Start of main content
Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy
Description
This policy specifies the Academic Integrity expectations and the process for adjudication of Academic Misconduct for undergraduate and graduate students, except as indicated in the policy.
Posted on: 4/25/2025
Closes on: 5/9/2025 11:59:00 PM
Archived on: 5/16/2025 11:59:00 PM
The Request for Comments has been closed
Comments
Thank your for this opportunity to comment. I have divided my comments and questions by the sections in the policy.
Academic Integrity Dismissal
Use of "permanent" contradicts "for at least two (2) years." "Permanent" creates an expectation of an indefinite period of time (forever), while the phrase "for at least two (2) years" creates an expectation that dismissals will always be for a finite period of time. Dismissal can't be forever and not forever at the same time.
Academic Integrity Probation
I agree with the earlier comment, separation from the university has meant dismissal, and probation has not included dismissal. They have been two separate things.
Academic Misconduct
Since helping others and attempting to help others are listed separately, shouldn't gaining and attempting to gain also be listed separately? Surely gaining an unfair advantage is also meant to be misconduct and not just attempting to gain an unfair advantage.
Is being impersonated meant to be misconduct, or allowing yourself to be impersonated misconduct? A hypothetical, if someone impersonates a faculty member to the ITS help desk to be able to gain access to the faculty member's d2l account so that they can alter their grade records, is the faculty member guilty of misconduct because they were impersonated even though it was done without their knowledge or consent. The wording would indicate that the faculty member would be guilty also.
Instructor of Record (Instructor)
In multi-section laboratory courses, the GA that supervises the lab section and provides the direct instruction, is not necessarily the instructor of record. The instructor of record may not provide direct instruction to students, but does have a supervisory role of the GA. This definition appears to convolve Instructor of Record and Instructor, which have not always been the same thing.
Written Warning
The definition and usage of it in other parts of the document are not consistent with this definition. A document that conveys a sanction is not a warning. The common usage of warning implies no sanction. It would be comparable that saying the police officer just gave me a waring for speeding, and I have to pay a fine for speeding. In common usage, either someone is warned or sanctioned but it is not both at the same time. Warning is also being used as a notification of an allegation, and as a description of outcome with a sanction.
Section 1.1.7 Requiring the instructor to assign an incomplete if a resolution is pending is in conflict with the policies on incomplete grades. For example, if the misconduct accusation involves an assignment worth more than 25% of the total course grade such as a final exam, then the requirement that the student have successfully completed 75% of the required work in the course, but is unable to complete the course requirements due to circumstances beyond the student's control cannot be met. Further, in the I grade policy, the I grade is meant to indicate to the student that they have the consent of the instructor to complete the course requirements. Given that a misconduct allegation is under review, the I grade would not mean this.
Section 1.2 vs 2. Reporting
Is the reporting person responsible for reporting to the entire list, or are their obligations met once they have reported them to at least one person on the list (does the "or" in 1.2 apply or the "and" in 2? The plain language of the sentence in 2 indicates all. Do we want to obligate students to have to make reports to the entire list?
Reporting of Academic Misconduct
May reports be made by non-ETSU persons? For example, if a non-ETSU person learns that their employee has been using company provided generative AI tools to complete ETSU assignments, or that a clinical student has been falsifying patient records, may they report? Another example, if a student brags on social media about getting away with misconduct, may non-ETSU persons report it. The language of the section indicates that such reports would not be allowed.
How is an instructor to know if the student has committed other offenses if consultation is not required? How are they to learn of other offenses, if the earlier events are private?
