POLICY #6.33
SUBJECT: Academic Integrity

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of this Policy is to create a campus wide academic integrity Policy for Students and Faculty to use if a Student is alleged to have engaged in Academic Misconduct while earning academic credit.

II. REFERENCES

15 U.S.C. § 9401 Definitions
42 C.F.R. Part 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct
Southern Utah University Policy 6.0 Definition of Faculty
Southern Utah University Policy 6.2 Academic Officers
Southern Utah University Policy 6.14 Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct
Southern Utah University Policy 6.19 Grade Appeal
Southern Utah University Policy 6.31 Academic Standards
Southern Utah University Policy 11.2 Student Conduct Code

III. DEFINITIONS

Academic Integrity Specialist: A Faculty or staff member, with teaching experience, designated by the Provost that serves as a resource for Faculty and Students throughout the Academic Misconduct process and collaborates with the Dean of Students Office and other administrators, as necessary, on matters related to possible Academic Misconduct.
Academic Misconduct: A broad term that is used to describe a violation of academic integrity, including but not limited to Cheating, Complicity, Fabrication, Falsification, and Plagiarism collectively. Academic Misconduct is behavior that has the effect of causing readers, evaluators, or consumers of a work, data, or information to incorrectly believe the Student is the authentic source of the work, data, or information.
Academic Officer: University Provost, Associate Provosts, Deans of Academic Colleges/Schools, Associate Deans, Department Chairs, and Associate Department Chairs. See SUU Policy 6.2.
Artificial Intelligence: “A machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations or decisions influencing real or virtual environments.” (U.S. Code § 9401) See also definition from Cornell Law.
Cheating: Unauthorized use or attempted use of materials, devices, information, notes, study aids, Artificial Intelligence, fellow Students, or other assistance during any academic assessment such as examinations, in or out of class assignments, or other forms of assessment. Cheating is a type of Academic Misconduct.
Clearly Erroneous: A decision, determination, or finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the Academic Integrity Specialist or Panel Chair, in reviewing all the evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. See definition from Cornell Law.
Complicity: Assisting or attempting to assist another person in any act of Academic Misconduct. Complicity includes, but is not limited to, allowing other Students to copy one’s own work, paying for resources or assistance, providing material of any kind that may be misleading to Faculty, and providing unauthorized information about any assessments to other Students or uploading any information/work created by Faculty to any website without the written consent of Faculty to do so. Complicity is a type of Academic Misconduct.
Day(s): Dates and times when the University conducts its regular business. Most often that is Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM Mountain Daylight/Standard Time. Dates and times when the University is closed for breaks between academic terms, federal and state holidays, or for emergency declarations by government officials, are not counted in the timelines established by this Policy. University officials participating in investigations or proceedings established by this Policy do not count the Day official correspondence/notice is sent/transmitted. Rather, the first Day of the relevant time interval is the Day immediately after correspondence/notice/decision is sent. The last Day of a relevant time interval will conclude at 5:00 PM.
Fabrication: Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them. The use of invented, counterfeited, altered or forged information in assessments of any type including activities requiring Students to be involved in out of classroom experiences. Students must have participated in the activities for which they have reported participation. Fabrication is a type of Academic Misconduct.
Faculty: See definition of Faculty at SUU Policy 6.0.
Falsification: Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data, information, text, or results such that the research, data, or work is not accurately represented. Falsification is a type of Academic Misconduct.
Initial Meeting: A first meeting between Faculty and a Student to discuss suspected Academic Misconduct.
Misconduct in Scholarship: Serious deviation from the accepted professional practices within a discipline or from the policies of the University in carrying out, reporting, or exhibiting the results of research or in publishing, exhibiting, or performing creative endeavors. It includes the Fabrication or Falsification of data, Plagiarism, and scientific or creative misrepresentation. It does not include honest error or honest disagreement about the interpretation of data. Additional information about Misconduct in Scholarship can be found in SUU Policy 6.14. Misconduct in Scholarship is a type of Academic Misconduct.
Multiple Submission: The submission of the same or substantially the same work for credit in two (2) or more courses without the consent of the respective Faculty. Multiple Submission shall include the unauthorized use of any prior academic effort previously submitted for academic credit at this or a different institution. Multiple Submission is a type of Academic Misconduct.
Notice of Academic Misconduct: Written electronic communication sent by Faculty, using their SUU email, and issued to the Student’s(s’) official email of record, or for Students currently enrolled in the Faculty’s class, through a confidential Canvas inbox message, making them aware of potential Academic Misconduct.
Panel Chair: The Panel Chair is the Dean of Students or designee. The Panel Chair convenes and oversees the Panel Hearing Process.
Panel Hearing Process: A process where a Hearing Panel will conduct a formal hearing for the purposes of reviewing the evidence and coming to a finding of responsibility and disciplinary actions. Refer to SUU Policy 11.2.
Plagiarism: The intentional or unintentional appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another's work, which materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly-identical phrases which describe a commonly-used methodology. Plagiarism is a type of Academic Misconduct.
Preponderance of Evidence: This is the standard of evidence that guides the decision-making for this Policy. A Preponderance exists when the evidence indicates it is more likely than not (or more than 50 percent in favor) that Academic Misconduct occurred.
Respondent: A Student accused of having violated this Policy. A Student assumes the role of Respondent when they are expected to offer a response to a Faculty’s allegation of Academic Misconduct.
Sanction: Actions or conditions imposed as a result of a Student being found responsible for a violation of this Policy.
Student: See definition at SUU Policy 11.2.
Student Conduct Officer: See definition at SUU Policy 11.2. For the purpose of this Policy, the Academic Integrity Specialist serves as the Student Conduct Officer.
Witness: See definition at SUU Policy 11.2.

