The Code of Student Academic Integrity

University Policy 407, The Code of Student Academic Integrity

Executive Summary: 

The academic integrity standards for students at UNC Charlotte are the subject of this policy. Descriptions of each form of academic integrity violation are provided as well as the penalties, procedures for handling cases, penalties which may be imposed, and appeal procedures. Students and faculty members are expected to be familiar with the provisions of this Code.  Click here for .pdf version

I. Overview
II. Statement of Principles
III. Definitions of Violations
IV. Penalties
V. Procedures for Handling Cases
VI. Advice to Faculty Members
Appendix: Plagiarism

I. Overview

The UNC Charlotte Code of Student Academic Integrity sets forth the standards of academic integrity for students at UNC Charlotte and describes attendant faculty responsibilities. Students and faculty members are expected to be familiar with its provisions. Transient students from other institutions enrolled in courses for credit given by UNC Charlotte are bound by the rules, regulations, and responsibilities of the UNC Charlotte Code of Student Academic Integrity. When transient students are found guilty of violating UNC Charlotte's Code of Student Academic Integrity, UNC Charlotte may notify the student's permanent institution. The Code defines student behavior which violates the standards (Section III.), and enumerates the penalties for violations and the circumstances under which such penalties may be imposed (Section IV.).

Section V. sets forth the procedures for dealing with cases where a violation of The Code of Student Academic Integrity is alleged. Those procedures permit a faculty member to address a student's first violation through discussion with the student. If the student freely admits the offense and accepts the penalty assigned by the faculty member, an agreement settling the matter is signed by both, the faculty member imposes the penalty, and the matter ends (Section V.A.). If UNC Charlotte records show that the student has previously committed an academic integrity violation, or if the student decides not to admit guilt or accept the penalty, or if the faculty member believes that the seriousness of the offense warrants a more severe penalty than those which may be imposed in the settlement process, the matter must be referred to the UNC Charlotte Academic Integrity Board (AIB) if any penalty is to be imposed (Section V.B.). A student-faculty panel from the AIB hears the evidence from the faculty member and student and determines whether the student did commit a violation. If no violation is found, the matter ends and no penalty may be imposed. If the Hearing Panel finds that the student did commit a violation, it determines the appropriate penalty (Section V.C.). A student found guilty may appeal from the Hearing Panel's determination (Section V.D.).

II. Statement of Principles

Academic honesty and integrity are essential to the existence and growth of an academic community. Without maintenance of high standards of honesty, members of the instructional faculty are defrauded, students are unfairly treated, and society itself is poorly served. Maintaining the academic standards of honesty and integrity is ultimately the formal responsibility of the instructional faculty; and this responsibility is shared by all members of the academic community.

As instructors, faculty members are responsible for transmitting knowledge and the methods by which it is acquired. To do so, they must be able to examine and test student work. The faculty also sets academic standards, awards academic credit and confers degrees when the standards are met. To carry out these responsibilities, faculty members must ensure that student work submitted for academic credit is authentic as well as consistent with established academic standards. Therefore, the academic evaluation includes a judgment that the student's work is free from academic dishonesty of any type; and course grades should be and will be adversely affected by academic dishonesty.

It is the duty of faculty members to take measures to preserve and transmit the values of the academic community, both through example in their own academic pursuits and the learning environment which they create for their students. To this end, they are expected to instill in their students a respect for integrity and a desire to behave honestly; they also must take measures to discourage student academic dishonesty (see Section VI. Advice to Faculty Members). To meet their responsibilities when academic dishonesty is suspected, individual faculty members must follow the policies and procedures stated in this document.

Students and staff members are also members of the academic community. As responsible members of the University, students and staff members are obligated not to violate the basic standards of integrity, and they are expected to take an active role in encouraging other members of the academic community to respect those standards. Should a student or staff member suspect a violation of academic integrity, he/she should make the suspicion known to a member of the faculty or University administration.

Commitment to maintaining and encouraging high standards of academic honesty and integrity is demonstrated in many ways. One manifestation is the policies and procedures governing violation of the standards. Herein contained are the provisions of the UNC Charlotte Code of Student Academic Integrity.