Section 3.1.4 Not all evidence is sharable by email, either because of the physical nature of the evidence, because it would violate another student's privacy to share in a way that the university could not control what happens to the copies, or would violate the conditions the university has agreed to with a third-party content provider. For example, if a student copied off a another innocent student during an exam, and the copying was not discovered until after the innocent student's exam was graded, how could the evidence that the first student copied be provided to the student via email, without releasing the innocent student's exam grade. If images of the exam were redacted to hide the grading, how could the accused student know for certain, that the images they received were an accurate representation of the exam they were accused of copying? Additionally, certain standardized tests created by outside parties, e.g., The American Chemical Society's Exams Institute, do not allow release of exam materials to the public. Once emailed to the student, how could the university control what happens to that information? Would the university be liable for damages to the test creator, since the ability of an emailed test to be released to the public is a foreseeable consequence of emailing it to a student?
Hearing Process
"The student may decline to testify, with knowledge that silence may be considered as evidence." While I understand that the fifth amendment right to not be compelled to testify against yourself only applies to criminal proceedings, adopting the position that a student's silence may be considered as evidence would seem to violate the spirit of this? It would also seem to compel an affirmative defense, where the student must prove the allegation false, not just that the instructor must provide evidence it is true. Is that the intention?
Removal of Account Hold
If the sanction includes dismissal or expulsion, should the hold be removed? Given the private nature of the proceedings, how are unrelated parties in other departments, programs, or the admissions offices, to know that the student is not eligible to be admitted to a new program without the hold, or other such record in place in the SIS?
Thank you so very much for taking time to review this policy and for the opportunity to air our comments. My apologies if I ask too many questions. I deal with academic misconduct, especially at around this time of the semester, on a daily basis .
Definitions: I have tried to keep my many questions in bold.
Academic Integrity Dismissal
Permanent separation from the university for at least two (2) years.
Academic probation
A specified period of time that may include separation from the university for one term, multiple terms, or the entire period remaining before the student earns the degree (undergraduate or graduate) the student was pursuing.
What is the difference between these two, especially if the student is separated ( you mean suspended ?) as a sophomore therefore having to be away for two years ? Maybe define dismissal and probation as well. I thought students on probation usually remain on campus .
An Informal Resolution, Facilitated Resolution, or Formal Resolution is sought : Could you please define these as well ?
1.1.3: Report all instances of suspected Academic Misconduct to initiate an adjudication; So where does the teachable moment come in if the instructor must report ALL instances or do we want the teachable moment after going through the entire process?
2. Allegations of Academic Misconduct should be submitted promptly in writing to t_he Instructor,_ department chair, and academic Dean/designee, and Dean of Graduate School if the student is a graduate student. While a delay in reporting may occur based on when the issue is actually discovered, failing to report within thirty (30) Business Days of the date on which the individual first becomes aware of the potential Academic Misconduct may affect the ability to adjudicate the issue
Who is supposed to do the reporting here if the misconduct allegation is being submitted to the instructor?
3. An allegation of Academic Misconduct is adjudicated pursuant to the procedures of this policy. The determination of Academic Misconduct is based on a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., it is more likely than not that the student committed the misconduct), and an appropriate academic consequence is imposed (e.g., a zero for a plagiarized assignment). This determination is based solely on relevant documentation, exhibits, and oral or written testimony. If the Instructor is unavailable, the department chair will appoint a designee to participate in the adjudication of the matter. Minor deviations from procedure may occur and do not invalidate outcomes unless they cause significant harm to either party.
Who does the adjudication? The chair , the instructor or someone else ? when does the dean/designee come into the process ?
3. The Written Warning is sent to the student’s ETSU email account within seven (7) Business Days of assigning the grade Sanction.
Who issues this warning , the instructor? Isn't this the academic misconduct notification or why are we calling it a warning? Do we send a student a warning before the student gets the opportunity to appeal ? Does the warning assume that the student is guilty already?
A warning has already been defined as : Official documentation conveying to the student that their behavior was unacceptable and that any future violation of Academic Integrity may result in more severe action, including Suspension or Expulsion
Allegations not directly tied to a specific academic course: w_hat are some examples of such allegations that are not tied to specific courses ?_
8. The student is provided copies of any evidence to be presented during the hearing. The hearing shall be private, unless otherwise requested by both the student and Instructor, in writing.