IV. POLICY

1. Prohibiting Misconduct and Student Responsibility. Students are prohibited from engaging in Academic Misconduct, including but not limited to Cheating, Complicity, Fabrication or Falsification, Misconduct in Scholarship, Multiple Submissions of an assignment, obstruction, Plagiarism, unauthorized use of translation devices or Artificial Intelligence, and/or uploading course content. Engaging in Academic Misconduct is a violation of this Policy. Students are responsible for knowing what constitutes Academic Misconduct per this Policy and seeking clarification about what they are authorized to use in completing academic work. It is the responsibility of Students to consult with their Faculty for clarification in any situation in which the need for documentation is an issue.
2. Faculty Responsibility. Faculty are responsible for monitoring Academic Misconduct and maintaining principles of academic integrity within their course(s). In order to support academic integrity and deter Academic Misconduct campus-wide, when Faculty discover, suspect, or are made aware of an incident of Academic Misconduct, they shall follow the steps outlined in both the Notice of Academic Misconduct (below) and SUU’s Process Checklist for Alleged Academic Misconduct Violations.
  1. Faculty are encouraged to take steps within the classroom to create an environment that discourages Academic Misconduct. For example, Faculty may take steps before or during a test to prevent Students from seeing the work of other Students and are encouraged to share with Students the various resources that can help identify Plagiarism before assignments are submitted. Faculty are responsible for communicating to students what constitutes authorized versus unauthorized use as it relates to Academic Misconduct.
  2. If Faculty observe or otherwise become aware of a Student engaging in Academic Misconduct, then the Faculty shall follow the steps outlined in the Process Checklist for Alleged Academic Misconduct Violations.
    1. Courses housed in multiple departments: If suspected Academic Misconduct takes place in a course that is housed in multiple departments and/or team-taught by Faculty from multiple departments, only one Faculty will be responsible for sending the Notice of Academic Misconduct and setting up the Initial Meeting, generally the Faculty who first observed or was made aware of the suspected Academic Misconduct.
    2. Students facing multiple accounts of suspected Academic Misconduct in the same or multiple academic courses simultaneously: Students must receive due process for each suspected act of Academic Misconduct.
    3. Academic Misconduct discovered after grades are recorded or a degree, certificate, or credential is posted: Current and former Students are subject to the same processes and Sanctions, which may include, but is not limited to, change in grades, revocation of any associated degree(s), certificate(s), or credential(s).
3. Process for Resolving Alleged Academic Misconduct Violations.
  1. Observation of Academic Misconduct. If a Faculty member observes Academic Misconduct happening in the classroom, they may address it with the Student in the moment, making sure that the resolution is in proportion to the offense.
    1. If the Faculty member believes the Student's action(s) does not warrant a punitive Sanction but another response (i.e., asking them to move seats during an exam) no further action needs to be taken.
    2. If the Faculty member believes that the Student's action(s) in class is egregious enough to warrant a Sanction, the Faculty member shall send official Notice of Academic Misconduct, using the Notice of Academic Misconduct process described below, to the Student at the earliest opportunity, and no later than five (5) Days of first becoming aware of suspicious conduct to ensure that there is an official record of the incident and that the Student(s) is/are provided with due process.
    3. If a Faculty suspects Academic Misconduct has occurred outside of the classroom, for example while evaluating Student work, and believes a Sanction should be issued, they shall follow the procedures as described below.
  2. Initial Meeting. Faculty that suspect a Student has engaged in Academic Misconduct shall initiate an Initial Meeting by sending, to the Student’s email of record, or for Students currently enrolled in the Faculty’s class through a confidential Canvas inbox message, an official Notice of Academic Misconduct within five (5) Days of first becoming aware of suspicious conduct or circumstances that plausibly indicate Academic Misconduct.
    1. The Notice of Academic Misconduct shall be sent electronically to the Student and should be retained, in its original form, by the Faculty, so as to verify the Process Checklist for Alleged Academic Misconduct Violations has been followed. The Notice of Academic Misconduct shall include the following information:
