I.    PREAMBLE
 

The University of Illinois at Springfield (UIS) is committed to community and academic excellence which thrive through honesty, trust, and mutual respect.

When faculty, students and staff come to UIS, they join an academic community founded on the search for knowledge.  At the heart of that search is personal honesty that makes possible an open and vibrant exchange of ideas. The intellectual health of the community depends on this honesty and sustains itself through trust and mutual respect of each of its members.

Academic integrity is at the heart of the University's commitment to academic excellence.  The UIS community strives to communicate and support clear standards of integrity, so that undergraduate and graduate students can internalize those standards and carry them forward in their personal and professional lives. Living a life with integrity prepares students to assume leadership roles in their communities as well as in their chosen profession .Alumni can be proud of their education and the larger society will benefit from the University's contribution to ethical leaders.

Violations of academic integrity degrade the learning process, deflate the meaning of grades, discredit the accomplishments of past and present students, and tarnish the reputation of the University for all its members.


II.  FACULTY and STUDENTS' RESPONSIBILITIES
 

1. FACULTY

Faculty are responsible for being aware of the UIS Academic Integrity Policy and contributing to student development by promoting academic integrity, addressing dishonesty, and assisting in the development of ethical reasoning. Such behavior includes:

• Providing a clear and complete syllabus which describes course expectations, guidelines, and
   standardsof performance, as well as those of the university, concerning academic integrity.
• Holding students responsible for knowing these expectations and guidelines.
• Fostering an environment where academic integrity is expected and respected.
• Endeavoring to detect and properly handle breeches of academic integrity.
• Treating the student with courtesy and respect; fostering a classroom environment
   in which all students are treated with courtesy and respect.
• Creating assessments that are effective evaluations of student mastery of course content.
• Evaluating student work based on its academic merit.
• Giving students timely and honest feedback.
• Being available to discuss appropriate academic matters.

  2. STUDENTS

  Students are responsible for being aware of the UIS Academic Integrity Policy and demonstrating behavior that is
  honest and ethical in their academic work. Such behavior includes:

• Being responsible for knowing and following the academic integrity policy of the campus and each instructor.
• Asking for clarification if the standards of academic performance expected are not clear.
• Asking for clarification from the instructor about the syllabus, assignments, or grading policies if they seem
  unclear.
• Helping to foster an environment where academic integrity is expected and respected.
• Treating each other with courtesy and respect and helping to foster a classroom environment in which all
   students are treated with courtesy and respect.


III. THE ACADEMIC INTEGRITY COUNCIL

The Academic Integrity Council is a standing committee of the Campus Senate whose responsibilities are to promote academic integrity at UIS and to oversee the judicial functions of the Academic Integrity Policy by ensuring fair and efficient operation of hearing panels, serving as appellate hearing panels, and deciding on petitions. The Bylaws of the UIS Campus Senate provide a more complete description of the duties and membership.


IV. DEFINITIONS OF VIOLATIONS

These definitions do not represent a complete list of possible violations of academic integrity; rather, they are intended to provide a general range of conduct which constitutes violations.

1. PLAGIARISM

Submitted work should be one's own work and it should properly acknowledge ideas, facts, the progression of thought or reasoning and words from others. Plagiarism is intellectual theft: the plagiarist presents work done by others as his or her own, in writing or orally. It is the failure to properly and appropriately reference and acknowledge the ideas and words of others. This includes website material used in written, oral or multi-media presentations.

Examples of plagiarism include:
 

• Using direct quotation without the quotation marks or citation. Examples
• Paraphrasing or making minor changes to an author's words or style without proper citation. Examples
• Insufficient acknowledgmen of sources (partial citation). Examples
• Using the pattern, structure or organization of an author's argument or ideas without proper citation. Examples
• Failing to cite sources for uncommon facts or knowledge.
• Using text from work that was handed in for another course.
• Fabrication of text, sources or citations.
• Working with another student on a project but failing to put both names on the final product.
• Having someone else re-write or heavily edit a paper.


2. CHEATING

Honesty involves presenting one’s own level of knowledge as accurately as possible. Misrepresenting or providing false information in any matter of academic achievement or work is cheating.

 Examples of cheating include:

• Unauthorized possession, copying or any sharing of exam questions or answers.
• Having another person take an exam.
• Using notes, books and the like in closed-book examinations.
• Presenting work done by others as one’s own.
• Changing in any way work which may be reviewed in response to a grade reconsideration request.
• Signing another person’s name on an academic exercise or attendance sheet.
• Unauthorized collaboration on any assignments such as homework, take-home exams, or projects in which
  the instructor does not allow collaboration is cheating. (It is the student's responsibility to ascertain
  whether collaboration is permitted.)