III. Definitions of Violations

In this section defining student violations of academic integrity: (a) "Intent" refers only to the intent to commit the dishonest action. Other aspects of the student's motive (e.g., a desire to avoid academic suspension, or to help a friend) are not material in determining whether an act of dishonesty has been performed; and (b) "Authorization" is legitimate only if given by the faculty member responsible for the evaluation of the student's work.

 

All definitions of academic integrity violations below apply to work done in the context of an academic course of study as well as work done outside the context of an academic course, such as in the preparation of materials submitted as a program or degree requirement.

 

A. CHEATING. Intentionally using or attempting to use unauthorized materials, information, notes, study aids or other devices in any academic exercise. This definition includes unauthorized communication of information during an academic exercise.

Typical Examples: Copying from another student's paper or receiving unauthorized assistance during a quiz, test or examination; using books, notes or other devices (e.g., calculators) when these are not authorized; procuring without authorization tests or examinations before the scheduled exercise (including discussion of the substance of examinations and tests when it is expected these will not be discussed); copying reports, laboratory work, computer programs or files and the like from other students; collaborating on laboratory or computer work without authorization and without indication of the nature and extent of the collaboration; using the handheld device of another student to submit electronic answers to a quiz or test; sending or soliciting a substitute to take an examination or to do work that one represents or plans to represent as one's own.

B. FABRICATION AND FALSIFICATION. Intentional and unauthorized alteration or invention of any information or citation in an academic exercise. Falsification is a matter of altering information, while fabrication is a matter of inventing or counterfeiting information for use in any academic exercise.

Typical Examples: (Fabrication) inventing or counterfeiting data, research results, information or procedures; inventing data or fabricating research procedures to make it appear that the results of one process are actually the results of several processes; counterfeiting a record of internship or practicum experiences; (Falsification) altering the record of data or experimental procedures or results; false citation of the source of information (e.g., reproducing a quotation from a book review while indicating that the quotation was obtained from the book itself); altering the record of or reporting false information about practicum or clinical experiences; altering grade reports or other academic records; submitting a false excuse for absence or tardiness in a scheduled academic exercise; altering a returned examination paper and seeking regrading.

C. MULTIPLE SUBMISSION. The submission of substantial portions of the same academic work (including oral reports) for credit more than once without authorization.

Typical Examples: Submitting the same paper for credit in two courses without instructor permission; making minor revisions in a credited paper or report (including oral presentations) and submitting it again as if it were new work. (Different aspects of the same work may receive separate credit; e.g., a report in History may receive credit for its content in a History course and for the quality of presentation in a Speech course.)

D. PLAGIARISM. Intentionally or knowingly presenting the work of another as one's own (i.e., without proper acknowledgement of the source). The sole exception to the requirement of acknowledging sources is when the ideas, information, etc., are common knowledge. (NOTE: For more information regarding plagiarism, see PLAGIARISM Appendix.)

Typical Examples: Submitting as one's own work of a "ghost writer" or commercial writing service; directly quoting from a source without citation; paraphrasing or summarizing another's work without acknowledging the source; using facts, figures, graphs, charts or information without acknowledgement of the source; stealing, destroying, or altering any student academic work used to complete, in part or in whole, assignments in university courses, programs, or sponsored activities. Plagiarism may occur orally and in writing. It may involve computer programs and files, research designs, distinctive figures of speech, ideas and images, or generally any "information" which belongs to another.

E. ABUSE OF ACADEMIC MATERIALS. Intentionally or knowingly destroying, stealing, or making inaccessible library or other academic resource material.

Typical Examples: Stealing or destroying library or reference materials needed for common academic exercises; hiding resource materials so others may not use them; destroying computer programs or files needed in academic work; stealing or intentionally destroying another student's notes or laboratory experiments; receiving assistance in locating or using sources of information in an assignment where such assistance has been forbidden by the instructor. (NOTE: The offense of abuse of academic materials shall be dealt with under this Code only when the abuse violates standards of integrity in academic matters, usually in a course or experience for which academic credit is awarded.)

