THE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT
ACADEMIC CODE OF HONOR
HANDBOOK
University of Notre Dame
Approved by Academic Council on May 17,
2011
Effective July 1,
2011
Table of Contents
Page
I.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II.
Pledge
to Abide by the Honor Code . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
III.
The
University Committee on the Academic Code of Honor . . . . . . . 3
A.
Membership
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B.
Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 5
IV.
Student
Responsibilities Under the Academic Code of Honor . . . . . 6
A.
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B.
Personal
Academic Behavior . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
C.
Working
with Other Students . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
D. Responsible
Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
E. The
Student Co-Chair of the University Code of Honor . . . . 9
F. Participation
on Honesty Committees . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 9
V.
Faculty
and Teaching Assistant Responsibilities Under the
Academic
Code of Honor . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A. Education
of Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B. Communicating
Standards to Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
C. Academic
Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
D. Responsible
Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
VI.
Honesty
Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.
Composition
of Honesty Committees . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 12
B.
Publication
of Honesty Committee Membership . . . . . . . . . 13
C.
The
Role of Faculty Representatives of the University
Code
of Honor Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 14
VII.
Procedures
for Responding to an Alleged Violation
of the Honor Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.
Preliminary
Inquiry into Whether a Hearing is Warranted . . 14
B.
Recusal
of an Honesty Committee Member . . . . .
. . . . . . . 15
C.
Honesty
Committee Hearing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
D.
Assignment
of Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
E.
Notification
of the Decision and the Appeal Process for
Major
or Minor Offenses . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
F.
Notification
of Decision and Appeal Process
for a Flagrant Offense
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
G.
Records
of Violations and Repeated Violations . . . . . . . . . . 23
H. Required
Recusals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
I.
INTRODUCTION
The
University of Notre Dame provides “an environment of
teaching and learning that fosters the development of its students with those
disciplined habits of mind, body, and spirit, which characterize and educate
skilled and free human beings.”[1] Part of the mission of the University is also
to nurture in each student a sense of moral responsibility. In turn, the Academic Code of Honor
represents a valuable educational tool for guiding both faculty and students in
their efforts to create a sense of community and for expressing the values that
are at the core of a Catholic university.
As members of an academic and spiritual community, we work together to
answer difficult questions, often collaborating to answer these questions, to
solve problems, and to communicate effectively the knowledge we acquire through
inquiry. This document calls attention to the responsibilities we have to one
another in being faithful in our attempts to represent others’ views, and it
helps us to understand the responsibilities we have toward one another,
students and faculty alike, as we try to uphold the moral standards of our
community.
II.
PLEDGE TO ABIDE BY THE HONOR CODE
As a member of the Notre Dame
community, I will not participate in or tolerate academic dishonesty.
III.
UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON THE ACADEMIC CODE OF HONOR
The
University Committee on the Academic Code of Honor, as commissioned in 1987 by
the University Academic Council, is responsible for several activities: assisting
in the education of the Notre Dame community about the Academic Code of Honor,
discussing on a periodic basis procedural questions which may have arisen in
past cases and how these can best be resolved for future cases, reviewing
standard penalties invoked for certain kinds of violations so that consistency
and fairness may be maintained, proposing revisions to this handbook and generally promoting high
standards of moral integrity in academics.
A.
Membership
The membership of the University
Committee on the Academic Code of Honor (which will be henceforth referred to
simply as the University Code of Honor Committee) consists of students, a
member of the Provost’s Office and faculty members from the four undergraduate
colleges. The committee is co-chaired by
a student and a faculty member who is an administrator from the Provost’s
Office. Its composition is as follows:
1.
The faculty co-chair is an Associate Provost
designated by the Provost. The Associate
Provost may designate another faculty member to take his or her place in
committee meetings, and to assist with the work of the committee.
2.
The Student Co-Chair is selected in the Spring
semester by an absolute majority of the University Code of Honor Committee to
serve a one-year term in this position in the following academic year. The
committee should select a student who has shown excellence in moral character,
the conscientious exercise of responsibilities and the capacity for leadership.
In addition to co-chairing the University Code of Honor Committee, the Student
Co-Chair will have a broad range of responsibilities for assisting in the
orientation and education of his or her fellow students in the honor code and
for providing leadership in its implementation.
3.
The deans of the Business, Engineering and Science
Colleges each designate one faculty representative from their respective
colleges. The dean of the Arts and
Letters College designates two faculty representatives who will represent the
College of Arts and Letters and the School of Architecture. An associate or assistant dean may be
particularly appropriate for this role, but the position is not restricted to
them; the deans of Business, Engineering and Science may select any faculty
member of his or her college, and the dean of Arts and Letters may select any
faculty member of his or her college or of the School of Architecture. To ensure continuity of membership, the term
of the faculty representative should be no less than three years, and their
terms will be staggered.
4.
One student representative from each of the Colleges
of Business, Engineering and Science and two students from either the College
of Arts and Letters or the School of Architecture will serve on the
committee. They are appointed by the
respective deans of the colleges with appropriate student consultation.
The total number of committee members,
then, is twelve, with an equal number of students and faculty.
The Associate Provost Co-Chair of the
committee may appoint a faculty member (preferably one of the five faculty
representatives) to serve as Faculty Honor Code Officer, who is to assist the
Associate Provost in all matters related to the Honor Code, especially as they
relate to the faculty. A Faculty Honor
Code Officer who is not one of the five faculty representatives serves as a
non-voting participant in committee meetings.
