Student Academic Integrity Misconduct Procedures - Morris

1.0. Scholastic Dishonesty Complaints/Evidence of Violations

1.1. Should academic dishonesty be evident during the course of an in-class examination, quiz, test, or laboratory tests, it will be the prerogative of the instructor or proctor to remove the papers of those students giving or receiving aid and also to confiscate as evidence any materials or devices designed to supply relevant information. Actions taken by proctors who are not the instructor will be limited to the confiscation of papers, materials or devices. Proctors must report the incident to the instructor as soon as possible and turn over any confiscated evidence.

1.2. A student may become aware that another student in the course is behaving in a way that appears inconsistent with the university’s commitment to academic integrity. Any such behaviors will be reported to the instructor as soon as possible. The instructor will confiscate, as evidence, any appropriate materials.

1.3 Students who believe that student proctors or graders are not fulfilling their responsibilities should discuss the matter with the course instructor. (See Appendix: Student Proctors and Graders: Morris for more information on Students acting as proctors and graders.) The instructor will confiscate, as evidence, any appropriate materials.

1.4. Where there is evidence of academic dishonesty and, in particular, plagiarism on work done out of class, the instructor will confiscate, as evidence, any appropriate materials.

1.5. Where there is evidence of academic dishonesty on work completed outside of a course setting, (such as independent study/research, creative projects, internships, and collaborative projects) the supervisor will confiscate, as evidence, any appropriate materials.

1.6 Any member of the university community observing or becoming aware of behavior that is inconsistent with the University’s commitment to academic integrity should consult with the UMN Morris representative to the University Senate Student Academic Integrity Committee (SAIC) or the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs to report the concern.

2.0. Resolutions

2.1. Non-Hearing Resolution – Work in a Course:

Questions of academic dishonesty should ideally be settled directly by the instructor or supervisor and the student(s) involved.

1. The instructor should meet with the student(s) involved and, after informing the student(s) of the allegation and supporting evidence, attempt, in a timely manner, to reach agreement regarding the veracity of the charges and whether a outcome is to be levied.
2. If a decision is reached by the instructor that academic dishonesty occurred, the instructor should prepare and submit a written report to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs within two weeks of becoming aware of the offense. (See Appendix: Academic Integrity Violation Files for more information on filing the report.)
3. If the student(s) receives the penalty of an F or N grade in the course, the student(s) cannot withdraw from the course. See Administrative Policy: Grading and Transcripts: Twin Cities, Crookston, Morris, Rochester.
4. The Vice Chancellor for student affairs will provide the student with a copy of the report.
5. If the student does not contest the instructor's report the student is considered responsible for the violation of the Student Conduct Code.
6. The student has the option to submit a written statement to file with the report regarding their position on the matter. The statement does not have bearing on the finding but provides a means for students to document their perspective.
7. For a single academic integrity violation, the matter is then considered closed.
8. The academic integrity file is maintained in the Office of Student Affairs. The file is considered part of the student’s academic record – private information protected by FERPA and University policies. Any sharing of information external to the University is done only with the student’s consent or as required by law.

2.2 Non-Hearing Resolution – Work Outside a Course:

1. If an instructor becomes aware that a student in a course has collaborated in academic dishonesty with a student who is not a member of that course, the instructor should prepare and submit a written report to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs within two weeks of becoming aware of the offense. (See Appendix: Academic Integrity Violation Files  for more information on filing the report.)
2. The Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Secretary of the Student Behavior Committee and the UMN Morris Student Academic Integrity Committee (SAIC) representative will consider the veracity of the reported violation. The Vice Chancellor will provide the student with a copy of the report and information on how the report will be addressed.
3. If a violation of academic integrity is determined, the outcome for the student who is not a course member will be determined by the Chair of the Student Behavior Committee, the Chair of the Scholastic Committee and UMN Morris SAIC representative.
4. If the student does not contest the instructor's report or the outcome the student is considered responsible for the violation of the Student Conduct Code.
5. The student has the option to submit a written statement to file with the report regarding their position on the matter. The statement does not have bearing on the finding but provides a means for students to document their perspective.
6. For a single academic integrity violation, the matter is then considered closed.
7. The academic integrity file is maintained in the Office of Student Affairs. The file is considered part of the student's academic record – private information protected by FERPA and University policies. Any sharing of information external to the University is done only with the student's consent or as required by law.