F. COMPLICITY IN ACADEMIC DISHONESTY. Intentionally or knowingly helping or attempting to help another to commit an act of academic dishonesty.

Typical Examples: Knowingly allowing another student to submit one’s academic work as his/her own work; knowingly allowing another to copy from one's paper during an examination or test; knowingly distributing test questions or substantive information about the material to be tested before the scheduled exercise; collaborating on academic work knowing that the collaboration will not be reported; taking an examination or test for another student, or signing a false name on an academic exercise. (NOTE: Collaboration and sharing information are characteristics of academic communities. These become violations when they involve dishonesty. Instructors should make expectations about collaborations clear to students. Students should seek clarification when in doubt.)

G. GROUP WORK.  For group work, responsibility for insuring that academic integrity standards are followed is shared by all members of the group.  In cases where an individual student is able to demonstrate that he/she neither knew of nor participated in the academic dishonesty, that individual student is not guilty of academic dishonesty.    

IV. Penalities

All acts of academic dishonesty violate standards essential to the existence of an academic community. Some first offenses are properly handled and remedied by the faculty member teaching the specific course in which they occur. The faculty member must use the settlement procedure described in Section V. to handle such an offense. The penalties that may be assessed include the following:

a. a formal warning;

b. a reduced grade (including "F" if undergraduate student and "U" for graduate student) for the assignment; and/or

c. a reduced grade (including "F" if undergraduate student and "U" for graduate student) for the entire course.

The faculty member may combine any of the above examples, depending on the severity of the infraction, or impose some other penalty appropriate to the violation. However, the maximum penalty that a faculty member may assign using the settlement form is an “F” for an undergraduate and a “U” for a graduate student. Penalties a., b, and c. above do not apply to a case in which an academic dishonesty violation is not within the context of an academic course.

Whatever the penalty, a signed form recording the settlement will be kept for eight years in the Office of the Dean of Students. The purpose of this record-keeping is to be sure students who violate The UNC Charlotte Code of Student Academic Integrity a second time are dealt with appropriately. A second purpose is to deter students from repeating offenses. A first offense settlement file is an internal University record, not part of the student's disciplinary record or the academic transcript.

Some first offenses and all second offenses have import beyond the specific course in which the violation occurred. The University-wide AIB handles such violations, and the range of penalties is greater. If a faculty member believes that a more severe penalty is warranted for a first offense than is permitted under the settlement penalties above, he or she should contact the Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board and request an Academic Integrity Hearing. Any case that is adjudicated through the AIB may become part of the student’s disciplinary record and may appear on the student’s academic transcript.

The Hearing Panel chosen from the AIB may, after a hearing, impose any of the three penalties listed above (a., b., c.), and/or the following:

d. Disciplinary suspension from the University for a designated period of time (one semester, one year, two years, etc.). A record of the violation will be kept in the disciplinary file for a period of time to be determined by the Hearing Panel, after which it will be removed upon written request by the student to the Dean of Students.
 
e. For cases in which an academic dishonesty violation is not within the context of an academic course, disciplinary suspension from the University for a minimum of one semester (or a longer designated period of time) following the semester in which the violation occurred. A record of the violation will be kept in the disciplinary file for a period of time to be determined by the Hearing Panel, after which it will be removed upon written request by the student to the Dean of Students.

f. The grade of "F" for an undergraduate student or "U" for a graduate student for the course with a designation "X" on the academic transcript indicating that this is because of dishonesty. If the Hearing Panel imposes this penalty, it will stipulate the exact minimum length of time the "X" designation shall remain on the academic transcript. When that time has elapsed, the "X" designation may be removed from the transcript upon written request by the student to the University Registrar.

Students may not exclude a grade from GPA calculations for any course in which they have received a grade with an "X" designation. The disciplinary record will document the offense and penalty and will be maintained in accordance with the University’s records retention schedule, which currently requires retention for a period of eight (8) years.

g. Expulsion from the University. The academic transcript records the expulsion permanently. A record will be kept in the disciplinary file permanently. 
Normally, a second Code violation will result in "F" for the course with the designation "X" and a one-year suspension; and normally, a third Code violation will result in permanent expulsion.
The student may petition the Chancellor  in writing for readmission, but not earlier than two years after the date on which the expulsion takes effect. Notification of expulsion will remain on the student's transcript.

h. Revocation of degree should an offense be discovered after graduation that results from falsification of projects, thesis, or dissertation.

i. Removal from employment as a graduate assistant.