B.
Responsibilities
The responsibilities of the University Code of Honor Committee are the
following:
1.
At regular meetings the committee will, while
protecting the anonymity of students involved in any particular case, review
past honor code hearings. It will
discuss any procedural questions or difficulties which may have arisen and
examine the penalties invoked for the kinds of violations encountered. The purpose of these meetings will be to
attain a clear, common understanding of the Code and its application, so that
committee members can assist in ensuring consistent, fair and efficient
implementation of the procedures of the Academic Code of Honor in any future
cases.
2.
Periodically the committee will propose revisions of
the Academic Code of Honor to the Academic Council.
3.
Each of the five faculty representatives on this
committee may, if he or she wishes, sit in on any department or college Honesty
Committee hearing. In addition, the chair of an honesty committee may request
that a faculty representative be present at a hearing if the chair believes
such presence would be helpful to the committee’s work. (See IV.A below.)
4.
Each member of the committee may be approached for
consultation or advice about the Code of Honor by any member of the Notre Dame
community.
5.
The committee may undertake any other initiatives it
deems useful to promote knowledge of and adherence to the Academic Code of
Honor on campus.
The Office of the Provost maintains
the current membership roster of the committee.
IV.
STUDENT
RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE ACADEMIC CODE OF HONOR
It
is the responsibility of the community of students and faculty to strive to
assure honorable behavior in academic work.
A.
Education
1.
A student has a responsibility to become familiar
with the Academic Code of Honor and appreciate the reasoning behind it, such as
the emphasis placed on a moral as well as an academic education, personal
integrity and community responsibility.
2.
As a precondition for admission to the University,
students must sign a pledge to the community to uphold the Academic Code of
Honor in all academic affairs at the University of Notre Dame.
3.
Students should familiarize themselves with the
directives given by the instructor in each class concerning what is and is not
permitted, especially in matters of group projects, lab reports, written
papers and
the attribution of research to sources (footnoting), including the Internet.
B.
Personal Academic Behavior
The pledge to uphold the Academic
Code of Honor includes an understanding that a student’s submitted work, graded
or ungraded -- examinations, draft copies, papers, homework assignments, extra credit
work, etc. -- must be his or her own. The
following serves as a guide for helping students think about what faculty
expect:
1.
All work submitted for a course is accepted as a
student’s own work, unless otherwise understood and approved by the instructor.
2.
Students may not, without proper citation, submit work that has been copied, wholly or
partially, from another student’s paper, notebook, or exam. Nor may students
without proper citation submit work which has been copied, wholly or partially,
from a book, article, essay, newspaper, the Internet or any other written or printed
or media source whether or not the material in question is copyrighted.
3.
Written work that paraphrases any written or printed
media material without acknowledgment may not be submitted for a course. Ideas
from books and essays may be incorporated in students’ work as starting points,
governing issues, illustrations, and the like, but in each case the source must
be cited.
4.
Any on-line materials students use to gather
information for a paper are also governed by rules about plagiarism, so
students need to cite electronic sources as well as printed and other sources.
5.
A student may not turn in the same work for two or
more different courses he or she is taking in an academic term unless each
professor involved has authorized students to do so in advance.
6.
Students may not submit for one course any work that
has been used to fulfill the requirements of another course previously taken at
this or any other school without obtaining permission of the current professor
in advance.
7.
Students must be aware that honor code violations
are not limited to the actions prohibited in the guidelines above. Any kind of
dishonesty related to academics is a violation. Other examples of academic
dishonesty, apart from giving or receiving unauthorized aid as described by the
instructor in each course, include but are not limited to listing false reasons
for taking a make-up examination, falsifying data and failing to take
responsible action as required in section IV.D below.
C.
Working With Other Students
Working on material with other
students is of great pedagogical value, and the Honor Code should not be
construed as discouraging such work.
Unless such consultation is forbidden by an instructor, students may
work with other students on assignments and present ideas and even written work
to their peers for comment and criticism.
Each student, however, should be guided by the following:
1.
If an instructor explicitly permits or forbids
certain types of work with other students,
such work is permissible or forbidden as the instructor indicates. An instructor’s explicit guidelines take
precedence in determining whether certain actions are permissible.
2.
It is a presupposition that ideas and expressions in
a submitted paper or report originate from the writer unless otherwise
indicated. Consequently, if ideas or
expressions in written work originate from another, whether the person is an
author or fellow student, that source should be cited in an endnote or
footnote. If an idea or form of words
arises from the common effort of two or more students in conversation, this
fact should be cited.
3.
If a student is unclear about whether certain forms
of consultation or common work are acceptable or what the standards for
citation are, the student is responsible for consulting his or her instructor.
D.
Responsible Actions
Each student, as an integral
member of the academic community, must make the ethical and moral commitment
not to act dishonestly and not to tolerate academic dishonesty on the part of
other students. If aware of a likely
Academic Code of Honor violation, a student must take responsible action.
If the conduct involves a
personal violation of the Academic Code of Honor, the student shall report him
or herself to the instructor of the course or to a member of the Honesty
Committee of the department or college in which the course is taught.
If a student witnesses a
violation of the honor code or otherwise has reason to believe that a violation
has occurred, the student may use discretion to choose among several possible
courses of action. These possible
actions include:
1.