Isn’t it the student who should provide any evidence , especially if it is the student who is appealing the charge?
A complaint of Academic Misconduct, along with any supporting evidence, may be brought by the Instructor or to the Instructor by other members of the faculty, staff, or student body. Such complaints should not be considered confidential.
Prior to applying a grade sanction for academic misconduct, the Instructor consults with the department chair. The level of the consultation will be at the chair’s discretion. The chair may consult the dean/designee. If the student has committed other academic misconduct offenses at the university the dean/designee will take that information under advisement and determine if additional sanctions may be warranted through a hearing board and if it may reach the level of Academic Integrity Dismissal, Academic Integrity Probation, or Suspension.
#6 above says that the hearing is private . How then would the instructor and chair know about these private prior offenses? I usually find out from the registrar's office. Should the instructors seek this information from there as well? Those will be endless emails to the registrars' office.
I concur with Dr. Pittarese's comment about cumulative misconduct; the policy and/or procedures should provide guidance on those situations.
In addition, perhaps the policy should include a statement like “In the event of unusual situations not specifically addressed in the policy or procedures section, the Provost (or designee) in consultation with University Counsel will provide guidance.”
Thanks for the opportunity to review this version of the policy. In my role, I am charged with the academic misconduct issues related to graduate students. The problems with the current policy are really in the procedures, and I see some areas of this policy and procedures that raise questions for me in terms of operationalizing and/or warrant clarity.
Policy Section 3 says “unless they cause significant harm to either party.” Can the term “significant harm” be defined? Is this a legal term?
Policy Section 5 states that academic misconduct records are to be kept by the Office of the Provost. Currently, at least for graduate students, these are kept by the Graduate School. (We would be perfectly happy to turn over these files for storage by another unit!) According to the Records Retention policy, these materials are to be kept permanently. Since 2020, we have moved hearings to Zoom so that there is both a recording (as required) and a transcript (as required) and provides more available access for the hearing panel to participate, especially since about one-third of our graduate students are in online programs. To clarify—will this still be allowed in the policy? (The policy is silent on this, so I assume it will be okay.)
The procedures section should provide details on how the process of moving the records after a college or the Graduate School holds a hearing should occur, to whom the records should be sent, how video recordings will be sent, etc.
Policy Section 5.1. It is helpful when policies include a link to other policies referenced. In this case, a link to ETSU’s Records Retention Policy would be useful.
Procedures
Section 1
“A complaint of Academic Misconduct, along with any supporting evidence, may be brought by the Instructor or to the Instructor by other members of the faculty, staff, or student body. Such complaints should not be considered confidential.”
If the report is being brought be another faculty, staff, or student to whom should the complaint be presented? (For undergraduate students especially this is hard because they may be taking classes outside of the college of their major.) What if the report is made to someone who cannot adjudicate it? What should that person do?
“Prior to applying a grade sanction for academic misconduct, the Instructor consults with the department chair. The level of the consultation will be at the chair’s discretion. The chair may consult the dean/designee. If the student has committed other academic misconduct offenses at the university the dean/designee will take that information under advisement and determine if additional sanctions may be warranted through a hearing board and if it may reach the level of Academic Integrity Dismissal, Academic Integrity Probation, or Suspension.”
How will the instructor or department chair know if other misconduct offenses have occurred?
Section 2
States the dean/designee requests that the Registrar’s office places a hold. It would be helpful if the Graduate School dean/designee made this request for graduate students; however, this section does not indicate which dean would do this.
Section 3
The second paragraph is really confusing and hard to follow. To clarify, it might be helpful to add an early section to the policy that states academic misconduct cases will be assigned as follows:
For undergraduate students, the process will be handled by the Dean/designee of the academic college in which the misconduct occurred (again—which dean has jurisdiction if the misconduct happened, for example, in CSCI 1110 [CBAT] but the student is a major in Arts and Sciences? I would assume the CBAT dean would handle but clarity on this point would help.)