3. MISREPRESENTATION OF ACADEMIC EXPERIENCES, ABILITY, OR EFFORT

One is expected to accurately and fairly present one’s experience, ability, or effort so that others may accurately assess those accomplishments. Providing false or misleading information concerning academic background or academic work is a violation of academic integrity.

Examples of misrepresentation include:
 

• Falsifying, altering, or presenting misleading information about the substance of an internship;
the content of prior coursework; a graduation contract or student petition; reasons for classroom
absences, late work or inability to meet course requirements; the level of effort on a group or solo assignment; submission or use of “invented” data, such as lab experiments or interviews; or any
official department, college, or University academic document, grade report, letter of permission
or excuse, petition, drop/add form or other registration material, and ID card.

• Submission of same work in two courses without explicit permission from all instructors: Instructors have the right to assume that any work submitted for their classes has not earned or will not earn credit in another class. Presenting all or part of work done for one course in another course requires permission of all the instructors involved. Some connected or paired courses may require submission of the same work in the two associated courses; this will be explicitly stated for this type of assignment. In all other circumstances, failure to gain permission from all instructors in submitting the same work is cheating.

• Failure to disclose a criminal conviction in a relevant circumstance.


4. ACADEMIC INTERFERENCE

Academic integrity means that one should respect another person's work and efforts. Any activity undertaken with the purpose of creating or obtaining an unfair academic advantage over other students' academic work, or inhibiting the progress of another person's academic work, violates academic integrity.

Examples of academic interference include:
 

• stealing, destroying, defacing or concealing library materials, computer software, or other academic
  equipment or resources with the intent to deprive others of their use;
• retaining, possessing, using or circulating previously given examination materials, where those
  materials clearly indicate that they are to be returned to the instructor at the conclusion of the examination;
• or intentionally obstructing or interfering with another student's academic work, including laboratory
  experiments, research, artistic creations,   …(need more examples)


5. UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO ACADEMIC OR ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS OR SYSTEMS

Academic integrity means honoring others’ right to privacy as well as honoring the integrity of the university's administrative records or systems.

Examples of unauthorized access to academic or administrative records or systems include:

• Hacking or otherwise electronically or physically tampering with any computer or computer system .


6. FACILITATING VIOLATIONS OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Academic integrity also means that one is honest with respect to another person's work as well as with one’s own work. Any act which facilitates or encourages violations of academic integrity by another person is itself a violation of academic integrity.

Examples of facilitating violations of academic integrity include:

• providing material, information, or other assistance to another person with knowledge that such aid could be used in any of the violations stated above;
• providing false information in connection with any inquiry regarding academic integrity.


V. ACADEMIC INTEGRITY POLICY PROCEDURES

1. ALLEGATIONS OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
 

A.  Primary Responsibility for Bringing a Charge
 

Courses: The primary responsibility for bringing a charge of academic dishonesty involving academic work or other documents submitted in a course rests with the faculty or other instructors of record (hereafter called faculty).  Graduate assistants, research assistants, student workers, online coordinators and any other persons who assist or support faculty in teaching should report suspected instances of academic dishonesty to the instructor of record.

M.A. Thesis, Projects; Doctoral Dissertation; and Comprehensive Exams: The primary responsibility for bringing a charge of academic dishonesty involving a Master's project or thesis, doctoral dissertation, or comprehensive examination rests with the student's thesis or project, or dissertation advisor or members of the committee evaluating the thesis, project, dissertation, or examination.

Falsified documents: The primary responsibility for bringing a charge of academic dishonesty involving suspected falsification or use of falsified documents (e.g. transcripts, letters of reference, graduation contracts, medical documentation) rests with the faculty or the head of the appropriate unit (e.g., the Registrar, Director of Admissions, Dean, Associate Dean, Department Chair, etc.) who received the document in question.

Other Instances: The primary responsibility for bringing a charge against a student suspected of academic dishonesty of a nature that does not clearly fall under the preceding sections, shall rest with the appropriate faculty or head of the unit involved.