Talking with anyone suspected of violating the
Academic Code of Honor and urging the person to report himself or herself to
the instructor of the course or to submit a written report to a member of the
Honesty Committee of the department or college in which the course is
taught. If an observed act merits action
under the Academic Code of Honor and the suspected student does not take what
is believed to be the appropriate steps, then, as a further obligation, the
student suspecting a violation must initiate formal procedures by speaking to
the instructor of the course or by submitting a written report of the
allegation to a member of the appropriate Honesty Committee.
Without a specific and credible allegation, the Honesty Committee cannot move
forward with a case.
2.
Discussing the observed action(s) with the
instructor of the course, not naming those involved, to obtain guidance and
determine if, in fact, an observed act merits action under the Academic Code of
Honor.
3.
Reporting detection of possible dishonesty directly
to the instructor of the course.
4.
Submitting a written report regarding possible
dishonesty to a member of the appropriate Honesty Committee of the department
or college which offers the course. If the student reporting a suspected
violation of another wishes to remain anonymous to the student under suspicion,
the Honesty Committee will honor that request, if at all feasible, during the
initial inquiry prior to a hearing. If
these procedures result in a hearing, the student reporting the suspected
violation necessarily becomes known to the student under suspicion.
E.
Student Co-Chair of the University Code of Honor Committee
The Student Co-Chair of the
University Code of Honor Committee will assist in orienting new students to the
honor code, and promoting knowledge of and adherence to the honor code among
all students.
F.
Participation on Honesty Committees
Students also participate in
investigating and determining responsibility in Academic Code of Honor cases by
serving on departmental or college Honesty Committees. The chair of an individual department or the
dean of the college requests these students to serve in these positions.
V.
FACULTY AND TEACHING ASSISTANT RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE ACADEMIC CODE
OF HONOR
A.
Education of Faculty
1.
All members of the University faculty are required
to become aware of the policies and procedures as outlined under the Academic
Code of Honor and contained in the Academic Code of Honor Handbook.
2.
The faculty representatives to the University
Academic Code of Honor Committee from each college, working with the dean, are responsible for developing a
procedure to introduce new faculty to the Academic Code of Honor. The
orientation procedures should, when possible, be done prior to faculty
activities in the classroom. The faculty
member in charge of a particular course is responsible for educating and
establishing guidelines for the teaching assistants (TAs) in the
course and familiarizing the TAs with relevant statutes of the Academic Code of
Honor that they should follow.
B.
Communicating Standards to Students
1.
Faculty are expected to explain the conditions under
which students are to share their work, for example, outlines that can form the
basis of an exam or paper, take-home exams, lab reports, and in-class
examinations. Faculty should also offer
guidelines when asking students to work in teams or groups, for example when
inviting students to collaborate on problem sets, develop computer programs,
and the like – either inside or outside of class.
2.
Faculty are encouraged to distribute a handout with
information about what constitutes plagiarism when assigning writing in their
courses, keeping in mind that our goal is to teach students how to use and
document sources appropriately. Learning
to do so is part of a long on-going process.
3.
In the event that students have not learned the
conventions of documentation in early drafts of their work, faculty are
encouraged to give students the opportunity to revise their work until any
plagiarized material is eliminated.
4.
Faculty are encouraged to take note of the principles
articulated in section IV.B above, to reinforce these
principles in their discussions of the honor code with students, and to explain
how these principles apply to the work in their class.
C.
Academic Environment
1.
Each faculty member will strive to establish an
environment in order to evaluate students in a fair and reasonable manner. The purpose of the Academic Code of Honor is
not to test the students’ ability to perform in a highly competitive and
stressful environment, but to help them develop habits of moral character.
2.
Both students and faculty share in responsibility
for maintaining the above ‘fair and reasonable’ learning environment. Faculty members may be present in classrooms
during examinations, fostering an environment which does not create
opportunities for dishonest action.
D.
Responsible Actions
1.
Anyone with the responsibility to teach or assist in
a course will not tolerate dishonesty.
2.
If aware of a situation in which dishonest behavior
may have occurred, faculty must take one of the following actions:
a)
Discuss the situation with the student(s) suspected
of violating the Code if the faculty member or teaching assistant feels that
such a discussion might aid in evaluating the situation. If this discussion
results in the decision that the initial suspicion was unjustified, no
additional action need be taken. If there is still a reason to suspect
dishonesty, regardless of the intent or severity, one of the following two
courses of action must be taken.
(i)
If a
student admits to having violated the Code, and if that student and the
instructor can agree on an appropriate punishment, the instructor will send to
the Associate Provost an
Honor Code Violation Report (for a copy, see Appendix) indicating the nature of
the violation and the agreed-upon penalty.
In determining an appropriate punishment, faculty and students are to be
guided by the criteria used by honesty committees in assigning penalties (see
VII.D below); the faculty member may also consult with the Faculty Honor Code
Officer or a member of the University Code of Honor Committee. Both the instructor and the student are
required to sign the Honor Code Violation Report.
Upon receiving an Honor Code Violation Report, the Associate Provost, who may
consult with a faculty representative on the University Code of Honor Committee
from the relevant college, confirms that the penalty is consistent with those
assessed in similar cases in the department.
If there is clear and compelling evidence of fundamental unfairness or
if the sanction is incompatible with the Honor Code, the Associate Provost will
inform the instructor and invite the instructor to discuss with the student
whether they would like to modify the Honor Code Violation Report. If the instructor and student agree to a
change, they should initial and date any amendments to the original Report and send
the revised version to the Associate Provost. If in the end, the Associate
Provost judges that an Honor Code Violation Report is fundamentally unfair or incompatible with the Honor Code, the
Associate Provost will nullify the Report and require the case to be heard by
the relevant Honesty Committee. The Associate Provost must notify the faculty
member and the student within seven calendar days of the date of receipt of the
Report of a decision to nullify the Report.