In all determinations of penalty the following factors should be considered:

a. The nature and seriousness of the offense.
b. The injury or damage resulting from the misconduct.
c. The student's motivation and state of mind at the time of the incident.
d. The student's prior disciplinary record.
e. The student's attitude and demeanor subsequent to the violation.

In all cases, a grade received owing to an admitted or adjudicated academic dishonesty violation shall not be replaced if the course is repeated. This exception is not subject to appeal or academic petition.

V. Procedures for Handling Cases

A faculty member responsible for assigning final grades in a course may acquire evidence either directly or through information supplied by others that a student violation of academic integrity may have occurred. After collecting the evidence available, the faculty member determines whether it warrants proceeding to the next level of inquiry.

If the faculty member determines that the evidence is sufficient, he/she contacts the Dean of Students Office, which will determine from its records whether the student has previously admitted to or been found guilty of an academic integrity violation. If the suspected violation would be a second offense, the faculty member must take the case to the Chairperson of the AIB. If the suspected violation would constitute a first offense but one for which the faculty member considers the appropriate penalty to be more severe than "F" ("U" for graduate student) in the course, the case must be brought to the Chairperson of the AIB. If the faculty member believes, however, that the suspected violation would be remedied by a penalty no greater than "F" ("U" for graduate student) in the course, the settlement procedure is used to conclude the matter and provide a record (see Section IV. Penalties).

Once a student has received notice that he/she is charged with an academic integrity offense, and pending the outcome of an academic integrity settlement or hearing, if the student withdraws from the course, a grade for the course will still be issued. In all cases, the instructor shall assign a grade of “I” pending the outcome of an AIB hearing.

A. SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE

The faculty member meets with the student and presents the evidence of an academic integrity violation, then requests an explanation from the student. After hearing the explanation, if the faculty member determines that a violation has occurred, he/she fills out and signs the settlement form distributed to all faculty members, noting the penalty to be applied, and gives the form to the student. The student has three business days to consider and seek advice on whether to admit guilt and accept the penalty by signing that form. If the student agrees to sign, he/she does so in the presence of the faculty member who then implements the penalty. The faculty member forwards the settlement form to the Dean of Students, who keeps a record of first offenses for eight years, and thus the matter is ended.

If the student decides not to admit guilt or not to accept the penalty, the faculty member is obligated to take the case to the Chairperson of the AIB and participate in a hearing as soon as possible, normally no later than the end of the semester following the semester in which the charge is made (not including summer sessions). If the faculty member does not take the case to the Chairperson of the AIB and participate in a hearing within the time limits set forth above, the faculty member must show sufficient justification for the delay to the Chair of the AIB and request an exception to the time limits set forth above. If the AIB Chair approves this request, the hearing may be delayed. If the AIB Chair does not approve the request, the faculty member may not proceed with the case or impose a penalty. A penalty may be imposed upon a student if, after notice and without showing sufficient justification for delay, the student is unavailable for the hearing. 

B. ACADEMIC INTEGRITY BOARD.

The AIB is composed of all the current Student Court Hearing Panel Members and twenty-one full-time faculty members. At least two faculty members shall be appointed to the AIB from each college, and the number of faculty members appointed from each college shall be in proportion to the number of full-time faculty members with professorial rank in each college. (When the accused student is a graduate student, the faculty and student members of the hearing panel must include graduate faculty and a graduate student, respectively.) The Chancellor shall appoint the Chairperson of the AIB, and the Senior Associate Provost shall appoint the other faculty members to the AIB. The term of appointment of student members is the same as their terms as Student Court Hearing Panel Members. The faculty members and the Chairperson shall be appointed for two-year staggered terms. All members of the AIB may be reappointed.