Students:  When a student suspects that a violation of the Academic Integrity Policy has occurred, the student has an ethical choice to make about whether to promote academic integrity at UIS.  Ideally, a student will report that violation to the Council using an Academic Integrity Violation Report Form.  In this report, the student should describe what action the student has taken, such as talking with the other student (s) involved, or with the faculty or staff member. Every effort will be made to preserve the anonymity of the student reporting the incident; confidentiality, however, cannot be guaranteed. Students may also report anonymously to the faculty or staff member, with or without naming individuals, or confront the individual(s) believed to be in violation of the policy.

Charges at Higher Levels: When the person who bears the primary responsibility fails to bring a charge within a reasonable time, the Department Chair or supervisor of the unit head may bring a charge.  If the Department Chair or supervisor of the unit does not bring a charge within a reasonable time, then the appropriate Dean, Associate Dean, or division head may do so.

B. Pending Charges in Courses

Once a student is notified, orally or in writing, that a faculty member suspects academic dishonesty in a course, the student may not change his or her registration in the course while the matter is pending, or in which a finding of academic dishonesty has been made. Any attempt to withdraw from a course under these circumstances shall be considered a separate violation of this policy.


2. INFORMAL RESOLUTION

A. Meeting with Student

If a faculty member or other individual (unit head) suspects that a violation has occurred, that person will contact the Provost's Office to determine if the student has previous violations. If the student has no previous violations, then the faculty member or other individual will make a reasonable effort to meet or otherwise communicate, including by means of electronic technologies, with the student(s) to inform him or her of the allegation. If the student is either unwilling or unable to meet or communicate within ten business days of the request to meet, or if the student has had previous violations, then the case must be referred to the Council for review by a Hearing Panel.

The faculty or other individual and student will discuss the allegation, and agree that there is no violation, or to pursue a resolution or refer the case to the Council. Either the faculty or student may seek the assistance of the Department chair, and subsequently the Dean at this stage.

If the student does not admit responsibility for the violation or disagrees with the sanction to be imposed by the faculty member or other individual (or other head of a unit), the student may request that the case be referred to the Council.

The faculty members or other individual is responsible for informing students of their option to refer the incident to the Council for review at any time during the informal resolution.

B.  Sanctions Permitted

Sanctions permitted under informal resolution procedures include:

• Formal warning. (The violation is kept on file in the Provost's Office and no other sanction is imposed.)
• A reduction in grade for the assignment and/or an additional reduction in the grade for the course.
• A failing grade for the assignment and/or an additional reduction in the grade for the course.
• A failing grade in the course (XF).
• Other sanction(s) as appropriate.


C. Notification to the Academic Integrity Council and Provost's Office

If both the student and faculty member or other individual agree to the student's responsibility for the violation and to the sanction to be imposed, the faculty or other individual must submit an “Informal Resolution Form” to the Academic Integrity Council and send copies of the report to the student and the Office of the Provost as the office of record.

All reports of academic dishonesty will be reviewed by the Provost's Office to verify whether reports have been received indicating that the student has been found responsible for any other act of academic dishonesty. If the Provost finds that the case is a repeat offense, the Provost shall automatically refer the case to the Council for review by a Hearing Panel.

3. FORMAL RESOLUTION

    Cases not resolved through informal resolution will be referred for a hearing. A hearing is initiated when the
    Council receives a request for a hearing by either the student or the faculty (or other head of a unit).  In the
    case of on-line students or faculty whose physical presence at a hearing would impose a hardship, the hearing
    may be conducted using technologies deemed appropriate by the Hearing Panel presiding officer.
 

A.  Composition of Hearing Panels

A Hearing Panel will normally consist of a presiding officer, two faculty and one student member who are selected by the Council chair from a pool of faculty and students solicited by the Academic Integrity Council. An alternate will also be selected to serve in case a member of the panel needs to be excused during the course of the hearing.  Decisions will be by a majority vote (two votes or more). The presiding officer will vote only in the event of a tie.

Students have the right to object to any member of the Hearing Panel they believe to be biased in the case. In such instances, the presiding officer will decide whether or not to act on that objection. Members of the Hearing Panel have the responsibility to remove themselves from cases in which there is a conflict of interest.

B. Presiding Officer

The chair or vice chair of the Council will normally serve as the presiding officer of all Hearing Panels. If the chair or vice chair is unavailable or the caseload becomes unmanageable, the Chair will appoint another faculty member of the Council to preside over the hearing.

C. Pool of Panel Members

Each academic department shall select one faculty member who will serve for a term of two years as a potential hearing panel member. The SGA will select 10 students who will be added to a pool of potential hearing panel members.