An instructor who has not been informed in writing of such nullification
within seven calendar days is then to impose the penalty described in the
Report.
A student, having signed an Honor Code Violation Report, has seven calendar
days from the date of the student’s execution of the Report to revoke the
agreement delineated in the Report. To
revoke the agreement, the student must in writing so inform the Associate
Provost, who will notify the faculty member of the revocation and direct the
faculty member to report the suspected offense to the chair of the relevant
Honesty Committee, which then must hear the case. After seven calendar days, the agreement
becomes irrevocable. No student may drop
a course in which he or she has signed an Honor Code Violation Report unless
the student has revoked the agreement delineated in the Report and has been
found not to have violated the Honor Code by the Honesty Committee.
If either the Honor Code
Violation Report is nullified or the student revokes the agreement delineated
in the Report, the Honesty Committee will not be informed of the agreement, and
the admission by the student of the Honor Code Violation cannot be used as
evidence in the hearing of the Honesty Committee. If the relevant Honesty Committee Chair should
come to learn of this action, he/she is duty bound not to inform other members
of the committee.
(ii)
If a
student denies having violated the Code, or if the instructor and that student
cannot agree on an appropriate penalty, or if either the student or the
instructor declines to sign an Honor Code Violation Report, the faculty member
or teaching assistant must report the suspected offense in writing to the
Honesty Committee of the department or college offering the course.
b)
Submit, in writing, a formal report describing the
suspected offense directly to the Honesty Committee of the department or
college offering the course.
3.
Faculty are obliged to follow one of these
procedures in all cases where they believe an honor code violation may have
occurred. Students have the right to a
fair and complete inquiry into any alleged violation of the honor code. No faculty member or teaching assistant may
penalize a student for suspected dishonest behavior unless the student either has agreed to that penalty in a
signed Honor Code Violation Report or has been assigned such a penalty as a
result of an Honesty Committee hearing.
VI.
HONESTY COMMITTEES
A.
Composition of Honesty Committees
A college or school may set up honesty committees at
either the departmental or college level.
The dean shall see that appropriate structures are established. In all
Honesty Committees, students must constitute the majority of members. Two
options are available:
1.
Departmental Honesty Committee:
Each department within the college establishes a standing
Departmental Honesty Committee. The
department chair appoints one faculty member from the department as chair of
the Honesty Committee, a second faculty member from the department to serve on
the Committee and normally three students (one of whom may be a graduate
student) to serve on the Committee.
2.
College Honesty Committee:
A single standing honesty committee is established for a
college or school, and is called the College Honesty Committee. The dean appoints a faculty member from the
college as chair of the Honesty Committee, a second faculty member of the
college to serve on the Committee, and normally three students (one of whom may
be a graduate student) to serve on the Committee.
To bring greater continuity and consistency to Honesty
Committee deliberations and decisions over the years, it is recommended that
one or more student members of the Committee each year not be in their final
year of studies at Notre Dame. If a graduate student is included, the
appointment of an undergraduate senior and an underclassman may be
optimal. A dean or department chair may,
with the approval of the Associate Provost who co-chairs the University Code of
Honor Committee, compose the college or department committee, respectively, in
a manner other than that described above, provided that the committee is
chaired by a faculty member of the college and the majority of its members are
students.
B.
Publication of Honesty Committee Membership
In order for the Academic Code of
Honor to function, both students and faculty must know the membership of the
Honesty Committee to whom they can report instances of alleged academic
dishonesty.
1.
If Honesty Committees are established at the
departmental level, the department chair bears the responsibility for
publicizing the names of committee members in an appropriate fashion, for
example, by posting them in the departmental offices or on the department’s web
site. The department chair also notifies
the dean of the college and all faculty members in the department of the
committee’s membership.
2.
If an Honesty Committee is established at the
college level, the dean bears the responsibility for publicizing the names of
committee members in an appropriate fashion, for example by posting them in the
offices of the college and its departments or on the web site of the college
and departments. The dean also notifies
all department chairs and all faculty members in the college of the committee’s
membership.
C.
Role of Faculty Representatives of the University Code of Honor
Committee
1.
The role of Faculty Representatives in a college is
to assist Departmental or College Honesty Committees in their work and to serve
as a liaison between these committees and the University Code of Honor
Committee. Consequently, the Faculty
Representative may sit in as a non-voting observer on any Honesty Committee
hearings in the college that she or he wishes.
Moreover, in any case in which the chair of the Honest Committee deems
it helpful, he or she may ask the Faculty Representative to sit in to provide
counsel or assistance.
2.
The School of Architecture should consider the
Faculty Representatives of the College of Arts and Letters its Faculty
Representatives in its Honesty Committee procedures.
VII.
PROCEDURES FOR RESPONDING TO AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE HONOR CODE
A.
Preliminary Inquiry Into Whether a Hearing Is Warranted
1.