For graduate students including students enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Biomedical Sciences, it will be handled by the Dean of the Graduate School or designee.
For medical students enrolled in Quillen College of Medicine…
For pharmacy students enrolled in Gatton College of Pharmacy….
This would then provide clarity in the Procedures section since the Policy section has already delegated authority for particular student groups.
Section 8 & Section 10
Section 8--This section mentions that the student may have an advisor present. Is that intended to be an academic advisor? Or can the “advisor” be an attorney? Currently, if the student brings an attorney, a university attorney must also be present and this is also stated in the proposed policy in Section 10. However, in Section 8, the policy should specify that the student needs to indicate if they are bringing an attorney so that the university attorney can be scheduled to attend. As written, the policy could be interpreted as the student could decide to show up with an attorney the day of, and that would likely lead to a postponement. [Finding a hearing panel who can attend the scheduled hearing is often a problem, so we like to avoid postponement if possible.]
Section 11 is titled “Record of Hearing.” The second sentence reads: “The dean/designee provides a written outcome of the hearing to the student, Instructor and the Provost/designee within five (5) Business Days following the hearing.” I don’t see how the written outcome is a record of the hearing per se. Also this timeline doesn’t fit with other sections of the procedures (see below).
-Section 12 Hearing Process. This section states that hearing board will meet to deliberate the charges. Section 13 discussed the vote of the hearing board. Section 14 discusses the hearing board’s recommendation.
In prior Graduate School academic misconduct hearings, the panel usually deliberates following the hearing and in some cases, the hearing panel may need time to reflect upon the evidence; therefore, they may reconvene to further deliberate. They also need time to draft and agree upon a written recommendation to the dean. I find hearing panels are very careful in their written statements, so this usually take a bit of time. All of this is to say that I do not think the five Business Days timeline for the dean’s decision of Section 11 (which is still misplaced) is feasible or even necessarily in the best interest of the process. The dean should have time to review and further deliberate after receiving the hearing board’s findings. In a recent case, I had to pull the original articles in question from the library and review them to be sure that I was making the best decision. I respectfully ask that the timeline be reviewed.
In addition, no timeframes are provided for Sections 12, 13, 14.
Section 12—or somewhere I suggest including a sentence that says something along these lines: “All parties participating in an Academic Misconduct Hearing must abide by confidentiality and not share the details of the hearing with others.” Or something like that.
I appreciate the work that has been put into this policy to reframe the procedures.
In addition to the comments already made, I am seeking some clarification regarding the role of the dean/designee in the reporting and review process. Under Reporting Academic Misconduct, the policy notes that “the chair may consult the dean/designee,” suggesting that such consultation is optional. However, the next sentence indicates that the dean/designee will consider whether the student has committed other offenses—implying that the dean/designee has already obtained this information, perhaps through contact with the Registrar. If that is the case, should the dean/designee be consulted as a standard step prior to issuing a Written Warning, rather than optionally?
Additionally, I wonder whether this check for prior offenses is intended to help determine whether a situation qualifies as a “teachable moment” or warrants a formal sanction. If so, would it be appropriate—or even necessary—for an instructor or chair to inquire about a student’s prior conduct before making that decision? And if such inquiries are made, might that influence whether a more formal response is pursued over an educational one?
Under Issuing Written Warning, the policy states that the dean/designee will indicate whether the case is being forwarded to a hearing board. This again seems to assume that a review of the student’s record has already occurred, but the steps leading up to that are not clearly outlined. Would it be helpful to make explicit whether reviewing the student’s prior academic misconduct history is required before a Written Warning is issued, and if so, under what circumstances this should take place?
Thought of a few more things:
I agree with Ethan's comments.
A checklist format of the procedure could be helpful.
