating body, unless the appellate body determines that the original adjudicating body acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or unfair manner.

6.   The appellate body will make a decision based on the written submissions within 20 calendar days, or indicate in writing what further process is necessary for final resolution.

7.   The appellate body may approve, reject, or modify the decision and sanction in question. The action taken shall be communicated in writing to the student, the Faculty member, and the original adjudicating body within 20 calendar days after receipt of the appeal and related documents. The decision of the appellate body is final.

6.5.6 Maintenance of Records

Graduate Division shall serve as the central location where all written, audio, and electronic records of incidents of academic misconduct are kept on file. The records will be readily available for review by the Deans and Associate Deans of each College or School, the Dean of the Graduate Division, the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost, and the Vice Provost for Conflict Resolution, in accordance with legitimate educational interest criteria as articulated by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

The file of a student found in violation of campus regulations (including the transcripts or recordings of the hearing) will be maintained for a period of at least seven years from the date of the letter providing notice of final disciplinary action, unless otherwise determined by the Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs. When a student is suspended as a result of a violation of the University of California Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline, the fact that suspension was imposed must be posted on the academic transcript for the duration of the suspension. When a student is dismissed, the fact that dismissal was imposed must be posted on the academic transcript permanently.

7 U.C. Riverside Procedures for Discontinuance of a Program (Adopted by the Academic Senate April 24, 1980) (Amended by the Academic Senate May 10, 1984)

PREAMBLE

The ultimate decision to recommend the transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance of an academic program resides with the Academic Senate of the campus and that of a unit resides with the Chancellor. In the context of these procedures, a program is defined as a course of study leading to a degree, and a unit is a school, college, department, or division within a department,
school, or college. If such a decision is to be judicious it can be made only after consultation with, and upon the advice of, the faculty, the students, the Chairperson of the program and/or the Chairperson of the academic unit in which the program is housed, the Executive Committee and the
Dean of the college or school that administers the program, and the appropriate committees of the Academic Senate. If transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance of a graduate program or unit is under consideration, the Graduate Dean, in addition to the foregoing agencies,
should be consulted.

PROCEDURES FOR TRANSFER, CONSOLIDATION, DISESTABLISHMENT, OR DISCONTINUANCE OF AN ACADEMIC PROGRAM, OR UNIT

Regardless of the origin of the initial recommendation for transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance, the Senate feels that deliberations by, and consultation with, the abovementioned agencies of the campus must occur prior to the final decision by the Academic Senate in the case of programs or by the Chancellor in the case of units. To assure that such consultation has taken place, the following procedures are established.

Some units may administer more than one program (e.g., a graduate and an undergraduate program in one department; a program in a specific language and the program in Comparative Literature in the Department of Literatures and Languages). On the other hand, some programs may be the joint responsibility of more than one unit, e.g., a program under the responsibility of an interdepartmental committee.

1 A proposal for the transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance of a program or unit may originate with a department, program or group; with the Dean of the college or school to which the department, program or group is administratively attached; or with the Committee on Educational Policy or the Graduate Council. A proposal for the transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance of a unit may also originate with an appropriate vice Chancellor. If the unit or program being considered for transfer, consolidation or termination is unique in the University, or if its closure would have systemwide or intersegmental effects, the President shall be consulted early in the process.

2 If the request for transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance originates with a department, program, or group, it shall be forwarded to the Committee on Educational Policy, the Graduate Council, and the Committees on Academic Personnel and Planning and Budget.

3 If the proposal for transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance originates with the Dean of the college or school or with a vice Chancellor, it shall be forwarded to the Committee on Educational Policy, the Graduate Council, and the Committees on Academic Personnel and Planning and Budget, but only after consultation with the department, program or group under consideration and with the Executive Committee of the college or school. The Executive Committee may refer the recommendation to the Faculty of the College or school, for its advice, if the committee deems it necessary or advisable. Responses of these agencies of the school or college shall be appended to the Dean's or vice Chancellor's letter of transmission to committees of the Academic Senate.

4 If the proposal for transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance arises with the Committee on Educational Policy or the Graduate Council, the department, program or group, the Dean of the college or school, and the Executive Committee of the college or school must all be given the opportunity to review the proposal, make comments, and present relevant materials before any final recommendation is made by the Committee on Educational Policy or the Graduate Council.