D. Preliminary Procedures
The initial report of an allegation of academic dishonesty will be reviewed by the Council Chair who will appoint a Hearing Panel and designate whether the Council Chair or the Council Vice Chair shall serve as the presiding officer. No other members of the Council shall be eligible to serve on Hearing panels except as specified in section 3.B. above.

The presiding officer will select the date, time, and place for the hearing and notify both the referring faculty member or other individual and the student by personal delivery or campus mailbox a minimum of five (5) business days prior to the hearing. It is desirable that the hearing occur as soon as reasonably possible after the alleged incident. While not always possible, a hearing should occur no later than 20 business days after the Council receives the request for a hearing, excluding any tolling of the timelines.

A member of the Council will meet with the student before the hearing to review hearing procedures and process and after the hearing to discuss the ramifications of the findings and the student's options for appeal.

The presiding officer will inform the student of the allegation in writing, including the report of the faculty member or other individual and will request a written statement from the student in response to the allegation. Any written response will become part of the record and be reviewed by the Hearing Panel in preparation for the hearing
.
Both the student and the faculty or other individual may submit a list of witnesses to appear at the hearing. Witnesses are limited to only those individuals who can present direct evidence that bears on the allegation. The presiding officer shall determine in advance of the hearing who may be called as witnesses.

Timelines shall be tolled (held in abeyance) during Thanksgiving, winter and spring breaks, as well as any times when no classes are scheduled. Timelines may be tolled in other circumstances only with the consent of the presiding officer, but in no case shall exceed an additional 20 business days. Faculty not on summer contract, on sabbatical, other leave, or otherwise unavailable may delegate authority to another faculty member, including the department chair, to appear and act on their behalf.  Any delegation shall be reduced to writing and received by the presiding officer before the hearing.

E. The Hearing Panel Process

The purpose of a hearing is to explore and investigate the incident giving rise to the appearance of academic dishonesty and to reach an informed conclusion as to whether or not academic dishonesty occurred. All persons at a hearing are expected to assist in a thorough and honest exposition of all related facts. Council Hearing Panel proceedings are not legal proceedings, and attorneys are not permitted to be present at any hearings.

The sequence of a hearing is necessarily controlled by the nature of the incident to be investigated and the information to be examined. It lies within the judgment of the presiding officer to determine the most reasonable approach. The following steps are generally recommended:

• The referring faculty member or the individual reporting an alleged violation, and then the student,
   will briefly summarize the matter, including any relevant information or arguments. The faculty
   may recommend a sanction.
• Only witnesses who have knowledge of the incident and can offer documents or other materials
   bearing on the case may be called.
• Members of the Hearing Panel may request additional material or the appearance of other persons,
   as needed.
• The referring faculty member or other individual reporting the allegation and the student may
   make brief closing statements.
• The Hearing Panel will meet privately to discuss the case and determine whether a violation has
   taken place based on a preponderance of evidence.
• If the student is found in violation, the Hearing Panel will independently determine an appropriate
   sanction. When determining the sanction, the Hearing Panel will be informed of any other
   violations of academic integrity on the part of the student, as well as past sanctions.
• The presiding officer will provide the referring faculty or other individual, the student, and the
   Provost with a written report of the facts found, identifying the parts of the policy that have been
   violated and describing the sanction, if any, to be imposed.

The Hearing Panel chair will ensure that the following rules are observed:

• The student may be accompanied by a person of his or her choosing for emotional support only,
   provided that the support person is not an attorney, or a party to the case. This person will not
   actively participate in the hearing process in any way.
•  Hearings will be recorded for the purposes of the Hearing Panel's deliberations and any Council
   appeals.
• Presence at a hearing lies within the judgment of the presiding officer. A hearing requires a
   deliberative and candid atmosphere, free from distraction. Accordingly, it is not open to the public
   or other "interested" persons.
• The presiding officer may remove from the hearing any person who disrupts or impedes the
   investigation, or who fails to adhere to the rulings of the presiding officer.
• The presiding officer will direct that persons, other than the student, who are to be called upon to
   provide information, be excluded from the hearing except for that purpose.
• Members of the Hearing Panel may conduct private deliberations at such times and places as they
  deem proper.
• Failure to appear before a Hearing Panel will not preclude the Hearing Panel from hearing evidence
  and determining outcomes.
• It is the responsibility of the person desiring the presence of a witness before a Hearing Panel to ensure
  that the witness appears. Written statements by witnesses should not be used unless the individual
  cannot reasonably be expected to appear. Any written statement must be dated, signed by the person
  making it, and witnessed by a University employee. The work of a Hearing Panel will not, as a general
  practice, be delayed due to the unavailability of a witness.
• A hearing is not a trial. The Hearing Panel will consider all relevant, probative, and credible evidence.
  The presiding officer will determine what evidence will be considered.

