Senate Document 06-08
Student Affairs Committee
May 3, 2006 For Action
Approved May 3, 2006
To:Purdue University Calumet Senate
From: Student Affairs Committee
Subject: Establishment of Honor Council
The Student Affairs Committee recommends adoption of this document, which would create a formal process for handling student appeals of alleged academic dishonesty. It would also create channels for faculty members with questions about academic honesty to seek out appropriate resources for guidance.
This process would roughly parallel the grade appeal process.Some justifications for the creation of the Honor Council include the following:
Academic dishonesty has become a growing problem on college campuses across the country;
Existing procedures for handling student appeals of alleged dishonesty are inadequate for ensuring due process for students, as those procedures are ambiguous and even vague;
Purdue University Calumet continues to increase its commitment to matters of academic integrity;
The University has an obligation to society to take steps toward ensuring the integrity of its mission, its standards, and its overall quality of education.
In sum, The Honor Council, as one aspect of the overall commitment to academic integrity at Purdue University Calumet, will be an important contribution to academic excellence.
Approved: Disapproved: Absent:
H. Abramowitz
R. Dunn
J. Rowan (Chair)
HONOR COUNCIL DOCUMENT
Section I. Adoption By the Faculty
The Faculty of Purdue University Calumet hereby adopts the following procedures for appeals of alleged academic dishonesty, pursuant to the authority delegated to its Faculty.
Section II. Preamble
A. The Honor Council at Purdue University Calumet is one component of an overall system of promoting academic integrity at the university. As such, the Honor Council will operate in accordance with the Honor Code, the Honor Pledge, the Student and Faculty Handbooks on Academic Integrity, and other initiatives related to the promotion of academic integrity. These initiatives will be coordinated by the Subordinate Committee on Academic Integrity, which reports to the Student Affairs standing committee of the Faculty Senate.
B. The promotion of academic honesty at Purdue University Calumet is an institutional imperative. As prospective leaders and role models of our society, students are to be educated in an ethical learning environment that promotes a high standard of honor in scholastic work and conduct. Academic honesty is essential for the integrity of the university community and the institution itself. Academic dishonesty disgraces the mission of the university and defeats the very purpose of a college education.
C. Academic dishonesty comes in many forms, including (but not limited to) cheating on exams and committing plagiarism on assignments. Notably, academic dishonesty need not be intentional to count as such.
D. Faculty are charged with the responsibility of responding appropriately to instances of academic dishonesty that occur among their students. This responsibility is a serious one and can at times be difficult to execute. Faculty are therefore invited to seek out the guidance of others, especially the Chair of the Honor Council, the Office of the Dean of Students, and their Department Head.
E. That which counts as academic dishonesty can vary widely. While it is hoped that faculty, in their syllabi and in their instructions for specific assignments, will provide their students with appropriate guidance, it is the obligation of the students to ascertain the acceptable boundaries of academic honesty in their various courses.
F. When faculty determine that academic dishonesty has taken place, faculty possess the authority to impose on the student(s) in question any penalty he/she deems appropriate, up to and including issuing a failing grade for the course. More extensive penalties, such as suspension, may be imposed only by the Office of the Dean of Students.
G. Any student at the university wishing to challenge any allegation of academic dishonesty may approach the Honor Council, whose primary function will be to handle such cases.
H. The Chair of the Honor Council shall have the authority to overturn the penalty imposed upon a student for an allegation of academic dishonesty. This authority shall be exercised only upon a student’s successful challenge, through an Honor Hearing, to an allegation of dishonesty.
III. Organization of the Honor Council
A. The Honor Council will be comprised of 22 individuals: The Chair of the Honor Council, six (6) faculty members (one from each school excluding the Graduate School), and fifteen (15) student members (two from each school including the Graduate School, plus a student government representative – either the President of the Student Government Association or his/her designee). Student members will serve for one year, faculty members for a term of three years. (Note: The three-year term for all faculty members of the Council will commence with the 2009-10 academic year; until then, staggered terms are warranted in the first few years of the Council’s existence. See proposed schedule in Section D below.) Students and faculty may serve consecutive terms.