C. CONDUCT OF HEARINGS.

1. Initiation; Notice of Charge; Panel Selection. The faculty member refers a case to the AIB by communicating with its Chairperson. The Chairperson selects one student and two faculty members of the AIB as the Hearing Panel for the case. The Chairperson may not sit on a Hearing Panel. One of the members is designated Convener of the Hearing Panel to conduct the hearing. Panel members are selected on the basis of availability and impartiality. Neither faculty member may be from the college in which the alleged offense occurred. When the regular faculty members of the AIB or Student Court Hearing Panel Members are unable to serve on a particular case, the Chairperson of the AIB is authorized to appoint a faculty member from an appropriate department, or a student panelist, after consultation with the appropriate Dean.

The Chairperson then draws up a written charge stating the facts alleged and notifying the student and the faculty member of the date, time and place for the hearing. The notice shall provide the student and faculty member at least five business days after its receipt to prepare for the hearing, and it shall note that the accused student may have access to the case file in the Office of the Dean of Students.   Notice shall be sufficient if by mail, email, or hand delivery, or by telephone followed up by a letter confirming the telephone notice. All claims of failure to receive adequate notice are waived by the accused party if the accused party appears at the hearing and does not formally raise the issue of adequate notice at the first opportunity.

2. Challenge. The student or the faculty member may challenge any member selected for the Panel on grounds of a bias or relationship that might affect impartial consideration of the case by that Panel member. The person brings the challenge by discussion with the Chairperson of the AIB at least one business day prior to the scheduled hearing. If the Chairperson concludes that the Panel member should be excused, a substitute is selected.

3. Nature of Hearing. The hearing is essentially fact-finding in nature. The process is intended to provide participating members of the campus community with a fair, orderly and clearly understood system for inquiry into the facts bearing on a case of alleged dishonesty.

4. Presentation; Burden of Proof; Rights. The faculty member referring the case presents the evidence of the offense to the Panel. The student is responsible for presenting the evidence he/she wishes, if any, in defense against the charge. The burden of proof is on the faculty member, who must establish the guilt of the student by a preponderance of the evidence. The student and the faculty member have the right to question any witness and inspect any document offered as evidence, and to make whatever statement or argument appears to be appropriate.

5. Failure to Appear. If the accused student fails to appear after proper notice, the Panel will reach its conclusion on guilt and appropriate penalty on the basis of the evidence which is presented at the hearing.

6. Witnesses; Testimony. The student and faculty member may request the attendance of witnesses at the hearing. University student, faculty or staff witnesses are expected to attend unless compliance would result in significant and unavoidable personal hardship or substantial interference with normal University activities. The student and the faculty member may request the assistance of the Chairperson of the AIB in securing the attendance of witnesses. The Convener will ask each witness to confirm that the testimony to be given is truthful. Witnesses are expected to attend and give truthful testimony or face appropriate disciplinary action.

Witnesses are expected to attend and give truthful testimony or face appropriate disciplinary action. Written statements of evidence by a witness in lieu of appearance and testimony may be admitted into evidence under certain conditions, only as described in this Section (6) and subject to other provisions in this Policy relating to the admissibility of evidence.  To be eligible for admission into evidence, such written statements must be signed by the individual making the statement and witnessed by a University employee or a person designated by the Chairperson of the AIB.

7. Attendance; Assistance. The hearing is closed to the public. The student and the faculty member may each be accompanied by one person (including an attorney), but that person's role is limited to conferring with and advising the student or faculty member; the person is not permitted to argue, make statements, or to question witnesses; the person may respond to questions if asked by Panel members to do so. The student may also bring up to two members of his or her immediate family (parents or spouse) to the hearing, but only upon providing consent to their presence at the hearing. Such family members are not permitted to argue, make statements, question witnesses, or otherwise represent the student. The Panel shall exclude the student’s family member(s) during the testimony of any other accused student or student witness, unless the other accused student and student witnesses consent to the presence of the student’s family member(s) during their testimony. The Panel may exclude prospective witnesses other than the student during the testimony of any witnesses. An open hearing may be held, in the discretion of the Convener, if requested by the student.