      1. A clear and concise description of the facts and information that has led the Faculty Member to suspect that the Student has engaged in Academic Misconduct and/or circumstances surrounding the Student’s performance, on a particular assignment, activity, or assessment;
      2. The basis for the alleged Policy violation by the Student (e.g., Cheating, Plagiarism, Falsification);
      3. A statement explaining the purposes of the Initial Meeting, which are to explain the resolution process established by this Policy, share the evidence that supports the allegation, and extend an opportunity to the Student to explain their view of the allegations and/or share exculpatory information before the Faculty renders a decision;
      4. A statement requesting the Student meet with the Faculty within five (5) Days of the Notice of Academic Misconduct being sent to the Student;
      5. A statement that includes an explanation that the Faculty may proceed with the Initial Meeting and may make a decision that is unfavorable to the Student should the Student fail to respond or declines/fails to meet within five (5) Days of the Notice of Academic Misconduct being sent to the Student;
      6. A statement explaining that either the Faculty or the Student may request to have an Academic Officer present at the Initial Meeting and the process for making that request; and
      7. A statement that references the standard of evidence relied upon in Academic Misconduct cases, which is the Preponderance of Evidence (“more likely than not”).
    2. Prior to the Initial Meeting and decision-making period, the University does not allow Students to withdraw from the course to avoid accountability for the alleged violation, nor may a Student withdraw after the resolution process has concluded to mitigate the consequence of a violation.
    3. In facilitating the Initial Meeting, the Faculty will describe and/or share evidence supporting the suspicion of Academic Misconduct before inviting the Student to respond to the allegations. If relying on technology or software that detects Falsification or Plagiarism to produce evidence, the Faculty shall explain how the technology or software detects activity that may constitute Academic Misconduct (e.g., similarity scores). The Faculty shall strive to be objective, impartial, respectful, and not accusatory during the Initial Meeting and invite the Student to offer their personal explanations for the circumstances or exculpatory evidence they may possess. The Faculty need not make a determination in the Initial Meeting, though they may after the Student has an opportunity to present information, but Faculty also may seek to verify information that the Student presents during the Initial Meeting before rendering a decision.
    4. The Faculty is responsible for the burden of proof to support the suspicion of Academic Misconduct and may not shift that responsibility to the Student by asking them to complete a similar task or activity during the Initial Meeting to prove their innocence.
    5. After the Initial Meeting, the Faculty shall determine whether a Preponderance of Evidence demonstrates conduct that constitutes a violation of this Policy. If the Faculty concludes the Student violated the Policy, they may impose commensurate Sanctions that may include one or more of the following:
      1. A warning that confirms Academic Misconduct occurred and that future violations of the Policy may lead to more consequential Sanctions;
      2. A reduced grade on the assignment, assessment or course. This can result in a loss of points, a lower letter grade, or a zero/failing grade. Any Sanction that results in a reduced grade, either for an individual grade or a final grade, is not eligible for a grade appeal (SUU Policy 6.19);
      3. A requirement to revise the assignment or retake an assessment of equivalent difficulty within a predetermined time frame set by the Faculty;
      4. Manual submission of a grade for the course to the Registrar's Office. A transcript comment indicating that there was "Academic Misconduct" will be attached to the course and grade signifying that the Student violated this Policy. Grades assigned as part of this Policy shall not be eliminated or discounted from a Student’s cumulative GPA or academic record by repeating the class or requesting academic renewal;
      5. Removal from the course with a failing grade. Any Sanction that results in a reduced grade, either for an individual grade or a final grade, is not eligible for a grade appeal (SUU Policy 6.19);
      6. Recommendation that the Student be dismissed from the particular program of study in which the Student is enrolled. If the Academic Misconduct occurs in a prerequisite course for admission to a particular program of study, the Faculty may recommend that the Student be denied admission to the program of study;
      7. Recommendation that the Student be suspended or expelled from the University;
      8. Reduction of a previously posted grade;
