Notification Processes

Once the Director of Academic Integrity has received the Academic Misconduct Notification Form from the instructor the following actions occur:

  1. The faculty member is contacted to provide the documentary evidence and copy of the syllabus for the course in which the infraction occurred,
  2. The student is contacted for their version of the events leading to the submission of the AMNF by the faculty,
  3. The Director of Academic Integrity checks their files to determine whether the reported infraction is a first offense,
  4. The dean, academic advisor, and if appropriate faculty athletics representative, Athletic Director, NROTC commander, and/or International Student office are notified that a student has been reported for an act of academic misconduct,
  5. A description of the penalties and request for a decision regarding acceptance of the penalties or appeal of the reported infraction is sent to the student, and the Director of Academic Integrity informs the student that he or she has seven (7) business days from the postmark date (or email time stamp) of this notification to request a hearing with the Academic Integrity Council, or the student will be deemed to have committed the violation, an “Academic Hold” to encourage the student to address the issue prior to being able to withdraw from the course in question or      register for courses in subsequent sessions

If the instructor has indicated “WARNING” only on the Academic Misconduct Notification Form, that instructor’s judgment is to be respected. If the instructor marks “CITATION,” however, the instructor’s dean has the right to lessen that to a “WARNING” if, in his or her judgment, the infraction fits the guidelines for a warning. Again, these guidelines include any of the following circumstances:

  • The incident is a first offense in the class,
  • The affected assignment amounted to 10% or less of the total grade in the course,
  • An act of plagiarism occurred due to a technicality and was likely unintentional,
  • Mitigating circumstances suggest that the act of misconduct was not an overt attempt to gain an unfair advantage.