5 Senate committees reviewing the proposal shall consult, early in the deliberations, with the Chairperson, Faculty and students of the program or unit under review, and with the Dean and the Executive Committee of the college or school to which the program or unit is administratively attached, if deemed necessary. Consultation shall also take place with Faculty and students of related departments, programs or groups that would be affected by a decision to transfer, consolidate, disestablish, or discontinue. The recommendations of the Committees on Academic Personnel and Planning and Budget shall be sought. Consultation between the Committee on Educational Policy, the Graduate Council and the Committees on Academic Personnel and Planning and Budget shall be maintained throughout the review process.

a) A Special Review Committee, normally consisting of individuals from other campuses or institutions, will be appointed by the Advisory Committee of the Academic Senate in consultation with the Administration, the Executive Committee of the college or school and the program/department concerned. The charge to the Committee shall be developed by the Dean and the Executive Vice Chancellor and shall be subject to the review of the Advisory Committee. A review will be promptly carried out by the Special Review Committee.

b) The report of the Special Review Committee, together with the file and other documentation will be assessed by the Committees on Educational Policy, Academic Personnel, and Planning and Budget, and by the Graduate Council in cases of review of graduate programs. This assessment is to be carried out in consultation with the Chancellor, the Executive Vice Chancellor, the President (if required by Systemwide procedures) and other interested individuals and groups, including the program/department being reviewed.

c) The Executive Vice Chancellor shall submit the report of the Special Committee to his/her Student Committee on Budget and Academic Planning for its review and recommendation.

d) The results of Senate committee deliberations will be transmitted to the Advisory Committee which shall submit its recommendations to the Division for action and the Executive Vice Chancellor shall provide as information to the item any comments from the Student Committee on Budget and Academic Planning.

6 Faculty shall retain the right, at all times during deliberations, to advise the Executive Committee of their college or school, or the committees of the Academic Senate, on the proposal.

7 In all cases the deliberations of the Committee on Educational Policy and/or the Graduate Council shall be in consultation with the Chancellor and the appropriate vice Chancellors.*

* Under the present administrative organization of the campus, the appropriate vice Chancellors would be the Executive Vice Chancellor. The proposed wording is intentionally non-specific to allow for possible future changes in designated titles.

8 If, after the foregoing review, a recommendation for transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance is reached by the Committee on Educational Policy, for undergraduate programs or units, or by the Graduate Council, for graduate programs or units, or for an entire program, the Advisory Committee shall present the recommendation to the Division for its action. Concurrence or dissent, and the arguments therefore, shall be presented at the same time, by the Graduate Council, for undergraduate programs or units, and by the Committee on Educational Policy, for graduate programs or units.**

**The Committee on Educational Policy should have the opportunity to comment on the transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance of graduate programs or units, and the Graduate Council on the transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance of undergraduate programs or units.

9 After completion of the foregoing procedures, the results of the consultation on units and the results of any final decisions on programs shall be reported by the Division to the Chancellor. If the decision is to transfer, consolidate, disestablish, or discontinue a program, it shall be reported to the Systemwide Administration as prescribed universitywide. If the decision is to recommend the transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance of a unit or the disestablishment of a degree, the recommendation shall be made to the Systemwide Administration as prescribed universitywide.

10 No programs or units shall be transferred, consolidated, disestablished, or discontinued until the enrolled students can be accommodated in a fashion that will assure completion of the degree. Arrangements shall be made for the orderly and appropriate accommodations of academic and staff employees whose positions are affected by a decision to disestablish or discontinue or to transfer to another campus or to combine with another program or programs on a different campus. These arrangements shall be in accordance with existing personnel policies to the extent that they are adequate for each specific decision. Where existing policies are not adequate, supplemental policies shall be developed by the Systemwide Administration through appropriate consultation with the Academic Senate. Until such policies are adopted, historical precedent and established practice shall supplement existing personnel policies. Under no circumstances shall the transfer, consolidation, disestablishment or discontinuance of a program or unit result in the termination of a tenured Faculty member from the University of California.

11 The campus will report any transfers, consolidations and discontinuances annually on its Academic Program Inventory.

5/3/89: Editorial corrections were made with reference to Committee on Budget and Interdepartmental Relations and vice Chancellor designations by the Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction.


More Information

General Campus Information

University of California, Riverside
900 University Ave.
Riverside, CA 92521
Tel: (951) 827-1012

Career OpportunitiesUCR Libraries
Campus StatusDirections to UCR

Department Information

Academic Senate Office
900 University Avenue
231 University Office Bldg
Riverside, CA 92521

Tel: (951) 827-5538
Fax: (951) 827-5545

Footer