B. The Chair of the Honor Council will be a faculty member who is not one of the six core faculty members representing the six schools. The Chair of the Council will be appointed by the Subordinate Committee on Student Academic Integrity and will be responsible for all administrative matters, including: receiving and distributing appropriate materials relevant to ongoing Honor proceedings; consulting with students who are considering an appeal of an allegation of dishonesty; consulting with faculty members who are seeking guidance with an issue of academic dishonesty among their students; mediating resolutions between student(s) and faculty; scheduling sessions of the screening panel, which will be responsible for initial review of appeals submitted by students; scheduling Honor Hearings; selecting from among the 21 council members the seven who will serve on an Honor Hearing; etc. The Chair of the Honor Council will also chair each Honor Hearing, conducting the proceedings in a non-voting role; alternatively, the Chair of the Honor Council may appoint a faculty member of the Honor Council to chair a particular Honor Hearing (in a non-voting role) when the Chair is unable to chair the Hearing. In order to facilitate the successful execution of these responsibilities, The Chair will receive release time of .25 FTE per semester. The Chair’s appointment will be for a three-year term.
C. Selection of the Council members will be the responsibility of the Deans. Every Spring, each Dean will be responsible for the selection of two qualified students from his or her school to serve on the Council the following year. In addition, once every three years, each Dean will be responsible for the selection of a faculty member to serve a three-year term. These selections will be reported to the Subordinate Committee on Academic Integrity by April 30 of each year. In the selection of students for the Council, Deans are encouraged to bear in mind such factors as gender and ethnic diversity, academic standing (juniors, seniors, and graduate students preferred), grade point average, and availability on campus. Faculty members of the Council should be tenured or on the tenure track.
D. 2006-2010: Faculty Members of the Honor Council
2006-08 2006-08 2006-09 2006-09 2006-10 2006-10
Under this system, the first four years of the Council would have faculty serving terms of two, three or four years. By 2010, a rotation would be set for three-year terms for all faculty members of the Council, according to which the following schools would replace one faculty member in the following years:
SCHEDULE OF FACULTY REPLACEMENTS:
2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010
2011 etc. 2011 etc. 2012 etc. 2012 etc. 2013 etc. 2013 etc.
IV. Initial Procedures
A. It is hoped that most allegations of academic dishonesty will be resolved before any formal request for an Honor Hearing becomes necessary.
Such resolution may be achieved through discussions among the accused student(s) and accusing professor, perhaps with the mediation of the Department Head. Resolution may also be achieved through existing departmental or school procedures for handling cases of alleged dishonesty. Further, the Chair of the Honor Council may be contacted to act as an intermediary; the Chair may attempt to work out a resolution agreeable to both parties prior to any formal request for an Honor Hearing. Regardless, the student challenging the allegation of dishonesty is required to meet with the accusing instructor and the Head of the department that offered the course in question, either separately or jointly.
B. If a resolution agreeable to both parties (accused student and accusing instructor) cannot be achieved, the student may submit a formal request for an Honor Hearing.
C. The formal request must be made in writing to the Chair of the Honor Council. A request for an Honor Hearing must be based on one of the following claims:
1. The allegation of academic dishonesty is false.
2. The instructor’s allegation of academic dishonesty and/or the subsequent penalty issued are in violation of university policy.
A student’s request for an Honor Hearing based on the first claim above must describe clearly the factual circumstances surrounding the allegation and the student’s basis for claiming that no academic dishonesty occurred. Since the Chair of the Honor Council will typically be an excellent resource along these lines, the student should contact the Chair for guidance. A student’s request for an Honor Hearing based on the second claim above must describe clearly the university policy in question and the factual events that are being cited as violating that policy. Since the Office of the Dean of Students will typically be an excellent resource for students along these lines, the student should contact that office for guidance.
D. A screening process will be in place to ensure that the formal request for an Honor Hearing has minimal merit. A three-person screening panel, consisting of the Chair of the Honor Council, a representative from the Office of the Dean of Students, and the student government representative to the Honor Council, will review the formal request. Only the unanimous agreement among the three members that the request is without merit will prevent it from going forward to an Honor Hearing.
V. Honor Hearing Procedures
A. Each Honor Hearing will be heard by seven (7) members of the Honor Council: five students (including the student government representative) and two faculty members. (The student government representative will not, however, serve on a second Honor Hearing – one that has resulted from a successful appeal of a first Honor Hearing. See Section VI below.) The seven individuals for a particular Honor Hearing will be chosen by the Chair of the Honor Council.
