Faculty Resources FAQ

This policy’s wording is “artificial intelligence, or other technology not explicitly allowed by the instructor.”  This is deliberately open-ended, since technologies are evolving, and vary greatly from generative AI to grammar checking to calculator use. This policy does not change the fact that instructors need to be clear about which technologies are appropriate for use during their courses. Additional resources in this area will be available on the Academic Integrity website in the future. 

There are many plagiarism and GenAI detection tools freely available or available through a subscription. The current tools are unreliable and may produce false positives and are not eligible as evidentiary material in an academic hearing. For more information about plagiarism detection tools please read about the Learning Technologies Advisory Committee's possible future initiatives.  The Reinert Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning offers instructor training on designing assignments and assessments that reward honest behavior. 

The Reinert Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning created syllabi statements outlining the use of GenAI. 

Faculty can impose sanctions and/or propose sanctions and can apply sanctions when the alleged incident is discovered. 

If the student has previous academic integrity incidents, the Academic Hearing Panel may impose additional sanctions, ex. visits to Writing Services. 

The University-wide Academic Integrity Policy’s sanctions are equitable across all colleges/schools that fall under the policy. However, some academic programs may have professional standards, beyond academic and community standards, which could result in additional consequences impacting a student’s academic standing and program progression. 

The distinction between students discussing their work with peers and colluding on assignments lies in the nature and intent of the interaction. Discussing work with peers involves openly sharing ideas, seeking advice, and providing feedback on each other’s work, with the intent to enhance understanding, learn collaboratively, and support each other’s academic growth while maintaining individual responsibility. This practice is common in study groups, classroom settings, and peer-review sessions where collaborative learning is encouraged, and it is considered ethical and beneficial if students complete their own work and do not share exact answers or detailed solutions. 

In contrast, colluding on assignments involves secretly working together in a manner that breaches academic integrity, often by sharing answers or submitting substantially similar work as one’s own. The intent here is to unfairly improve grades or reduce individual effort, often at the expense of learning and fairness. This typically involves activities explicitly prohibited by academic policies, such as sharing written assignments or copying each other’s work, and is considered unethical and dishonest as it involves deception and violates academic integrity rules. 

For example, discussing work might involve students meeting to discuss a challenging topic, sharing resources, and clarifying doubts, then independently writing their own essays reflecting their individual understanding. On the other hand, colluding might involve students dividing sections of an essay among themselves, each writing a part, and then combining the parts to submit identical or highly similar essays. 

A faculty imposed and/or proposed academic integrity sanction may be overturned by the Academic Integrity Hearing Panel if a student is found non-responsible for the academic integrity incident or if the hearing panel’s sanction is greater than the imposed sanction by the instructor. 

If a reported violation is overturned (the student is found “non-responsible” as determined by the Academic Integrity Hearing Panel), what happens? 

Sanctions applied by the instructor are reversed and case materials are destroyed. 

If a student is found non-responsible, that case is not relevant to future violations or any other university business. The student must be given a fair opportunity to complete any relevant course material, which is why instructors should always allow students to continue in a course and/or complete a course pending the result of a reported academic honesty incident. 

Before faculty submits any incident, they are free to discuss the incident with a chair, other administrator, or the DAI. Before the Academic Incident Report goes to the Academic Integrity Hearing Panel, the DAI may consult with the instructor if the proposed sanction(s) substantially deviate from previous and/or similar cases. 

If the Academic Integrity Hearing Panel finds in favor of the student, the faculty imposed and/or proposed sanctions will be reversed. 

If the Academic Integrity Hearing Panel finds in favor of the instructor, the Academic Integrity Hearing Panel has authority to modify the proposed sanctions. Changes to instructor imposed and/or proposed sanctions are expected to be infrequent and will typically involve imposing additional sanctions due to prior student academic integrity violations. 

Assuming the student is found responsible, the primary consequences are the faculty imposed and/or proposed sanctions. Repeat academic integrity violations may lead to additional sanctions imposed by the Academic Integrity Hearing Panel. Academic integrity violations do not directly affect student scholarships or financial aid as long as the student maintains satisfactory academic progress (SAP). Applications to some government agencies and some professional schools (e.g., medical, law) require the student to self-disclose any official academic integrity violations. 

Academic integrity violations do not appear on a student’s transcript. 

 

Parties involved in the academic incident may appeal a decision from the Academic Integrity Hearing Panel. There are two type types of academic integrity appeals: new evidence and process appeals. Students who do not initially acknowledge the academic integrity violation may follow the new evidence appeal process. 

 

The instructor determines whether an academic integrity incident has occurred. If an academic integrity incident has occurred, the instructor may determine that a restorative educational opportunity may be appropriate. The reporting process begins with communication between the instructor and the student. 

Submitting an official academic integrity incident report is part of the academic integrity reporting process which initiates the formal academic integrity process. 

No. Faculty are expected to use their professional judgment when analyzing student work and to report any violations of the academic integrity policy that they observe. The University process is designed to provide adequate due process to students. The University defends faculty and staff for the actions they take in furtherance of their official University roles. Submitting a knowingly false report against a student would be a violation of a faculty member’s duties and would not be condoned or tolerated. 

Instructors may discover evidence of an academic integrity incident quite some time after the violation occurs. An instructor has 10 University business days to contact a student once an academic integrity incident may have occurred. Once an instructor informs the student of a violation, the instructor has five University business days to report the violation to the DAI. It is in everyone’s interest to proceed as quickly as possible, as the outcome of academic integrity violations affects future course enrollment, graduation requirements, and many other aspects of the student’s success. 

Faculty participation in formal academic integrity hearings is expected as appropriate (e.g., faculty may be consulted for clarification of evidence by the DAI or Academic Integrity Hearing Panel or attend a hearing meeting). 

A preponderance of evidence, more likely than not, is a lower threshold than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

Evidence will vary among disciplines and programs (e.g., computer coding, studio art, research papers) – evidentiary standards that are currently in place in individual schools/colleges/programs should translate to the proposed policy. 

This is highly dependent on the academic integrity incident circumstances and possibly the instructor’s academic discipline. If an incident progresses to an academic integrity hearing, the Academic Integrity Hearing Panel will consult with the instructor and/or other subject experts as necessary to understand and contextualize the evidence. 

The Academic Integrity Incident Report Form is based on the current Community Standards Incident Form with modifications to adequately address academic integrity incidents. 

The Academic Integrity Incident Report Form has an option to send a copy to the submitter. 

Once an incident report is submitted, the form is sent to Maxient, and a case is created by the DAI. All Associate Deans have access to student academic integrity records. 

Maxient is a confidential and permanent database to manage student conduct, academic integrity, Title IX, and care and concern records. 

Maxient records do not appear on a student’s transcripts. 

Academic integrity incidents reported via Maxient can only be released with the permission of the student, e.g., medical school admissions requests.