The process is scattered across multiple sections (Policy vs. Procedures), with key steps buried or repeated in slightly different forms. This may make it difficult to track the full timeline of required actions. A few specific areas of ambiguity and recommendations to make it easier for faculty, staff and students to understand and follow the policy:
The instructor’s options are explained late in the policy ("teachable moment" vs. applying a sanction) and not well distinguished early on. Move Instructor options and obligations earlier in the policy, perhaps within Section 1.1.
When students receive a Written Warning, their options are not consistently explained or easy to reference—especially in terms of timelines and consequences. Create/insert a clearly labeled subsection summarizing the student options (accept, request hearing), how to respond (in writing), to whom (dean/designee), and when (within 5 business days).
The roles of the Instructor, department chair, dean/designee, hearing board, and Provost overlap in places. It's not always clear who has final authority at each stage (e.g., who imposes the sanction, who enforces it, who records it). Add a clarity of responsibilities showing each actor’s role across different stages (reporting, adjudication, appeal, record keeping).
The appeal process is not immediately distinguishable from the hearing process, and the reasons for appeal are buried in paragraph form. Present grounds for appeal as a short bullet list and separate the timeline from procedural context for ease of scanning.
Defined terms section:
Academic Integrity Probation: A specified period of time that may include separation from the university for one term, multiple terms, or the entire period remaining before the student earns the degree (undergraduate or graduate) the student was pursuing.
Wouldn't separation from the university be suspension? I would think probation would be for students who remain enrolled but “on notice” for any further instances of misconduct. Probation could be for one term, multiple terms, or the entire period… (this would be consistent with how probation is used by the University Judicial Board).
Written warning - the way this is defined suggests it is merely that - a warning, a “don't do this again” letter. But in the procedure section 3. Issuing a written warning, the written warning isn't just a warning, but potentially a notice of a hearing for a severe infraction.
Procedure section:
1. Reporting Academic Misconduct, the second and third paragraphs seem to be in conflict. Paragraph 2 notes that the dean/designee “…will take that information under advisement and determine if additional sanctions may be warranted through a hearing board and if it may reach the level of Academic Integrity Dismissal, Academic Integrity Probation, or Suspension." but paragraph 3 indicates that “The Instructor retains the final decision to either: (1) Use the situation as a teachable moment (discuss with the student, issue a verbal warning, advise that no Sanction is being applied, and consider the issue closed), or (2) apply a Sanction and issue a Written Warning.” As I read the definitions, the written warning would be before dismissal, probation, or suspension.
Also, wouldn't the order be probation, suspension, dismissal (least to worst, at least as I understand it)?
General comment - potentially 45 business days to schedule a hearing and then potentially 15 business days for a response from the Provost/designee on an appeal - that could negatively impact a student's ability to progress or meet eligibility requirements (student athletes/veterans). I understand that is max time, but if it does that long on top of the time spent prior to that, that is a lengthy process.
On page 10, under the contents of the Written Warning to be sent to the student, item 3.1.4 states that the student must receive "a copy of the evidence."
Could the policy clarify how this requirement should be handled when the evidence is contained within a confidential document or another work product that cannot be shared directly due to confidentiality concerns or other practical constraints (for example, the work product cannot be easily transmitted via email)? In such cases, would it be permissible to allow the student supervised access to review the materials without actually providing a copy as part of the Written Warning? A similar situation arises in section 8 on page 11, which states, "The student is provided copies of any evidence to be presented during the hearing."
Additionally, could the policy offer guidance on how "cumulative misconduct" is addressed? Specifically, if a new incident of academic misconduct is discovered and prompts a review of prior work—revealing misconduct across multiple assignments, projects, or submissions—should this be treated as a single instance (tied to the latest discovery) or as multiple separate acts of misconduct? For penalty assignment purposes, is cumulative misconduct considered one act or multiple acts (especially if recurring misconduct incurs different penalties)?