8. Evidence. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply. The Convener shall give effect to the rules of confidentiality and privilege, but shall otherwise admit all matters into evidence which reasonable persons would accept as having value as proof in the conduct of their affairs. The Hearing Panel may not consider the student's prior disciplinary record as evidence. Repetitious or irrelevant evidence may be excluded by the Convener. If, during the course of the hearing, evidence is revealed that could be the basis of a new academic integrity violation separate from the one being considered, such charges should be addressed in a new hearing, following the notice and hearing procedures set forth herein; provided, however, that the Hearing Panel may, in its sole discretion, offer the student the opportunity to have such new charges considered in the current hearing, so long as the student is clearly notified in writing that (1) he or she is not required to have the separate charges considered in the current hearing, and (2) his or her decision whether to have the separate charges considered in the current hearing or in a new hearing will not prejudice the case on either of the charges.  If the separate academic integrity charge would necessarily involve charges against a third party who is not involved in the current hearing, then the option of having the separate charges considered in the current hearing is not available.

9. Control of Proceedings; Disruption. The Convener of the Hearing Panel shall exercise control over proceedings to avoid needless consumption of time and to achieve orderly completion of the hearing. Any person, even the accused student, who disrupts a hearing may be excluded by the Convener.

10. Recording. Each hearing shall be audio recorded by the University, and the recording shall become a part of the case file in the Office of the Dean of Students.

11. Deliberation on Guilt. The decision on guilt shall be made in private and shall be by majority vote, based on the evidence presented at the hearing.

12. Not Guilty Found. If the conclusion is that the student is not guilty, the participants are readmitted, the Convener announces that conclusion, and terminates the proceeding. Thereafter, a written report is prepared, signed by the Convener, and sent to the Dean of Students. The Dean maintains only a single confidential file of material related to the case. That file shall be maintained for one year. No part of that file becomes part of the student's disciplinary record. The case is closed, and no penalty may be imposed.

13. Hearing on Penalty. If the conclusion is that the student is guilty, the hearing continues to determine the appropriate penalty. The Hearing Panel considers the factors listed in Section IV. Penalties. Both student and faculty member may submit evidence and make statements concerning the appropriate sanction to be imposed. The Dean of Students will supply the student's disciplinary record for this supplementary proceeding.

14. Imposition of Penalty. At the conclusion of the evidence on the appropriate penalty, the Hearing Panel deliberates in private. Upon making its determination of the penalty, the participants are readmitted. The student is expected to be present, and the faculty member may be present if he/she wishes. The Convener announces the penalty determined. The date of his announcement is the Hearing Conclusion Date. The Hearing Panel thereafter prepares a written report, signed by the Convener, stating its findings, the determination on guilt and the penalty it deems appropriate. The Convener sends the report to the Dean of Students, who notifies the student and faculty member of the Hearing Panel's findings, determination, and penalty. If a penalty of a grade of "F" in the course or less is to be assigned, the faculty member imposes that penalty determined by the Hearing Panel and no other penalty. If a greater penalty is deemed appropriate, the Dean of Students implements the penalty indicated in the report.

15. Right of Appeal; Effect. A student found guilty is permitted three business days from the Hearing Conclusion Date to file a written notice of appeal with the Dean of Students Office (see Section V.D. Appeals). In the discretion of the Dean of Students the imposition of sanction normally is deferred until the three business days have elapsed without notice of appeal received or until the appeal proceedings are concluded.

16. Notice of Imposition of Penalty. If notice of appeal is not filed within the three business days or if the appeal results in no change in the Hearing Panel's decision, the Dean of Students notifies the student by letter of the penalty being imposed. The letter shall inform the student of all records to be kept of the incident in accordance with the University records retention policy.

D. APPEALS.

1. As a member of the institution whose Hearing Panel has made a determination on guilt and/or appropriate penalty, the faculty member is bound by the Panel's determinations and is not permitted an appeal. If a grievance has arisen, the faculty member may take it to the appropriate grievance body.

