Home /   Student Affairs   /   Policies   /

B. Procedures for hearing alleged violations of standards of academic integrity A faculty member who finds evidence of academic dishonesty shall take the following actions:

  1. Notify the student of the charge in writing, using the alleged violation of academic integrity notification form.
  2. Notify the student of the time, date, and place of the initial conference, such conference to occur within a minimum of two business days notice and preferably not more than seven days.
  3. 3.  Conduct an initial conference with the student following the guidelines in section V.C.3 of this document. In academic integrity cases, the faculty member serves in the capacity of initial conference officer.
  4. Possible outcomes of the initial conference:

a. The accused student may elect not to appear, at which time, all statements contained in the specification of charges shall be considered true and accurate. The faculty member; then:

  • Assigns an appropriate academic sanction: Minimum: failing grade on the assignment or examination Recommended/maximum: permanent failing grade for the course;
  • Completes academic integrity violation resolution form; 
  • Sends one copy of the resolution form to the student; and, 
  • Forwards other copies and supporting evidence, retaining copies, to the chair of the Academic Integrity Committee

The faculty member may also choose to refer the case to the Academic Integrity Committee with a recommendation for additional sanctions (e.g. suspension or expulsion).

The campus conduct officer maintains a permanent file of all forms and documents submitted. The conduct officer monitors all submissions to determine if the violation would constitute a second offense. In such cases, he/she informs the chair of the Academic Integrity Committee that a hearing is mandated.

b. If, during the initial conference, in the judgment of the faculty member, the evidence does not support the allegation, he/she may elect to drop the charges.

c. The accused student may accept responsibility for the charges pending against him/her. He/she may waive the right to a hearing before the Academic Integrity Committee and agree to accept the sanction determined by the faculty member, who:

  • Assigns an appropriate academic sanction Minimum: failing grade on the assignment or examination Recommended: permanent failing grade for the course; 
  • Completes the academic integrity violation resolution form and obtains the student's signature on it, indicating waiver of the hearing and acceptance of the finding and the sanctions; 
  • Gives one copy of the resolution form to the student, and; 
  • Forwards other copies and supporting evidence, retaining copies, to the chair of the Academic Integrity Committee.

d. If the student and the faculty member disagree on whether a violation occurred or on the appropriate sanction, the student has a right to request a hearing before the Academic Integrity Committee. The faculty member:

  • Informs the student of the intention to assign a failing grade 
  • Completes and signs academic integrity violation resolution form indicating that a hearing is required. 
  • Forwards it and supporting evidence, retaining copies to the chair of the Academic Integrity Committee

5.  The Academic Integrity Committee has original jurisdiction in cases involving student requests for a hearing on a disputed allegation of academic dishonesty, referrals from faculty members recommending additional sanctions, and all cases that would constitute a second academic integrity offense for a student. The committee follows the procedures for hearings specified in Section V.C.4 and the rights of the accused student are the same as in section V.C.6.

a. if the committee concludes that it is more probable than not that a violation did not occur, the faculty member is required to assign a grade for the assignment and course based on academic performance, disregarding the allegation of academic dishonesty.
b. If the committee concludes that it is more probable than not that a violation did occur, it affirms the sanction imposed by the faculty member and may impose additional sanctions as authorized in section III.A if the committee believes they are warranted.
c. The Academic Integrity Committee shall inform the student and the faculty member, in writing, of its determination, within three business days following the hearing.

6. A student may appeal the decision of the Academic Integrity Committee to the provost on the grounds that:

a. Fair consideration was not provided to the student, i.e. there is evidence that some aspect of the hearing was prejudicial, arbitrary, or capricious;
b. New and significant information, not reasonably available at the time of the initial hearing, has become available; 
c. The sanction or remedy imposed is not in due proportion to the nature and seriousness of the offense.

7.  Appeals procedure

a. Within three working days of receipt of the written notification of the decision by the Academic Integrity Committee, the student must: 

  • submit a letter to the office of the provost stating the intention to appeal, and 
  • cite one or more of the specific grounds for appeal, as outlined in V.B.7, and 
  • supply information that substantiates the grounds on which the appeal is being made.

b. The chair of the Academic Integrity Committee forwards all relevant materials and the complete hearing file to the provost.
c. The provost determines if grounds for an appeal exist and, if so, whether or not to accept the appeal.
d. If the provost concludes that the appeal contains significant new information not available at the original hearing, he/she remands the case to the Academic Integrity Committee to conduct another hearing.
e. The provost may appoint an ad hoc panel of two faculty members and one student to review the case file for evidence that the original hearing was unfair or prejudicial. If the provost concludes that the student was not given fair consideration, the provost may remand the decision of the Academic Integrity Committee for a new hearing by a newly constituted panel, with directions to correct the deficiencies.
f. If the provost concludes that the sanction was disproportionate to the offense, he/she may reduce the sanctions imposed by the Academic Integrity Committee.

8.  The provost will assure that the decision honors all aspects of the due process rights of the student, the requirements of this policy, and applicable SUNY Board of Trustees policy. In his/her review, the provost will correct any deficiencies and/or make any adjustments that are necessary. In accordance with the authority assigned to the president of the College by the policies of the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York, the president may modify any decision made by any person or board operating under their authority under this policy as he/she deems appropriate. Any consultation with the president of the College which may be necessary will occur before the final decision is reached. When the decision has been reviewed and approved, the provost shall communicate the findings, together with his/her rationale, to the student, the faculty member who brought the charges, the chair of the Academic Integrity Committee, and the campus Conduct Officer.

Return to the discipline process links page