Upon receiving a written report concerning a
possible violation of the Code of Honor, the chair of the relevant Honesty
Committee appoints a faculty member (who may be him or herself) of the Honesty
Committee to make a preliminary inquiry into whether a hearing is needed.
a)
The first stage in the preliminary inquiry might
include, for example, an interview of the person submitting the report and any
other identified witnesses and/or a review of any documents submitted in
support of the allegation.
b)
Before a hearing can be held, the member of the
committee assigned to conduct the preliminary inquiry must inform the student
that a report of a suspected honor code violation has been filed. At this point, the student should be provided
with sufficient information to understand the nature of the report. (This information generally will not include
the name of the reporting party if that party is a student.) The student will also be asked if he or she
has any information that might help the committee in determining whether or not
a hearing is warranted. Sending information to a University provided
email address will satisfy the notification requirement.
2.
The chair of the Honesty Committee, in consultation
with the faculty member assigned to investigate the report (if this person is
different from the chair), has the authority to decide whether there is
sufficient evidence to warrant an Honesty Committee hearing. A hearing is
warranted whenever there is reason to believe that academic dishonesty (whether
major or minor) might have occurred.
After reviewing the case, the chair of the Honesty Committee has two
options:
a)
He or she may decide that there is not sufficient
evidence of major or minor academic dishonesty to warrant a hearing. If the
chair reaches this decision, he or she shall so notify the student suspected of
a violation, the instructor and the reporting student(s) (if any), and shall
destroy all records related to the case.
b)
The chair may decide that a hearing would be
warranted. If the report of a possible violation was submitted by anyone other
than the instructor in the course, the chair informs the instructor both of the
report and of the evidence and asks the instructor if he or she wishes to
contact the student to see if the case can be settled via an Honor Code
Violation Report (see V.D. above). If
the instructor declines to do so, the chair will then write a letter to the
student(s) suspected of the violation. The letter shall describe the possible
violation, state the known evidence (including witnesses and documents
involved, if any), and state the time and place of the hearing. The letter
shall also inform the student(s) under suspicion that he or she can bring to
the hearing members of the University community for support and/or to serve as
witnesses.
3.
Honesty Committees ordinarily do not meet during the
final examination period. However, if
the student suspected of a violation is a graduating student during his or her
final semester, the Honesty Committee must make every reasonable effort to meet
prior to graduation.
B.
Recusal of an Honesty Committee Member
1.
If a suspected honor code violation is brought
before an honesty committee, and a member of the committee is involved as one
bringing the suspicion forward, or as one suspected of a violation, or as a
witness, that person must recuse him or herself from the committee for that
case. If
an honesty committee member has direct knowledge that the student suspected of
a violation has been previously accused or found responsible for a separate
honor code violation, that person must recuse him- or herself from the
committee for the current case. On the
other hand, if the suspected student chooses to reveal a prior violation to the
committee, then the committee members need not recuse themselves. If any member of the honesty
committee has a relationship with someone involved in the case which may
compromise his or her objectivity, he or she may recuse him or herself.
2.
In the event of a recusal, it is the responsibility
of the chair of the honesty committee to ensure that the committee is
appropriately constituted to give a fair hearing, and that it meets the
conditions that the committee is chaired by a faculty member and the majority
of its members are students. (See VI.A.1
& 2 above.) The chair of the
committee may appoint new members to the committee to consider the case in
question.
3.
If it is the chair of the honesty committee who
recuses him or herself, a second faculty member on the committee has the
responsibility both of ensuring that the committee is appropriately constituted
and, if necessary, of appointing new members.
If there is more than one faculty member in addition to the chair on the
committee, the chair of the department (in the case of a Departmental Honesty
Committee) or the dean of the college (in the case of a College Honesty
Committee) determines which faculty member will assume this responsibility.
This faculty member will then also chair the honesty committee proceedings
concerning the case in question.
4.
If both the chair and all other faculty members on
an honesty committee recuse themselves, the chair of the department (in the
case of a Departmental Honesty Committee) or the dean of the college (in the
case of a College Honesty Committee) has the responsibility of appointing new
faculty members to the committee (one as chair of the committee) to consider
the case in question.
C.
Honesty Committee Hearing Procedures
A hearing regarding a violation of the Academic Code of
Honor is intended to give the student(s) suspected of a violation an
opportunity to be heard.
1.
Except for the required notifications, as set forth
throughout this policy, all Honesty Committee proceedings are to be strictly
confidential and information regarding such proceedings is to be disclosed only
as set forth in this policy on a legitimate need-to-know basis, in
compliance with applicable law. If a
parent or guardian of the student under suspicion inquires about the suspected
violation, the chair of the Honesty Committee may describe the general nature
of the suspected violation and the procedures defined in this Honor Code Handbook. However, the chair should not engage in a
detailed discussion of the evidence and should never reveal the names of
parties who reported the suspected violation or who are possible witnesses.
2.
The Honesty Committee will attempt to protect the identity of a student reporting
an act of dishonesty, if desired, during the investigation process.
However, if a hearing
results, the student reporting
a violation of the honor code must attend and participate in the proceedings.
3.
Before the hearing, committee members other than the
member assigned to the initial inquiry (see VII.A.1 above) should not discuss
the allegation or the evidence with the student suspected of the violation.
4.
If a student has questions about the Academic Code
of Honor and the procedures of the hearing, he or she should contact the
Student Honor Code Officer or another member of the University Code of Honor
Committee who is not involved in the adjudication of the student’s case. Neither the Student Officer nor any member of
the University Code of Honor Committee should discuss the evidence against the
student under suspicion nor make any recommendation about how the student
should respond to the suspicion of a violation, but should only discuss the
procedures and principles of the Academic Code of Honor.
5.