      9. Revocation of a previously granted degree, certificate, and/or credential.
  3. Post-Meeting Written Determination.
    1. After the Initial Meeting, and within five (5) Days of the Initial Meeting, the Faculty must provide the Student with a written determination using the template referenced in this Policy that documents the following:
      1. A clear and concise statement of the allegations giving rise to the Initial Meeting;
      2. The date, time, and location of the Initial Meeting;
      3. A statement explaining the supporting and refuting evidence that was considered and what information was persuasive to the Faculty in reaching their conclusion;
      4. A statement explaining that the Faculty relied on the Preponderance of Evidence in determining the facts;
      5. A clear and concise statement that identifies whether the Student has violated the Policy based on whether the conduct—as determined by the findings of fact—meets the definition of Academic Misconduct;
      6. A clear and concise statement outlining any Sanctions that will be imposed (if the Faculty determines the Student is in violation of the Policy);
      7. A statement explaining the justification for the determined Sanctions; and
      8. A statement explaining the opportunity to have the Faculty’s decision on violation and/or Sanctions reviewed and reconsidered by the Academic Integrity Specialist.
      9. If the Faculty determines that the Student is not in violation of the Policy, a written determination reflecting that outcome with the first five (5) components included in this list must be prepared.
    2. If the Faculty member determines Academic Misconduct has occurred, the Faculty member will send the written determination and supportive relevant information to the Academic Integrity Specialist and Student within five (5) Days of the Initial Meeting. All instances of Academic Misconduct will be recorded by the Academic Integrity Specialist in the University’s central case management database and the Student’s academic record.
    3. The Academic Integrity Specialist will notify the Registrar of any Sanctions that may need the Registrar’s expertise to implement.
  4. Review and Reconsideration by the Academic Integrity Specialist.
    1. A Student found to be in violation of the Policy may request, in writing and within five (5) Days of the send date of the Faculty’s written determination, that the matter be reviewed by the Academic Integrity Specialist.
    2. The Academic Integrity Specialist then conducts a review, at which point the Specialist will contact the Student or Faculty only if information is missing from the record/file or requires clarification.
    3. The Academic Integrity Specialist may consider any of the following during the review:
      1. Compliance with the Policy procedures for Initial Meetings. If there is a departure from the process and procedures, the Specialist may return/remand the matter to the Faculty to
        re-facilitate the Initial Meeting to cure any defect/departure that may have disfavored the Student to such an extent that the outcome of the Meeting may have been different if the original Initial Meeting had followed the Policy procedures.
      2. Compliance with the standard of evidence. The Academic Integrity Specialist may review the evidence from both the Student and the Faculty and evaluate its weight, persuasiveness, probative value, and sufficiency in concluding the Preponderance of Evidence demonstrates Academic Misconduct. If the Faculty’s conclusion is Clearly Erroneous, the Academic Integrity Specialist may modify or nullify the Faculty’s written determination and communicate that decision in writing to both the Student and Faculty.
      3. New evidence, brought forth by the Student or Faculty, that was not available at the time of the Initial Meeting.
      4. Commensurateness of Sanctions. The Academic Integrity Specialist may evaluate the extent to which the Sanctions are commensurate with the seriousness of the Student’s Academic Misconduct and/or the consistency of the Sanctions for a violation of the type found to have occurred. The Academic Integrity Specialist seeks to establish a consistent imposition of Sanctions so that similar violations of the Policy are treated similarly by Faculty across the University.
      5. Previous Academic Misconduct. If a Student has, on previous occasion(s), been found responsible for Academic Misconduct, as documented in University systems the Academic Integrity Specialist may impose a more severe and/or additional Sanction(s) than originally determined by the Faculty.
      6. Recommendations of the Department Chair, Program Director, and/or Dean. The Academic Integrity Specialist may request relevant academic administrators provide a recommendation for the appropriate Sanction(s) if the Student is found to be responsible for Academic Misconduct.