2. The student must submit any notice of appeal from a Hearing Panel's determination of guilt or penalty to the Dean of Students within three business days after the Hearing Conclusion Date. Failure to do so will render the decision of the Hearing Panel final and conclusive.

3. A student who wishes to appeal must submit a written brief in support of the appeal to the Dean of Students Office within ten business days after the Hearing Conclusion Date. The appeal shall separately state each ground upon which the student claims that the Hearing Panel committed error in reaching its conclusions and shall set forth the student's evidence and arguments in support of such claims. Failure to submit a written appeal will render the decision of the Hearing Panel final and conclusive. Upon request, the University shall provide a copy of the case file to the accused student for the purpose of preparing an appeal. The University shall redact any such copy to exclude confidential records regarding other student(s), as appropriate.

4. If the notice of appeal and written brief have been timely filed, the Dean of Students shall deliver them with the record on appeal to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

5. The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs or his/her designate shall review the record and issue a written decision on the appeal. If the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs designates another, that person's review and decisions shall be treated in all respects as if made by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The decision may:

a. Affirm the decision reached and sanction imposed by the Hearing Panel.

b. Affirm the decision and reduce but not eliminate the penalty recommended by the hearing Panel but only if that penalty is found grossly inappropriate to the offense.

c. Remand the case for a new hearing before a Hearing Panel composed of members of the AIB who have not previously participated in the case. The new Hearing Panel's decision(s) on guilt and penalty to be imposed if any, shall be final and conclusive, except that the student may appeal the Panel's decisions on remand to the Chancellor. Such appeal is permitted only by method and on the grounds specified in paragraph 7. below.

6. The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs or his/her designate shall send copies of the decision on the appeal to the student, faculty member, Dean of Students, and Chairperson of the AIB.

7. The decision of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs or his/her designee shall be final and conclusive, except that if the student alleges violation of:

  1. the right of due process and fair hearing,
  2. the presumption of innocence until found guilty,
  3. the right to know the evidence and to face witnesses testifying against him or her, or
  4. the right to such advice and assistance in his/her own defense as may be allowable under the regulations of UNC Charlotte as approved by the Chancellor,

then the student may file a written signed letter of appeal with the Chancellor. Such written appeal must be received by the Chancellor within four business days after the student receives notice of the Provost’s decision and shall set forth with particularity the specific right or rights allegedly denied and the facts or circumstances alleged to establish the denial of such right or rights. The decision of the Chancellor shall be final and conclusive.

E. RECORDS

The academic integrity records for a student who is found guilty after a hearing or who agrees to a settlement admitting guilt will be retained for eight years from the date of the Dean of Students’ letter providing notice of imposition of sanctions or the date when a settlement form is signed by the student. Academic integrity records that indicate the sanction of expulsion shall be retained permanently.

VI. ADVICE TO FACULTY MEMBERS

The following are some of the measures appropriate to preventing and discouraging violations of this Code:

  1. Faculty members should outline their expectations pertaining to academic integrity at the beginning of each course. In doing so they might authorize or prohibit specific forms of student conduct which are unique to their courses or disciplines. They should refer students to this UNC Charlotte Code of Student Academic Integrity. Faculty members are reminded that intent is an element of any academic integrity offense. Thus, for example, a student who submits a group project containing material plagiarized by a second student has not committed an academic integrity violation unless the first student knows that he/she is submitting plagiarized material.
  2. Faculty members are advised that files of past examinations are maintained by some organizations and are readily available to large numbers of students. If faculty members wish to put any restrictions on the use of examinations they return to students, this should be made clear.
  3. Academic department should keep examinations in a secure location and should carefully screen employees who may have access to such material. All waste copies of examinations should be destroyed along with stencil masters and ditto backing sheets. Student employees should not be asked to prepare or handle examinations.
  4. Examinations should be carefully proctored by trusted employees. More than one proctor should be present when large numbers of students take an examination. Other preventive measures include a pre-arranged seating plan or a sign-in sheet (by seat numbers), so the location of each student may be determined. If it is not possible to allow sufficient space between seats, consideration should be given to using several different sets of questions, or permutating question numbers. In large classes, instructors should consider collecting an examination signature card from each student at the beginning of the semester. At examination time, another signature card, distributed with the examination, could be collected and compared with the original.
  5. Methods for preventing and detecting plagiarism include (a) assigning specific topics for each student, (b) use of in-class discussions to choose topics, and (c) use of frequent in-class writing exercises, thereby making anomalous submissions easier to identify. Also, copies of the various commercial term paper catalogs, which list the specific titles and topics currently available to students, might be kept on file.