Minutes of the hearing are to be kept by one of the
committee members and signed by each committee member. The hearings are administrative and concern
internal University affairs; accordingly, the hearings are informal and are not
subject to formal rules of civil procedure or evidence. The hearings are not open to the public, nor
does the student under suspicion (or any other individual involved) have the
right to legal counsel at the hearing.
6.
Once the hearing is scheduled, the student
suspected of violating the Code of Honor may request permission from the chair
of the honesty committee to reschedule the hearing. The chair alone can grant such a request
based on extraordinary circumstances.
The student may bring members of the University community (e.g., a
fellow student, rector, or faculty member, but not a parent) to the hearing if
he or she so desires for support and/or to serve as witnesses. If the student suspected of violating the
Code of Honor does not attend his or her hearing, the committee may either postpone
the hearing or hold the hearing without the student and determine the case
using the evidence before the committee.
The student’s absence and surrounding circumstances may be a relevant
factor to the committee in reaching its decision.
Once
the hearing is scheduled, the individual who reported the possible violation
may request permission from the chair of the Honesty Committee to reschedule the hearing. The chair alone can grant such a request
based on extraordinary circumstances. If
the individual who reported the possible violation informs the chair that he or
she will be unable to be present at a hearing, the chair of the committee should
inform the student(s) suspected of a violation in advance of the hearing and
should endeavor to provide the student(s) and committee members an opportunity,
should either desire it, to question the reporting party prior to or during the
hearing (e.g., via a conference call).
At least two committee members should be present during any prior
questioning of the reporting party, and the conversation should be recorded and
played in its entirety at the hearing.
If the individual who reported the possible Code of Honor violation does
not attend the hearing and has not informed the chair that he or she will not
be present, the committee may, at its discretion, either postpone the hearing
or hold the hearing and determine the case using the evidence before the
committee. The committee may also decide
to dismiss the case because of the absence of the reporting party.
7.
The chair of the Honesty Committee should
open the hearing by briefly presenting the allegations. Next, the instructor of the course and/or any
other individual(s) reporting the allegations are to present their evidence of
the alleged violation. The student
suspected of a violation may question the instructor or other witnesses
concerning the evidence, as may the Committee members. This student may then present his or her own
witnesses, including his or her own testimony, and any other evidence. The
Committee members may then question the student under suspicion and any of the
other witnesses who are present.
8.
At the end of this process, the instructor and all
other witnesses are excused. At this
point the student has the opportunity to respond further to the charges if he
or she desires by making a statement to the Committee members. The student is then asked to leave, and the
Committee members deliberate.
9.
After deliberation, the Committee decides, by a
majority vote, whether the evidence supports a finding that the student under
suspicion violated the honor code or whether the evidence does not support such
finding, in which case the charges are dismissed. The standard for finding a student responsible
is that the evidence is clear and convincing, meaning that it is far more
reasonable to conclude that the violation did occur than it didn’t.
10.
If it is found that the evidence does not support a
finding that a violation has occurred, the chair of the Committee notifies the
student and the instructor in writing of this decision. This notification should, if possible, be
sent within one week of the hearing. Sending
information to a University provided email address will satisfy the
notification requirement.
11.
In a case in which it is found that the evidence
does not support a finding that a violation has occurred, the chair of the
Honesty Committee sends all records of the case to the Faculty Representative
of the University Code of Honor Committee in the college. In addition, the chair comments to the
Faculty Representative, either orally or in writing, on any problematic feature
of the case, or any feature which merits the attention of the University Code
of Honor Committee. Upon receiving these
records and the chair’s comments, the Faculty Representative writes a brief
case report which excludes the names of any student suspected of a violation or
involved in any way as a witness in the case and conceals their identity as far
as possible. The purpose of this case
report is to assist the University Code of Honor Committee in its efforts to
improve the Academic Code of Honor and its implementation, and it should
include information such as the general nature of the suspected offense, the
vote of the committee, the reasons for the committee’s finding that evidence
does not support the conclusion that a violation has occurred, and any features
which merit the attention of the University Code of Honor Committee. The
Faculty Representative sends this report to the relevant Associate Provost, and
destroys all other records related to the case.
D.
Assignment of Penalties
If a student is found to have violated
the honor code, the committee must decide on the penalty. These judgments are left to the discretion of
the Honesty Committee, and this handbook does not attempt to offer an algorithm
for deciding these questions. However,
the committee should be guided by the following broad distinction between
offenses and penalties.
1.
A minor offense is a less serious violation which
normally carries the penalty of zero credit for the work with respect to which
the violation occurred. Such an offense has some of the following
characteristics: the dishonesty involved
a more limited portion of the work submitted; it would not have considerably
increased the student’s grade in the course; and the student did not engage in
extensive premeditation and planning prior to the act.
2.
A major offense is a more serious violation which
normally carries the penalty of an ‘F’ in the course. Such an offense is one which has some of the
following characteristics: the dishonesty involved a substantial portion of the
work submitted; it would have considerably increased the student’s grade in the
course; and there is evidence of fairly extensive premeditation and planning
prior to the act.
3.
The Committee may decide the offense was flagrant,
which is a violation of an unusually grave nature, and in this case it may
recommend permanent
dismissal of the student or dismissal with the option for the student to apply
for readmission to the University after one or more semesters.