    4. The Academic Integrity Specialist may conclude that the Faculty’s written determination, including any Sanctions, is not Clearly Erroneous as described in the above review process; may alter Sanctions to be more or less severe; or may determine, based on a Preponderance of Evidence and/or new evidence, that the Student did not engage in Academic Misconduct, reverse the Policy violation finding, and rescind any imposed Sanctions.
      1. The Academic Integrity Specialist sends, via email, written notification of the outcome of their review to the Student, Faculty, and relevant administrators within 10 Days of receiving the review request.
      2. If the Academic Integrity Specialist determines the Faculty’s written determination is supported by a Preponderance of the Evidence, and Sanctions include dismissal from the program of study, University suspension, or University expulsion, the Academic Integrity Specialist will notify the Student, electronically, that they may appeal the determination through a Panel Hearing as set forth in SUU Policy 11.2. The Student must submit a request, via email, for a Panel Hearing to the Academic Integrity Specialist within five (5) Days of the Academic Integrity Specialist’s notification. The Panel Hearing Process will serve as the Student’s final appeal regarding the alleged Academic Misconduct. The outcome of the Panel Hearing shall be the final decision of the University (without further appeal).
      3. If the Academic Integrity Specialist upholds the Faculty’s written determination and Sanctions are any lesser than dismissal from the program of study, University suspension, or University expulsion, the Academic Integrity Specialist’s review and reconsideration is the final decision of the University, unless the imposition of a failing grade for the course has the de facto effect of dismissal from a program of study or denial of admission to a program of study.
  5. Appeal Panel Hearing Process. The University follows the procedures for Panel Hearings under SUU Policy 11.2 for a Panel Hearing under this Policy.
    1. The Academic Integrity Specialist will function as the Student Conduct Officer.
      1. The Academic Integrity Specialist will present the case information and records to the Hearing Panel members as established in SUU Policy 11.2;
      2. The Academic Integrity Specialist will attend the Panel Hearing and function as the proponent of the allegations, and the Faculty will function as a Witness in the Panel Hearing, to the extent deemed necessary;
      3. The Academic Integrity Specialist will present questions to the Panel Chair that may be asked of the Student Respondent or Witnesses that have been identified by the Student Respondent or the Faculty.
    2. The Student alleged to have engaged in Academic Misconduct will function as the Respondent for the Panel Hearing, and any references to Respondent in SUU Policy 11.2 shall be read to apply to the Student.
    3. The Hearing Panel will conclude the hearing in accordance with SUU Policy 11.2. In cases of Academic Misconduct, the Hearing Panel issues the final decision and imposes Sanctions available to them under this Policy or Policy 11.2, or any combination of Sanctions. The Hearing Panel is not bound by any previous decision of the Faculty or Academic Integrity Specialist regarding Sanctions and may increase or decrease them when justified.
    4. The Panel Chair will send, via email, written notification of the decision and any additional information pertinent to the Hearing Panel's decision and imposed Sanctions to the Student Respondent, Faculty, Academic Integrity Specialist, Dean of Students, Registrar’s Office (if applicable), and relevant administrators within five (5) Days of the Hearing. Within 10 Days of the Hearing, the Dean of Students records the written notification and its accompanying pertinent information in the University’s central case management database and the Registrar’s Office records the written notification and its accompanying pertinent information in the Student’s academic record.
    5. The decision reached by the Hearing Panel is the final decision of the University. Student Respondents may not appeal the decision of the Hearing Panel; the “Appeals” section of SUU Policy 11.2 does not apply to this Policy.

V. RELEVANT FORMS/LINKS

Academic Honesty
- Process Checklist for Academic Integrity Violations
- Notice of Academic Misconduct Template
- Written Determination Notification Letter Template
- Flow Chart/Decision Tree

VI. QUESTIONS/RESPONSIBLE OFFICE

The responsible office for this Policy is the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs. For questions about academic integrity violations, contact the Office of the Provost. For questions about the appeal process, contact the Academic Integrity Specialist.

VII. POLICY ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT DATES

Date Approved: July 6, 2011

Amended: May 4, 2012; April 25, 2024

POLICY #6.33 SUBJECT: Academic Integrity