/Institutions/Dickinson-State-University/json/2022-2024/Catalog-local.json

/Institutions/Dickinson-State-University/json/2022-2024/Catalog.json

2022-2024 Catalog > Student Handbook > DSU Student Code of Conduct > X. Non-Disciplinary Procedures of Academic Misconduct

X. Non-Disciplinary Procedures of Academic Misconduct

10.1 Academic Honesty is always expected.

The student is required to do the student’s own work, as well as accurately document borrowed ideas, paraphrased materials, and direct quotations.

10.2 When Academic Dishonesty occurs.

An instructor has the power to act within the instructor’s own jurisdiction and/or refer the case to the appropriate next step according to the Cross-Campus Cheating Policy 514.003. The student has the right to appeal the decision.

10.3 Academic Misconduct and Grade Appeal Process

Students can resolve academically related appeals through an informal resolution process and a formal resolution process. The grade appeal form can be found here: Grade Appeal Form.

10.3.1 Informal Resolution Process

A. Instructor Level

If a student believes a grade received in a particular course is unwarranted; or the result of an alleged inequitable, prejudicial academic evaluation; or the instructor wrongfully accused the student of an act of academic misconduct as defined under section 3.4, the student should first contact the instructor and arrange for a clarification/resolution conference. This is the first level of the appeal, and the informal level at which the University attempts to resolve these issues.

The academic appeal (either oral or written) must be filed with the instructor, within ten (10) University business days after the incident or within ten (10) University business days after the start of the next semester (fall, spring, or summer) when the appeal involves final course grades. When the appeal timeline falls outside the fall or spring semesters, the instructor must respond within ten (10) University business days of the start of the following semester (fall, spring, or summer).

At the student/instructor level, the reasons for charging the student with an act of academic misconduct and subsequent actions or reason for awarding a specific course grade are explained by the instructor to the student in an informal conference and followed up in writing within one day of the conference. The instructor may choose to allow the academic misconduct charge and subsequent action or course grade to stand or be changed.

B. Chair Level

If the student is not satisfied with the clarification or action resulting from the instructor conference, the student then has the option to carry the appeal to the department chair (according to the organizational structure). This is the second level of the appeal within the informal resolution process. The student must notify the department chair, either verbally or in writing, that the student requests further review of the appeal within ten (10) University business days after the instructor conference.

At this level, the department chair acts as a mediator between the instructor and the student and tries to resolve the dispute through compromise. The chair will follow the steps outlined below:

1. The chair first examines pertinent documents to become familiar with the substantive issues of the appeals.
2. The chair then interviews both the student and the instructor. This may be done in a joint session but most often is accomplished in separate sessions.
3. The chair then makes a written recommendation for resolving the appeal. The recommendation must be forthcoming within ten (10) University business days after receiving a request for review of the appeal from the appellant.
4. The written recommendation is forwarded to the instructor, the student, and the Dean of the college involved.
5. The recommendation is not binding on either the instructor or the student. The instructor still has the vested authority to continue with any action regarding academic misconduct or allow a previously posted grade that has been appealed to stand. However, the weight of the chair’s recommendation would indicate one course of action over the other.
6. If not satisfied with the recommendation, the student may carry the appeal to the formal level through a written appeal to the Dean of the college in which the academic department is located.
7. The written appeal must state specific reasons why the initial appeal was submitted and refer to previous attempts at the instructor and chair level to resolve the issue informally.
8. The college Dean will determine whether the request for formal resolution is valid or not. If determined that the appeal is not valid, the Dean will inform the student and cite specific reasons. The appeal will not go forward to the formal phase, and the decision will be considered final.

10.3.2 Formal Resolution Process

The third level of the appeal process is triggered when a student submits a written request on an official appeal form. The outcome of the third level of the appeal is binding, when the Dean invokes the formal resolution process. The third level is invoked only after the informal actions of clarification and mediation have not resolved the issue. The written request for a formal review of the appeal must be submitted to the appropriate Dean within ten (10) University business days after the conclusion of the informal resolution phase. Under no circumstances can a formal review of the appeal be initiated more than one semester (fall, spring, or summer) after the academic misconduct occurred or the course grade was posted on an official DSU transcript; the formal appeal resolution must occur within the semester immediately following the incident which the appeal deals with. At this level, the Dean acts as an arbitrator who makes a recommendation through a review committee to the Provost.

Within ten (10) University business days of the receipt of a written appeal requesting formal resolution, the Dean will convene a review committee, examine the pertinent evidence, and render a written opinion to the Provost for concurrence and implementation. The ten (10) University business day timeline may be extended by the Provost because of extenuating circumstances.

The review committee will be chaired by the college Dean and will include three other individuals, including: a department chair other than from the originating department, a faculty member from a department other than the originating department, and representative from Student Affairs who will serve as an advocate for the appellant to ensure procedure correctness. The committee will follow the steps listed below:

1. The college Dean and review committee first examine the recommendation from the Chair and the pertinent documents reviewed by the Chair from an evidential standpoint.
2. The college Dean and review committee may interview the department Chair, the instructor, and the appellant.
3. The review committee may gather information from other sources in order to formulate an opinion.
4. After reaching a consensus, the college Dean renders a written opinion of what the recommended action should be in the appeal to the Provost.

10.3.3 Concurrence/Implementation Phase

Upon examination of the review committee’s opinion, the Provost may concur or not concur. This action must be taken within ten (10) University business days of the receipt of the written opinion.

1. The Provost will provide a written rationale for concurrence or non-concurrence. If the Provost concurs with the opinion, the appellant, instructor, and review committee chair will be notified in writing of the recommended action from the Provost’s office.
2. If the Provost does not concur with the opinion, this decision is also relayed in writing to the appellant, instructor, and review committee chair.
   1. In the case of non-concurrence by the Provost where the procedure is perceived as being flawed, the Provost may order the appeal reviewed again by another review committee with the chair designated by the Provost. Timelines and procedures will be the same as stated above.
3. The decision of the review committee with concurrence by the Provost is binding on both parties, and final.
4. The Provost will notify all salient University entities of the decision and approve any document changes or actions within ten (10) University business days of the decision.
5. Proven gross misconduct by students may result in disciplinary actions that go beyond academic sanctions within the course. These actions may be severe such as expulsion from an academic program, and in extreme cases, expulsion from the University.

10.3.4 Further Action

Any further action by either appellant or instructor beyond level three would be outside of the University as an external matter. The President of DSU does not serve as a “court of final appeals” in academic matters; this role is being reserved for the Provost in the opinion concurrence/implementation phase of the appeal.

10.3.5 Conflict of Interest

If any of the misconduct appeal coordinators (Chair, Dean, Provost) have situations involving a student in their own classes, where this process is to be implemented, the coordinator will be replaced by another individual of equal responsibility and rank. This decision will be made by the individual’s immediate supervisor who will designate a replacement.