 
F. Hearing Panel Outcomes

If the Hearing Panel determines that the allegations of academic dishonesty are unfounded, no record of the allegation and/or hearing is kept and no sanctions are imposed.

If the Hearing Panel determines that the allegations of academic dishonesty are founded, it will send copies of its decisions to the referring faculty or other individual, the student, and the Office of the Provost as the office of record.

Sanctions permitted include:

• Formal warning. (The violation is reported to the Provost's Office and no other sanction is imposed.)
• A reduction in grade for the assignment and/or an additional reduction in the grade for the course.
• A failing grade for the assignment and/or an additional reduction in the grade for the course.
• A failing grade in the course (XF).
• Community work assignment.
• Removal of the privilege of representing the university in extracurricular activities including athletics,
  as well as the privilege of running for or holding office in any student organization that is allowed to
  use university facilities or receives university funds.
• Suspension from the University for one or two semesters, excluding summer terms. Students suspended
  for academic dishonesty must apply for readmission according to the Board of Academic Standards
  guidelines. Students suspended for academic dishonesty cannot transfer into UIS any credits earned
  during the suspension. Readmission applications by students suspended for academic dishonesty must
  be approved by the Academic Integrity Council.
• Dismissal from the university.


G.  The Grade of XF

An XF will be recorded on the student's transcript with the notation “failure due to academic dishonesty.” The grade of XF shall be treated in the same way as an F for the purposes of grade point average, course repeatability, and the determination of academic standing.

A student may file a written petition to the Council to have the grade of XF removed and replaced with the grade of F. The decision to remove the grade of XF and replace it with a grade of F requires a majority vote of the Council provided that:

• at the time the petition is received, at least twelve months shall have elapsed since the grade of XF
  was imposed; and,
• at the time the petition is received, the student shall have successfully completed a university
  sponsored non-credit seminar on academic integrity; or, for the person no longer enrolled at the
  university, an equivalent educational activity to be determined by the Council; and,
• the Provost's Office certifies that no reports have been received indicating that the student has been
  found responsible for any other act of academic dishonesty at the university or at another institution.

Prior to making a decision, the Council will review the record of the case, and consult, if possible, with a referring faculty or other individual who originally reported the violation(s).  If the Council denies the petition, the student cannot submit another petition for two years, unless the Council specifies an earlier date.

H. Subsequent Allegations of Academic Dishonesty

In the event of a subsequent allegation of academic dishonesty, the Provost will automatically refer the case to the Council for review by a Hearing Panel. Ordinarily, a second finding of academic dishonesty will result in either suspension for one or two full semesters, excluding summer terms, or permanent dismissal from the university.
Suspension for academic dishonesty will ordinarily take place immediately. In the case of an appeal, the suspension is held in abeyance until the appeal process is completed.

In the event of extraordinary or extenuating circumstances, the Hearing Panel has the right to assign a lesser sanction or to delay the suspension.

I. Appeals

A student or faculty member may appeal the decision of the Hearing Panel to an Appeals Panel of the Council. The Appeals Panel shall consist of two (2) faculty and one (1) student members of the Council selected by the Council Chair. A typewritten and signed appeal, including the reason(s) for appeal, and supporting documentation, must be received by the chair of the Council within ten (10) business days of receipt of the Hearing Panel decision. Appeals are limited to one or more of the following three conditions:

 1. There is new and significant evidence which was not available for the  Hearing Panel and which may
     further clarify and support the defense of  the student. In this instance, the case should be referred
     back to the original Hearing Panel for reconsideration.
 2. There is clear reason to believe that the sanction is not consistent with  the seriousness of the
     violation. In such cases, the Appeals Panel may  issue a different sanction.
 3. There is substantial credible evidence that the initial hearing was not  fair and impartial, or that the
     established process was not followed. In this instance, the case should be referred back to a new
     Hearing Panel to rehear the case.

If the appeal documentation does not fall into one of the permissible grounds or  does not support the claim, the appeal shall be denied.

 In cases of academic dishonesty, the decisions of the Appeals Panel are final and  may not be appealed.
                         _______________________________________________