APPENDIX

Plagarism

Plagiarism is use of the distinctive ideas or words belonging to another person without adequate acknowledgement of that person's contribution. In the context of academic work the standards for acknowledging sources are very high. An author must give due credit whenever quoting another person's actual words, whenever using another person's idea, opinion or theory, and whenever borrowing facts, statistics or illustrative material, unless the information is common knowledge.

1. Direct Quotation: Every direct quotation must be identified by quotation marks or by appropriate indentation, and must be promptly acknowledged. The citation must be complete and in a style appropriate to the academic discipline.

EXAMPLE: The following is an example of an unacknowledged direct quotation:

Original Source: "To push the comparison with popular tale and popular romance a bit further, we may note that the measure of artistic triviality of works such as Sir Degare or even Havelok the Dane is their casualness, their indifference to all but the simplest elements of literary substance. The point is that high genre does not certify art and low genre does not preclude it." (From Robert M. Duran, Chaucer and the Shape of Creation, Howard University Press, 1967, p. 187.)

Student Paper: "To push the comparison with popular tale and popular romance a bit further, you can note that the measure of the artistic triviality in some works of Chaucer's time period is their casualness, their indifference to all but the simplest elements of literary substance. The point is that high genre does not certify art and low genre does not preclude it."

2. Paraphrase: Prompt acknowledgement is required when material from another source is paraphrased or summarized in whole or in part in one's own words. To acknowledge a paraphrase properly, one might state: "to paraphrase Locke's comment . . ." or "according to Rousseau . . ." and conclude with a citation identifying the exact reference.

A citation acknowledging only a directly quoted statement does not suffice to notify the reader of any preceding or succeeding paraphrased material.

EXAMPLE: The following is an example of an unacknowledged paraphrase:

Original Source: "The era in question included three formally declared wars. The decision to enter the War of 1812 was made by Congress after extended debate. Madison made no recommendation in favor of hostilities, though he did marshal a telling case against England in his message to Congress of June 1, 1812. The primary impetus to battle, however, seems to have come from a group of War Hawks in the legislature." (From W. Taylor Reveley III, "Presidential War-Making: Constitutional Prerogative or Usurpation?", University of Virginia Law Review, November 1969, footnotes omitted.)

Student Paper: "There were three formally declared wars during this era. The decision to enter the war in 1812 was made by Congress after extended debate. Madison actually made no recommendation in favor of hostilities in his message to Congress of June 1, 1812, though he presented a persuasive case against Britain. The primary impetus to battle, however, appears to have come from a group of War Hawks in the legislature."

3. Borrowed Facts or Information: Information obtained in one's reading or research which is not common knowledge must be acknowledged. Examples of common knowledge might include the names of leaders of prominent nations, basic scientific laws, etc. If there is doubt whether information is common knowledge the citation should be given.

One citation is usually sufficient to acknowledge indebtedness when a number of connected sentences in the paper or report draw their special information from one source. When direct quotations are used, however, quotation marks must be inserted and prompt acknowledgement made. Similarly, when a passage is paraphrased, prompt acknowledgement is required.

 

Revision History: 
  • Initially approved as an Academic policy August 16, 1984
  • Revised August 16, 1987
  • Initially approved as a Policy Statement March 10, 1997
  • Revised December 17, 2001
  • Revised February 22, 2002
  • Revised August 24, 2008
  • Revised August 22, 2012

Authority: Chancellor

Responsible Office: Student Affairs

Related Resources

Academic Integrity Settlement Form

Academic Integrity Site (from Academic Affairs)

Clickers and Academic Integrity

Mechanical Engineering Academic Integrity Quiz 

Code of Student Academic Integrity (.pdf format)