A flagrant offense would be one which has all the characteristics of a
major violation listed above (VII.D.2), plus further features which makes the
offense more grave. For example, the
student may have convinced a substantial number of classmates to participate in
serious acts of dishonesty and led them in this endeavor; or the Committee may
discover that the student engaged in several serious acts of dishonesty in the
course in question, or serious acts of dishonesty in a number of courses.
The
committee, when it assigns a penalty, may also consider as a mitigating factor
the degree to which the student was honest and forthcoming regarding the
violation, or any other evidence of sincere contrition. The Honesty Committee should
take into account penalties invoked in previous cases of a similar nature, and
may find it helpful to consult the Faculty Representative of the University
Code of Honor Committee for this information.
If the Honor Code violation took place outside of the context of a
graded course, alternative sanctions may be applicable.
E.
Notification of the Decision and the Appeal Process for Major or Minor
Offenses
1.
If the committee decides a student is responsible
for
a major or minor offense and assigns a penalty, the chair of the Honesty
Committee notifies the student in writing of the committee’s decision and of
the penalty. Sending
information to a University provided email address will satisfy the
notification requirement. The letter will explain the
appeal process and make clear that a second violation of the Academic Code of
Honor will normally result in dismissal from the University.
2.
The student has the right to appeal the decision
and/or the penalty to the dean of the college or school in which the offense
occurred. The dean may
designate responsibility for hearing the appeal to an associate who is
empowered to act on behalf of the dean in this capacity. Grounds for appeal are limited
to: evidence discovered after the Honesty Committee Hearing which is relevant
to the judgment that a violation has occurred or to the evaluation of its
gravity; the presence of a procedural defect in the preliminary investigation
or honesty committee hearing; or evidence of personal bias on the part of
members of the Honesty Committee that likely influenced the committee’s
decision that a violation has occurred or its assignment of a penalty.
3.
A student wishing to appeal must do so no later than
seven days from the date notification of the decision and penalty was sent by
the Committee. This deadline may be
extended only by the dean of the college or school in which the offense
occurred, at his or her sole discretion.
4.
If the student does not appeal within the time
specified by the committee, and has not been granted an extension by the dean,
the committee’s chair then notifies the instructor of the course of the
decision and the penalty. The instructor
of the course will execute the penalty that the Honesty Committee has
determined to be appropriate. The chair
then sends to the relevant Associate Provost’s office all documents relevant to
the case.
5.
To initiate an appeal, the student must provide a
detailed written statement of the reasons for the appeal both to the dean of
the college or school in which the offense occurred and to the chair of the
Honesty Committee. Upon receipt of such
notice, the chair sends all documents concerning the case to the appropriate
dean.
6.
The student has the right to appear before the dean of
the College where the offense occurred to discuss his or her appeal.
7.
It is up to the dean’s discretion alone whether to
allow witnesses or other parties to attend this appeal meeting, and whether to
undertake any further inquiries to decide the appeal. The dean should not conduct a new hearing on
the original allegation, but should undertake only those inquiries he or she
deems necessary to decide among the options below. However, before taking any of the first four
options below, the dean is required to speak with the chair of the Honesty
Committee to understand fully the Committee’s reasons for its original decision
and to discuss the dean’s reasons for considering a change in that decision.
8.
The dean deciding the appeal has five options:
a)
The dean may overrule the finding of the Honesty
Committee that a violation occurred and may dismiss the charge against the
student in its entirety. In this case,
the charges are dismissed and the dean shall notify the student, the instructor,
and the chair of the Honesty Committee of his or her decision and rationale. The
dean then sends all records of the case to the Faculty Representative of the
University Code of Honor Committee in the college, and comments upon any
features of the case which may merit the attention of the University Code of
Honor Committee. The Faculty Representative then writes a report as described
above in VII.C.11, sends the report to the Associate Provost’s Office, and
destroys all other records related to the case.
b)
The dean, either because of new evidence or
procedural defect, may remand the case to the original Honesty Committee for a
new hearing or other follow-up. In such
case, the dean shall notify the student of his or her decision and inform the
student of the next step to be taken by the Honesty Committee on remand.
c)
If the dean decides that there is evidence that
personal bias may have affected the original Committee’s decision, he or she
may constitute a new Honesty Committee to consider the alleged violation. In this case, the dean notifies the student
and the chair of the original Honesty Committee. The dean may constitute the new Honesty
Committee in any way which she or he deems appropriate, provided that it
includes both faculty and student representation. The hearing of the new Honesty Committee
proceeds
as described above in VII.C&D, except that the preliminary investigation
may be dispensed with.
d)
The dean may agree with the decision but not with
the penalty imposed by the Honesty Committee, and may decrease the severity of
the penalty. In this case, the dean
shall notify the instructor of the course of the decision and the penalty, and
the instructor shall execute the penalty if applicable. The dean shall then forward all records to
the Associate Provost who co-chairs the University Code of Honor Committee.
e)
The dean may agree with the decision and the
penalty, and affirm the decision in all respects. In such case, the dean shall notify the
instructor of the course of the decision and the penalty, and the instructor
shall execute the penalty. The dean
shall then forward all records to the Associate Provost who co-chairs the
University Code of Honor Committee.
9.
If the semester’s grade will be submitted before the
necessary hearing procedures and appeals are completed, the instructor must
request that the dean of the college in which the course is taught issue the
student an ‘X’ grade for the course.
10.
A finding of an honor
code violation
with regard to a particular course will void any earlier withdrawal from this
course.
F.
Notification of Decision and Appeal Process for a Flagrant Offense
1.
