It is the conviction and a guiding principle of the School of Management that education is concerned with the development of personal character as well as the acquisition of knowledge and skills. It is further the belief of the School that each individual bears the primary responsibility for his or her own ethical behavior. Because of these beliefs, it is the intent of the School to encourage and to do all that is possible to support a high standard of ethical behavior. It is incumbent upon all faculty, students, and staff of the School of Management to maintain the fullest commitment to academic integrity. Faculty, students, and staff all have an obligation to each other to maintain high personal standards of integrity and to expect high standards of integrity from each other, for the reputation of the School of Management is derived from the performance of all its members.
Faculty, students, and staff all have an obligation to be aware of their own and one another's rights and responsibilities with respect to matters involving academic integrity and to insist on the observance of these rights and responsibilities.
Although it is difficult to define academic dishonesty precisely, the general understanding of that term by students and faculty, and the meaning established by tradition, will serve as guidelines in reviewing each case of academic dishonesty. Furthermore, because honesty is such a fundamental requirement within the academic community, the faculty jointly with students assumes full responsibility for identifying and dealing with dishonest practices.
To meet this responsibility, the faculty must:
For its part, the student body must assume its share of responsibility by:
Other University at Buffalo policies may apply to situations to which the Academic Integrity Policy and Procedures for Undergraduates, the Academic Integrity Policy and Procedures for Graduates, the Academic Grievance Policy and Procedures for Undergraduates or the Academic Grievance Policy and Procedures for Graduates apply. Among these are UB's Responsible Conduct in Research and Creative Activity and Student Conduct Policies, as well as professional school or program policies and procedures. Priorities and relations among these are addressed by these specifications:
1. Responsible Conduct in Research and Creative Activity
The Academic Integrity Policies and Procedures (AIPP) and the Academic Grievance Policies and Procedures (AGPP) are secondary to UB's Responsible Conduct in Research and Creative Activity (RCRCA) policies and procedures. The RCRCA addresses misconduct that may include violations of the AIPP or AGPP. If proceedings initiated pursuant to the RCRCA include possible violation of the AIPP or AGPP, formal actions pursuant to the AIPP or AGPP shall be postponed until the RCRCA proceedings are completed. If the RCRCA proceedings result in recommendation of formal AIPP or AGPP proceedings, these shall be initiated promptly. If the RCRCA proceedings result in findings that a student has violated the AIPP, penalties that may be imposed include dismissal from the program in addition to any and all specified in the AIPP. If the RCRCA proceedings result in findings that a student has not violated the AIPP, the student may not be charged again with the same offenses under the AIPP. RCRCA proceedings, findings and penalties shall be neither challenged nor appealed through the AIPP or AGPP.
2. Other University Policies and Procedures
The Academic Integrity Policies and Procedures (AIPP) and the Academic Grievance Policies and Procedures (AGPP) are independent of UB's other policies and procedures. Many of these provide for investigation and recommendation of actions regarding alleged misconduct, but neither provide for nor may result in findings that a student has violated the AIPP. If other proceedings include possible violation of the AIPP, formal actions pursuant to the AIPP shall be postponed until the other proceedings are completed. Should findings or recommendations of these other proceedings provide bases for charges pursuant to the AIPP, formal proceedings under the AIPP shall be promptly initiated. Except as here provided, proceedings, findings and recommendations resulting from other proceedings shall be neither challenged nor appealed through the AIPP or AGPP.
3. Professional School and Program Policies
UB professional school or program student conduct policies and procedures are subject to the provisions governing relations of the Academic Integrity Policies and Procedures (AIPP) and Academic Grievance Policies and Procedures (AGPP) to UB's Responsible Conduct in Research and Creative Activity and other policies and procedures. Professional school or program student conduct policies and procedures shall be congruent with the provisions of the AIPP for Undergraduates for baccalaureate programs and to the AIPP for Graduates for all other programs. Any appeal of procedures or actions taken pursuant to a professional school or program's student conduct policies and procedures shall follow the provisions of the AIPP or AGPP applicable to the degree level of the program. Charges of misconduct by a student in a professional school or program that does not set its own student conduct policies and procedures shall be considered pursuant to the provisions of the AIPP applicable to the degree level of the program. Penalties that may be imposed upon findings of misconduct by a student in a professional school or program include dismissal from the program in addition to any and all other penalties specified in the AIPP.
Promulgated by President John B. Simpson, 16 Dec. 2005. Effective, 28 Aug. 2006.
Academic integrity is a fundamental university value. Through the honest completion of academic work, students sustain the integrity of the university while facilitating the university's imperative for the transmission of knowledge and culture based upon the generation of new and innovative ideas.
When an instance of suspected or alleged academic dishonesty by a student arises, it shall be resolved according to the following procedures. These procedures assume that many questions of academic dishonesty will be resolved through consultation between the student and the instructor (a process known as consultative resolution, as explained below).
It is recommended that the instructor and student each consult with the Academic Integrity Office and/or the Office of Student Advocacy for guidance and assistance.
Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, the following:
Step 1
If an instructor has reason to believe that a student may have committed an act of academic dishonesty, the instructor shall notify the student suspected of academic dishonesty within 10 academic days1 of discovery of the alleged incident by email to the student’s UBIT address.
If an individual other than the instructor, including other students, faculty, or staff members, has reason to believe that a student may have committed an act of academic dishonesty, the individual shall notify the instructor or the Academic Integrity Office within 10 academic days1 of discovery of the alleged incident.
Once the alleged incident has occurred, the student may not resign from the course without permission of the instructor. If the instructor does not wish to allow the student to resign from the course, the instructor will assign an incomplete grade while the incident is under review.
The instructor will meet and consult with the student within 10 academic days1 of the date of notification. During the consultation, the instructor will inform the student of the alleged incident, and share a copy of the academic integrity policy and procedures with the student. Either party may request department note-takers (staff or faculty, but not teaching assistants) and/or an audio or video recording device may be used to record the consultation meeting. If the student fails to attend the consultative meeting, the instructor has the authority to reach a decision without consulting the student directly.
Step 2
If, after consultation with the student, the instructor believes the student did not commit an act of academic dishonesty, no sanctions will be imposed and the student will be notified of that finding by official university email. Procedures end.
If, after consultation with the student, the instructor believes the student did commit an act of academic dishonesty, the instructor has the authority to impose one or more of the following sanctions (see list below). Such sanctions will be assigned a “pending” status until the Academic Integrity Office receives notice from the instructor of the sanction and confirms the case at hand is the student’s first academic integrity infraction. If the student has a prior infraction(s), then the sanction may be revised by the Office of Academic Integrity.
1 Instructors may not impose the remediation sanction to a student who previously received an academic integrity sanction(s).
Step 3
Within 10 academic days of the consultative resolution, the instructor shall notify the student of a decision, any sanction(s) imposed, and the student’s right to appeal that decision, in writing. This decision letter shall be sent via email to the student’s UB IT address, with copies to the Academic Integrity Office, the department chair, and the school/college dean’s office. It is the instructor’s responsibility to report the sanction, regardless of severity, to the Academic Integrity Office. A copy of the instructor’s decision letter will be retained in a confidential file in the Academic Integrity Office in perpetuity. The student shall have access to their own confidential file.
Upon request and with the student’s permission academic integrity violations and sanctions may be reported by the Academic Integrity Office to an authorized body.
The student may appeal the instructor’s findings. The student’s request for an appeal must be submitted in writing to the Academic Integrity Office within 10 academic days1 after the instructor has notified the student of his or her decision. In the appeal the student articulates if they are appealing the original judgment of academic dishonesty, the resulting sanction(s)/recommended sanction(s), or both.
Step 1
In cases where the student seeks to appeal an instructor decision, the student and instructor shall each provide evidence supporting his or her position, any relevant documentation, and the names of potential witnesses to the Academic Integrity Office (hereafter referred to as the Office). The office will review all case materials.
If the office finds no cause to further consider the circumstances of the case, the office will notify the student, via email to the student’s UB IT address, and the instructor within 10 academic days1 of receipt of case materials, that the sanction(s) articulated in the instructor decision letter will be enacted. Student appeal procedures end.
If the office finds cause to further consider the circumstances of the case, the office will notify the student, via email to the student’s UB IT address, and the instructor within 10 academic days of receipt of case materials, that an adjudication committee (herein referred to as the committee) will be assembled.
Step 2 (Committee Review)
The Academic Integrity Office will convene the committee to a hearing. The student and the instructor will be given at least 72 hours notice of the hearing, and all materials will be provided to the committee, the student, and the instructor within 72 hours of its occurrence. Hearings shall take place on academic days unless all principals agree otherwise.
At the hearing(s), the committee will provide sufficient opportunity for both principals to present their positions and shall allow each principal the right to question those presentation(s) to the committee. The hearing(s) shall be conducted in a fair and expeditious manner, but shall not be subject to the rules governing a legal proceeding. Each principal shall have the right to be present and to have one advisor present at all hearings. In no such case shall the advisor be an attorney, unless he or she is a member of the UB faculty who is not acting in a legal capacity on behalf of a principal. An advisor may not speak on behalf of a principal or otherwise address members of the hearing committee. Either principal may ask the committee chair if they may participate in hearings remotely. In exceptional circumstances, such as where either party is considered to pose a physical threat to the other or to the committee, the committee chair may require that either principal participate remotely.
The technical and formal rules of evidence applicable in a court of law are not applicable at academic integrity hearings, and the committee may review all relevant and reliable information that will contribute to an informed final decision. The committee shall only consider information relevant to the current alleged misconduct. Information regarding a student’s formerly alleged or documented academic misconduct cannot aid in determining whether or not the student is responsible for violating academic integrity in the current case. However, such history may be introduced during the sanctioning phase of the case under review. At the conclusion of the hearings, the committee will meet privately to deliberate the case. All hearings and committee meetings shall be confidential.
The committee will provide the student, the instructor, the department chair, the Academic Integrity Office, and the school/college dean, with a written statement of findings and any sanctions assigned within 10 academic days1 of the final meeting of the committee.
The decision made by the committee may take one of three forms.