B. The Chair of each Honor Hearing will be the Chair of the Honor Council, charged with the responsibility of overseeing the events of the Honor Hearing and ensuring the procedural integrity of the process. The Chair will not be voting on the outcome of any Honor Hearing and thus should not be present for the deliberations of the seven Council members who will be voting on the outcome. In an instance where the Chair of the Council is not able to chair a particular Honor Hearing, he/she may designate a faculty member of the Council to oversee the proceedings of that case.
C. There will be no initial burden of proof on either party. Rather, the seven members of the Honor Council judging a particular Honor Hearing will be instructed to base their decisions on the question of which side (accusing professor or accused student) presents the more compelling case.
E. An Honor Hearing shall proceed in the following manner:
1. Instructor’s presentation of witnesses and evidence.
2. Student’s cross-examination of witnesses.
3. Student’s presentation of witnesses and evidence.
4. Instructor’s cross-examination of witnesses.
5. Question period by the Honor Hearing members.
6. Instructor’s final statement.
7. Student’s final statement.
F. The decision of each Honor Hearing will be on the basis of a majority vote of the seven Council members hearing that case. A secretary will be chosen from among the two faculty representatives of the Honor Hearing, charged with the responsibility of writing up the decision that was reached and a brief statement of the rationale for that decision. This will be submitted to the Chair of the Honor Council within 48 hours of the Hearing. The Chair will then submit his/her own letter to the student and professor, within the subsequent 48 hours, informing them of the decision.
VI. Appeals of an Honor Hearing Decision
A. The justification for an appeal of an Honor Hearing decision, which may be made by either the student or the professor, must be at least one of the following two factors:
1. Procedural error during the Honor Hearing or in the events leading up to it;
2. Development of new information or material that both:
a) would have had a reasonable impact on the original Honor Hearing;
and
b) was not reasonably available at the time of the original Honor Hearing.
B. The party who is appealing is required to submit to the Chair of the Honor Council, in writing, the justification(s) for the desired appeal, along with any supporting materials.
C. Review of an appeal will be conducted by a five-person panel consisting of the Chair of the Honor Council, the Office of the Dean of Students, the student government representative on the Council, and two student members from the Council to be chosen by the Chair of the Council in consultation with the student government representative. The function of the appeals panel will be to determine whether there is sufficient basis for a new Honor Hearing, based on the factors in Section VI-A above. A majority vote of the five-person appeals panel will decide the matter.
D. Successful appeal will result in a new Honor Hearing, for which the Chair of the Honor Council will again choose seven members of the Council. No individual from the original Honor Hearing, including the student government representative, will serve for the second Honor Hearing.
The decision reached in this second Honor Hearing will be final.
VII. Timeline
The proposed timeline for the procedures described above is as follows. It is incumbent on all parties to do their best to stay within the following timeline. However, the occasional failure to complete particular stages of the process within this timeline will not imply the lack of due process or any other significant problem.
EVENT TIMING
|
(1) Instructor discovery of alleged dishonesty
(Instructor contemplates possible penalties, perhaps consulting with Department Head, Chair of the Honor Council, and/or the Office of the Dean of Students)
(2) Notification to student of dishonesty and penalty to be imposed
(Student, if he/she wishes to pursue the matter, meets with instructor and department head, either jointly or separately, in an effort to reach resolution. Development of a formal request for an Honor Hearing would follow.)
(3) Student’s formal submission of request for an Honor Hearing.
(Chair of the Honor Council schedules a meeting of the screening panel.)
(4) Screening Panel’s review of student’s formal request and notification to student of its decision
(If the student’s request is granted by the screening panel, the Chair of the Honor Council schedules an Honor Hearing.)
(5) Honor Hearing
(6) Student appeal (if any)
(Chair of the Honor Council schedules a meeting of the appeals panel.)
(7) Appeals Panel’s review of student’s appeal and notification to student of its decision.
(If appeal is granted, Chair of the Honor Council schedules a new Honor Hearing.)
(8) New Honor Hearing
|
(1) NA
(2) 7 days from (1)
(3) 14 days from (2)
(4) 7 days from (3)
(5) 14 days from (4)
(6) 14 days from (5)
(7) 7 days from (6)
(8) 14 days from (7) |