Academic Senate

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.

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)

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)

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 ten to twelve faculty members to the undergraduate Academic Integrity Committees for each college and three to six 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)(Am 30 Nov 21)

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)

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)

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)

VI. Scheduling for Hearings and Appeals

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)