No Right to Further Appeal
The decision of the committee is final, and no further appeal is available.
Note:1 Academic days are defined as weekdays, when classes are in session, not including the summer or winter sessions as defined by the regular University Academic Calendar. Days in the final exam period and reading days are not considered academic days. With the agreement of all principals and the Academic Integrity Office, proceedings may continue during non-academic days.
The Academic Integrity Office shall assemble a pool of faculty and students willing to participate on adjudication committees for academic integrity cases. The Office of Academic Integrity is responsible for ensuring that the pool reflects the diversity of the campus community and for training all members of the adjudication pool. It is the responsibility of each decanal unit to name student and faculty members to this pool. With the assistance of the Academic Integrity Office, each decanal unit will update its pool membership annually. Accordingly, each year, decanal units will also solicit departments to invite faculty and student representatives for service in the academic integrity pool. To ensure a suitable breadth and depth of membership in the pool, the Academic Integrity Office will encourage departments to facilitate continuous academic integrity training and development of faculty and students for future hearings. Typically duration of service in the academic integrity pool is two years.
From this pool, the Academic Integrity Office will form an adjudication committee for each hearing of no fewer than two faculty members, two graduate students, and one member of the Academic Integrity Office. Members from the academic integrity pool will be selected so that no one member will be involved in a disproportionate number of academic integrity cases. To that aim, the student and the instructor shall have five academic days to request, without stipulating a reason, the replacement of one member of the adjudication committee assembled to hear the case. If any principal finds the replacement committee member inappropriate, the party shall transmit, within five additional academic days1 of member identification, a written statement articulating grounds for objection to the Academic Integrity Office. The Academic Integrity Office will review and then rule on the merits of the objection, and either retain or replace the committee member. Each committee member shall have the option of disqualifying him/herself from the committee by stipulating reasons why he or she feels unable to review the case in an unbiased fashion.
Members of the adjudication committee have an obligation to maintain the confidentiality of hearing proceedings and of all supporting materials or testimony presented. If a breach of confidentiality by either principal is formally brought to the attention of the adjudication committee, upon a majority vote of the committee, it may choose to review this breach for possible misconduct. If a committee member is charged with misconduct, their alleged breach of confidentiality will be reviewed by an alternate adjudication committee. Such review shall take precedence over the pending case, a misconduct hearing shall be conducted, and findings shall be transmitted, in writing, to the principals and committee members. Findings will be placed in a supplemental file of the case proceedings. Such findings may then be considered in the subsequent review of the case.
Most severe | Range of Possible Sanctions | Repeat |
---|---|---|
Having a different student take an exam. | F in course with transcript notation, dismissal from the major, suspension, expulsion | suspension, expulsion
|
Hiring or having someone to do an online course. | F in course with transcript notation, dismissal from the major, suspension, expulsion | suspension, expulsion |
Purchasing or selling and submitting materials. | F in course with transcript notation, dismissal from the major, suspension, expulsion | suspension, expulsion |
Posting a whole assessment (or a significant part thereof) to an online site for the purpose of cheating. (Posting for sharing purposes is processed under the Improper Distribution of Course Materials Policy.)
| F in course with transcript notation, dismissal from the major, suspension, expulsion | suspension, expulsion |
Severe | Range of Possible Sanctions | Repeat |
---|---|---|
Cell phone use during an exam. | 0 on assignment, F in course | F in course with transcript notation |
Possessing a cheat sheet. | 0 on assignment, F in course | F in course with transcript notation |
Changing answers on an exam and asking for a regrade. | 0 on assignment, F in course | F in course with transcript notation |
Plagiarism. | 0 on assignment, F in course | F in course with transcript notation |
Falsifying data. | 0 on assignment, F in course | F in course with transcript notation |
Copying someone else’s lab report or homework. | 0 on assignment, F in course | F in course with transcript notation |
Copying from another person’s exam. | 0 on assignment, F in course | F in course with transcript notation |
Using the same paper for multiple classes. | 0 on assignment, F in course | F in course with transcript notation |
Viewing and/or copying assessment answers found on the internet through Google, Chegg, CourseHero, etc. | 0 on assignment, F in course | F in course with transcript notation |
Answering test questions after proctoring ends, but prior to submitting test for grading. | 0 on assignment, F in course | F in course with transcript notation |
Giving or receiving answers in a group chat during a test. | 0 on assignment, F in course | F in course with transcript notation |
Less severe | Range of Possible Sanctions | Repeat |
---|---|---|
Improper citation of others work. | Warning, Revision of work | 0 on assignment, F in course |
Illicitly obtaining copies of old exams. | Warning, Revision work, 0 on assignment, F in course | F in course |
Working together where it is explicitly forbidden. | Warning, Revision of work, 0 on assignment, F in course | F in course |
Aiding or abetting a student’s academic dishonesty or violating the integrity of a course or academic activity whether in a course or not. | Mandatory Remediation, Referral to Campus Judicial Procedures or University Police Department |
The above list of sample academic integrity infractions and sanctions is not exhaustive. It is meant to offer some general information about common infractions and possible associated sanctions.