2.3. Resolutions Requiring a Hearing: If a satisfactory resolution between the instructor/supervisor and student(s) cannot be reached, or if the student contests the accusation and/or action of the instructor (or other concerned parties as above in 2.2), the matter may be referred by any of the parties to the Committee on Academic Integrity for resolution. Incidents from Section 1.6 may also be referred for a hearing.

1. All referrals will be in the form of a written report submitted to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs within two weeks of the student being informed of the proposed penalties. (See Appendix: Academic Integrity Violation Files for more information on filing the report.)
2. The Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs will contact the Scholastic Committee to initiate a hearing of the Committee on Academic Integrity.
3. The hearing procedures are provided later in this document.

2.4. Hearing Resolutions for Persistent Violations: The Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs is the central repository for all UMN Morris reports of scholastic dishonesty. The University will use documented reports of student conduct code violations (academic integrity and student behavior) to identify students who have persistent violations.

1. Any student who is found responsible for two or more violations of academic integrity while a student at the University of Minnesota is considered to have persistent violations.
   1. The Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs will contact the Scholastic Committee Chair to initiate a hearing of the Committee on Academic Integrity.
2. Any student who is found responsible for one or more violations of academic integrity and/or one or more behavioral violations of the Student Code of Conduct while a student at the University of Minnesota is considered to have persistent violations.
   1. The Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs will contact the Chair and Secretary of the Student Behavior Committee, the Chair of the Scholastic Committee and UMN Morris Student Academic Integrity Committee (SAIC) representative.
   2. Outcomes will be determined via a hearing of the Student Behavior Committee.

Committee on Academic Integrity Hearing Procedures

1. Introduction

The Committee on Academic Integrity (CAI) assists in implementing Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code at the University of Minnesota, Morris (UMN Morris). The CAI provides a fair hearing to determine if a student’s behavior has violated the academic integrity portions (Section IV Subdivision 1 ) of the Student Conduct Code and to determine what, if any, outcome should be imposed. Unresolved complaints or persistent scholastic dishonesty complaints of Student Conduct Code violations are referred to the CAI by the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs. Single complaints which have been resolved between a faculty member and student are not brought to the CAI for a hearing. The CAI Chair receives the complaints and works with the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Dean or designee in managing the hearing process.

All Committee decisions are made by simple majority.

Complaints of alleged behavioral violations or persistent violations which include behavioral violations of the Student Conduct Code are addressed by UMN Morris’s Student Behavior Committee (SBC appointed by the Student Affairs Committee through their procedures.)

2. Parties to the Complaint

For the purpose of these procedures the parties are identified as follows: the University presenter is the formal complainant and the accused student is the individual alleged by the University to be in violation of the Student Conduct Code.

The University presenter is typically the instructor who has brought the complaint (otherwise the CAI Chair) or the CAI Chair in cases of persistent offenders. Students may obtain the services of an advocate/adviser, either by their own choice or appointed by the Liaison to the Committee on Academic Integrity (hereafter referred to as the Liaison). The advocate/adviser can help the student prepare and present their case before the CAI. If an accused student is represented by an attorney, the University's Office of General Counsel will assign an attorney to serve as the University presenter.

The accused student must submit the name of any advocate/adviser or attorney to the CAI Support Staff before the pre-hearing conference, and must give immediate notice to the CAI Support Staff if there is any change in an advocate/adviser or attorney.