If the Committee decides the offense is a flagrant
one which merits dismissal, it proceeds automatically on appeal to the dean.
The chair informs the dean of the Committee’s decision, and sends all records
of the case to the dean.
2.
The chair of the Honesty Committee notifies the
student in writing of the Committee’s decision and of the recommended
penalty. The letter should state that
the case has been sent to the dean on appeal and it should explain the appeal
procedure.
3.
The student has the right to appear before the dean
to discuss the appeal, and the case proceeds as described in VII.E.6-10
above. The dean has all the options
present in any appeal, as set forth in VII.E.8 above.
4.
If the dean agrees with the Committee’s decision and penalty, all
records of the case are sent with the dean’s recommendation to the Associate
Provost, and the case proceeds as described in VII.G.3-6 below.
G.
Records of Violations & Repeated Violations
1.
All documents related to a violation are kept in the
Office of the Associate Provost who chairs the University Code of Honor
Committee. The
Associate Provost will notify the student’s college dean, appropriate academic
advisor and rector of a violation without revealing any details of the case. The Associate Provost’s office will retain
records of the violation for seven years after the student’s graduation and
will reveal their contents to others only with the written approval of the
student or in
compliance with applicable law. (In
cases where an Honesty Committee does not find that a student is
responsible for violating the Honor Code the resulting case report
[see
VII.C.11 above], void of any mention of the student’s identity, may be kept for as long as the
University Code of Honor Committee deems it useful.)
2.
When the above office receives a report that an
honor code violation has been established, that office checks honor code files
to determine if the student has a previous violation. If the student has a prior offense, the
Associate Provost assigns a further penalty for the repeated offense. The standard penalty for a repeated offense
is dismissal from the University.
a)
Dismissal is separation from the
University for at least one semester. Unless
otherwise specified, the student is eligible to apply for readmission to
Notre Dame, but readmission is not automatic.
b)
Permanent Dismissal is separation from the
University with no opportunity to apply for readmission.
3.
It is the responsibility of the Associate Provost to
notify the student, the dean of the College in which the violation occurred,
the dean of the College in which the student is enrolled (if this differs from
the former) and the Registrar of the dismissal of a student.
4.
In order to be readmitted to the University, a dismissed student must submit an
application for readmission. Readmission
must be approved by the Associate Provost who chairs the University Code of
Honor Committee and the dean of the College to which the student wishes to be
admitted.
5.
In any case involving permanent dismissal
from the University, the student has the right to a review of the case by the
Office of the President of the University.
A student may request a review of any aspect of the case for any reason. A written request for a review, identifying
all issues to be
reviewed by the Office of the President and giving the reasons for requesting a
review, must be submitted to the Associate Provost’s Office within three
business days of being notified of the decision. Decisions of the Office of the President will
be based on a review of the written file and are final.
6.
In the case of dismissal for an honor code violation, a
student’s transcript will read ‘Honor Code Dismissal; in the case of permanent
dismissal,
it will read ‘Honor Code – Permanent Dismissal’.
H.
Required Recusals
1.
If a dean has been involved as an instructor or as a
witness in an honesty committee hearing, any appeal of the committee's decision
is to be handled by the Provost of the University. In such an appeal, the Provost has all the responsibilities
and options usually assigned to deans as outlined above in VII.E and F.
2.
If anyone in the Office of the President has been
involved as an instructor or as a witness in an honesty committee hearing, a
student facing permanent dismissal from the university as a result of that hearing has
the right to a review of the case by the Provost of the University. In such a review, the Provost has all the
responsibilities and options usually assigned to the Office of the President as
outlined above in VII.G.5.
______________
The
Undergraduate Student Academic Code of Honor Handbook was approved by Academic
Council on April 20, 2005 and revised on May 17, 2011.
It evolved from the Academic Code of Honor Handbook, first published in
1989 and revised in 1991, 1993, 1997 and 2002.
Sections of the 1991 version were adapted from the Academic Honor Code
Manual published in 1966.
Honor Code Violation Report
1. Student’s Name:
_______________________2. Student’s ID#:
________________
3. Instructor’s Name: ______________________
4. Course Information: __________ __________ __________ __________
Department Number Section Semester
5.
Level of honor code violation:
Minor Major ____ Flagrant ____
6. Briefly describe the nature of the honor code
violation:
7. Briefly describe the agreed-upon penalty:
We, the undersigned, attest that this report
accurately states both the nature of the honor code violation that occurred in
this course and the penalty that we have agreed is appropriate for this
violation.
(For the Instructor): I attest that I will not penalize the student
for this infraction of the Code of Honor in any way other than that described
above.
(For the Student): I hereby waive my right to an Honesty
Committee hearing to adjudicate this case.
I have seven calendar days from the date indicated next to my name
within which to reconsider this waiver. If I do not, within those seven days,
explicitly revoke this waiver by writing to the Associate Provost, the waiver
becomes permanent and irrevocable. I
also affirm that, unless I revoke this agreement and am subsequently found by
an Honesty Committee not to have violated the Code of Honor in this case, I
will not at any point endeavor to drop this course. I understand that if I am
found responsible for a second violation of the Honor Code, I am subject to
further penalties that might include dismissal from the university.
_________________________ ____________________
Student Date
_________________________ ____________________
Instructor Date
This report must be signed by both the
student and the faculty member and delivered to the Associate Provost’s Office,
300 Main Building. Both the student and
the faculty member should retain a copy of this report.
_________________________ ____________________
Associate Provost Date