Proposal for Disposition of Academic Offenses

1. Proposal for Disposition of Academic Offenses Robert B. Grossman (chair, A&S) Tony Blanton (Dean of Students) Lee Edgerton (Ag) Thomas Foster (Medicine & Pharmacy) Braphus Kaalund (SG, Law) Douglas Michael (Law) Randall Roorda (A&S, Writing Program) Enid Waldhart (CIS)

2. Changes to Minimum Penalties • Current rule: • Minimum penalty of E for first offense • E not subject to repeat option • Minimum penalty of suspension for second offense • Proposed rule (amended by SC): • No minimum penalty for first offense (instructor discretion) • Minimum penalty of E for second offense • E subject to repeat option • Minimum penalty of suspension for third offense • New penalty of XE permitted for a first or second offense • XE not subject to repeat option • Penalty of XE or more severe may be imposed for first or second offense, but must be approved by chair and dean

3. Changes to Transcript Notation Policy • Current rule: • Suspension, dismissal, expulsion for an academic offense indicated on transcript • For suspension and dismissal, “for an academic offense” removed from transcript after three years • Proposed rule:* • XE may be converted to E upon appeal after one year; converted automatically after three years • Suspension, dismissal, expulsion for an academic offense removed from transcript after three years • *yet to be discussed by SC

4. Changes to Appeals • Current rule: • All offenses and penalties may be appealed to University Appeals Board (UAB) • UAB may not reduce penalties below the minimum • Proposed rule: • All offenses and penalties may be appealed to UAB • UAB may not reduce penalties below the minimum • Recommended penalty of E or less for a first offense may be reduced by UAB only if “grossly disproportionate” to the offense • Recommended penalty of XE or more for a first or second offense may be reduced by UAB to E and may be reduced below E only under “extraordinary circumstances” • If UAB reduces a penalty or finds a student not guilty, it must provide written justification to the instructor

5. Changes to Jurisdiction • Current rule: • Honor codes may claim jurisdiction over any students in the program or any students taking courses in the college • Dean of Graduate School has jurisdiction over graduate students in 600- and 700-level courses and in academic work outside of courses • Proposed rule (as amended by Senate Council): • Honor codes may claim jurisdiction only over students in their program • Dean of Graduate School has jurisdiction over graduate students and postbaccalaureate students in all courses and in academic work outside of courses

6. Issues that have arisen • Should a penalty less than E be permitted? If so, how much discretion should instructors have in choosing a penalty? • What should be the minimum penalty for second and third offenses? • What level of offense should be marked on the transcript? For how long? • What level of offense should be recorded on the student’s internal record? For how long? How should it be recorded (as an offense, warning, …)? • Who should have jurisdiction over offenses committed in a course offered by one college by students in a different college if one of the two colleges follows an honor code? • Where should appeals of penalties go? Will the UAB be overwhelmed by appeals if offenses are no longer handled unofficially? • How firm should deadlines be?