3. Committee Membership

CAI is a subcommittee of the Scholastic Committee and is made up of two students, two faculty members, and the UMN Morris representative to the Student Academic Integrity Committee (SAIC). The SAIC representative normally serves as the Chair, but may delegate that role. The UMN Morris Scholastic Committee appoints the faculty and student members of the CAI and the Liaison to the CAI (whose duties include facilitating communication between the CAI and the accused student). If an appointed member of the committee is unable to be part of a hearing, the Scholastic Committee will appoint a replacement. If the Scholastic Committee cannot meet; a temporary faculty appointment may be made by the following group: the CAI Chair, Chair of Scholastic Committee, and Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs. If a student position is to be temporarily replaced, at least one student member of the Scholastic Committee will be consulted in addition to the preceding group.

Support Staff: The Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs identifies support staff for the CAI, which will be provided by the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean.

4. The Complaint and Scheduling

When an unresolved complaint or persistent complaints are received by the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, the Scholastic Committee Chair and the CAI Chair are contacted to initiate the hearing process. The CAI Chair and Liaison are notified and given all the information from the report filed with the VCSA. The Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs will notify the accused student of the statement of the complaint, the Student Conduct Code, and the Committee's procedures.

The CAI Chair will contact the instructor/supervisor(s) involved in the complaints to review relevant materials, provide the names of the CAI committee members and gather needed information. The Liaison will contact the accused student to review relevant materials, provide the names of the CAI committee members and gather needed information.

Either party, within two business days of having been informed of the names of the CAI members, may ask the CAI Chair to consider that a committee member should be removed due to a direct relationship with the case or on the grounds of conflict of interest or bias. The Chair, after talking to the committee member, will decide whether a member should be removed. If the Chair is challenged, the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs will decide if the chair should be replaced. If a member is removed because of a successful challenge, a new person will be appointed via the procedures in Section 3.

The CAI will strive to complete a hearing within four weeks of the complaint report, not including periods when the University is not in session. When a complaint is received later than the 13th week of the semester, the CAI will complete the hearing no later than the essential deadline of the next regular semester. If the CAI chair, VCSA and Liaison collectively determine it is necessary for the hearing to be held when the University is not in session, unavailable committee members may be replaced via the procedures in Section 3.

The CAI Support Staff will be responsible for scheduling a pre-hearing conference and the hearing, taking into account the parties’ schedules as appropriate and, generally, will provide at least 5 business days notice before the pre-hearing conference.

5. Student Status During the Process

An accused student ordinarily is allowed to continue, without change in status, pending the outcome of the CAI hearing. If the University policy grading deadline requires that a course grade be assigned before the outcome of the hearing is known, the instructor should not impose a penalty but rather consult with the Liaison (See Section F8 of Administrative Policy: Grading and Transcripts: Twin Cities, Crookston, Morris, Rochester.)

6. Pre-Hearing Conference

The CAI Chair will convene a pre-hearing conference to plan for the hearing and discuss the topics outlined in Committee on Academic Integrity Pre-Hearing Conference: Morris. The CAI Committee, Support Staff and Liaison will attend the pre-hearing conference. The Liaison will provide the information gathered during communications with the accused student and will update the accused student and the student's advocate/adviser following the pre-hearing meeting.

The parties send a list of the witnesses they intend to present at the hearing to the Support Staff of the committee at least one full day before the pre-hearing. The Committee may, at its discretion, exclude from the hearing those witnesses who were not previously identified to the other party. The Committee may also rule on the relevance of witnesses.

At the pre-hearing the Committee may also decide to request that additional information be provided, by either party, before or at the hearing.

The University is committed to resolution of complaints prior to a hearing whenever possible. Up to the start of a hearing, the accused student can accept a resolution proposed by the instructor.

7. The Hearing

See also Appendix: Committee of Academic Integrity Order of Proceedings: Morris.

1. Decorum

   The Chair is responsible for maintaining an orderly, fair, and respectful hearing. The Chair has broad authority to respond to disruptive or harassing behaviors by adjourning the hearing or excluding the offending person. All cell phones must be turned off during the entire hearing. CAI complaints, pre-hearing conferences, and hearings are closed to the public. The full CAI committee, University presenter and accused student are expected to be present at the hearing. The student’s advocate/adviser and the Liaison may also be present. Additional guests may be permitted to attend with agreement from the accused student and the CAI.

2. Appearance

   If the student does not appear at the hearing, the Committee will proceed with the hearing in the absence of the student. A student choosing not to appear may provide the Committee with a signed written statement.

   If the instructor/supervisor does not appear, the hearing will proceed with the Chair acting as the University presenter.

3. Standard of Proof

   To establish that an accused student violated the Student Conduct Code, a majority of the CAI must be persuaded that it is more likely than not that the student committed the violation.

4. Case Presentation

   The parties are expected to provide a clear, complete and concise presentation of their cases.

5. Record of Hearing

   The CAI Support Staff will keep an official  recording of each hearing. No camera, video or other recording device, except for that used by the Support Staff to keep the official record of the hearing, will be permitted in the hearing room. The Support Staff will also take written minutes of the hearing.

   Each party may offer reliable information relevant to the issue, and may object to the relevance of information offered by the other party. The committee has discretion to determine what information should be included or excluded.

   The parties may also introduce relevant written documents, objects, films, or other materials as exhibits. Each party is responsible for bringing copies of written materials in sufficient number for distribution to committee members and the opposing party at the hearing.

   Parties should offer witnesses in person whenever possible. Each party is responsible for ensuring the presence of witnesses at the hearing. If reasonable efforts to accommodate the schedules are not successful, the unavailability of a witness is not a ground for postponement of the hearing. If an important witness prefers not to testify, the parties may ask the Liaison or Chair to assist in encouraging the witness to testify. When necessary, witnesses may present information by written statement. After a party’s witness presents information, the other party may ask questions, and then Committee members may ask questions.

   The Committee will exclude witnesses from those parts of the hearing in which they do not testify.

8. Panel Deliberations and Decision

At the end of the hearing the CAI will retire to deliberate in closed session. The five Committee members, as well as legal counsel to Committee, may attend. The Liaison does not attend but may be consulted by the Committee. This meeting is not recorded.

The CAI must be prepared to make a judgment based on the information provided even if it is not complete. Each member will vote on whether or not the accused student is responsible for violating the Student Conduct Code for each alleged charge. A majority vote of Committee members is required to find the student responsible for a violation. If an accused student is found responsible for one or more items, the Committee will next vote on outcomes, as listed in the Student Conduct Code.

The Committee's decision will be officially communicated by the Chair to the student, University presenter, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs in writing no later than one week following the hearing. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is responsible for ensuring timely action on the matter. No one participating in the deliberations will give any party verbal information about the decision or the deliberations.

9. Appeal

After a recommendation is made by the Committee on Academic Integrity with regard to any matter brought before it, any party to that matter may appeal the recommendation or action taken. Appeals must be made, within 14 days of receiving official notice of the CAI decision, to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs who will review the matter and report back to all parties involved. There will be no appeals beyond the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The request to appeal must be submitted in writing with a clear statement of the grounds on which the appeal will be based. Valid grounds for appeal include an original decision made in the absence of important information now available, lack of fairness in the process (such as lack of notice, opportunity to be heard, and/or opportunity to question), inconsistency between the outcome and the severity of the offense, inconsistency between the original decision and the information presented at the hearing, and/or a decision that conflicts with the interests of other affected University constituents. The appeal will state clearly the facts that support the claim that serious error occurred in the original proceeding, as well as relief requested. The decision of the CAI is not enforced until the appeal is resolved.

10. Academic Integrity File

The academic integrity file is maintained in the Office of Student Affairs. The file is considered part of the student's academic record – private information protected by FERPA and University policies. Any sharing of information external to the University is done only with the student’s consent or as required by law.