NOTE: This guide is not a comprehensive statement of University policies and procedures regarding scholastic dishonesty. The official policies are stated in The University of Texas at Dallas’ Handbook of Operating Procedures, Title V Chapter 49.

Necessity for Adhering to Disciplinary Policies/Procedures

An allegation of academic dishonesty is an assertion that a person has violated a rule. Investigating whether or not such an assertion is true is one role of the Judicial Affairs Office. It cannot be assumed, even when the evidence is compelling, that a student has committed an act of scholastic dishonesty.

The Rules and Regulations adopted by the Board of Regents include provisions relating to the standards of conduct expected of students at the component institutions of the U. T. System. Each component institution is also authorized to enact additional rules and regulations related to student conduct and disciplinary procedures consistent with Regents’ Rules and Regulations. The University of Texas at Dallas has promulgated and adopted a Student Discipline and Conduct statement, contained in the UTD Handbook of Operating Procedures as Chapter 49. Faculty and administrators involved in the disciplinary process are expected to abide by the standards articulated in the Regents’ Rules and Regulations as well as the UTD Handbook of Operating Procedures.

Students who fail to conform to the established standards of conduct are subject to one or more of the disciplinary penalties listed in the Regents’ Rules and Regulations or UTD Handbook of Operating Procedures. The courts have held that a disciplinary penalty may not be imposed upon a student for engaging in prohibited conduct unless the student has been offered an opportunity for a hearing that conforms to certain minimal procedural due process standards. The Regents’ Rules and Regulations have been drafted to establish disciplinary hearing procedures that conform to the procedural due process requirements of the courts. UTD adheres to those procedures in student disciplinary matters.

One goal of Judicial Affairs at U. T. Dallas is to arrive at the appropriate outcome in a manner that is beyond reproach. This, of course, requires a collaborative effort between all of us at the University who place a high value on academic integrity. Adhering to official protocols guards against a shift in the focus from the substantive evidence to possible procedural errors by the University. Failure to afford a student his or her due process rights as part of the disciplinary process can result in a number of legal repercussions, including attachment of personal liability to the offending instructor. Therefore, it is essential to follow established procedures even if thought to be unnecessary and burdensome.

The Rights of the Student

Constitutional due process rights require that a student charged with an act of scholastic dishonesty has the right to know what evidence supports the charge, the right to be heard, and the right of appeal. A student may accept administrative disposition of a meritorious charge by waiving his or her right to a hearing. Under any circumstance, however, a student has the right to appeal a penalty assessed by the Dean of Students or the decision of a hearing officer by timely written notice to the President.

The Student’s Discipline Records

Scholastic dishonesty records are kept separate from academic (transcript) records and are retained in the Office of Judicial Affairs. Although classified as confidential, disciplinary records (including academic dishonesty records) may be released to persons outside the University only with the consent of the student or in response to a court order. One advantage of maintaining the records in a central location is to monitor incidents of repeated violations of scholastic regulations by the same student. Known multiple offenses generally result in more serious penalties.

The Responsibility of Faculty

Academic integrity in academic exercises is a shared responsibility of both faculty and students, although faculty members are called upon to play a greater role in that process. Many students at the University, however, are increasingly concerned about scholastic dishonesty among their classmates and in their classes.

Investigating allegations of scholastic dishonesty and, if warranted, assessing a penalty is a responsibility of Judicial Affairs. An academic judgment relating to whether a student has or has not properly completed a quality academic exercise as assigned is the responsibility of the faculty.

In a Nutshell:

• When there is reason to believe that an act of scholastic dishonesty has occurred, the faculty member should gather all pertinent evidence such as tests, reports, computer programs, and other academic assignments, and identify any possible witnesses. Note: During an exam the faculty member should remove any unauthorized materials and/or, if applicable, discretely ask the student to move to another desk. However, the student must be allowed to complete the exam. Remember: An allegation of dishonesty does not mean one is guilty of dishonesty.
• In instances of clear evidence of scholastic dishonesty, the matter should be referred directly to Judicial Affairs using the Scholastic Dishonesty Referral form.
• If the evidence of scholastic dishonesty is ambiguous, the faculty member certainly may confer with the student(s) involved for the purpose of clarifying the circumstances of the alleged violation. After conferring with the student, if warranted, the faculty member may refer the allegation to Judicial Affairs, using the Scholastic Dishonesty Referral form.
• The Scholastic Dishonesty Referral form is available at http://www.utdallas.edu/dishonesty/documents/referral0805.doc. Attach relevant documents (crib notes, plagiarized materials, computer discs, programs, plagiarism detection program print-outs or other supporting evidence) and your course syllabus to the referral form. Your original signature is required on the referral. While hand delivery is best and the preferred transmittal method (Student Union room1.610), campus mail (Mail Station 22) is also an option.
• Upon receipt of the completed referral Judicial Affairs will conduct an investigation of the alleged infraction. The investigation will include at a minimum a review of all evidentiary documentation received and an interview with the accused student. The investigation period varies in duration, depending upon the responsiveness of the student and the quality of the supporting documentation received with the referral.
• During the investigation period and continuing through completion of the due process requirements, the student must be allowed to attend all classes and complete all assignments. If final grades become due prior to resolution of the charge, the letters NR are to be submitted on the grade report to the Registrar for the accused student.
• All information concerning scholastic dishonesty allegations and dispositions is strictly confidential and should be treated accordingly and restricted solely between the faculty member and Judicial Affairs. Casual conversations regarding specific scholastic dishonesty allegations should be avoided.
• While penalty assessment for acts of scholastic dishonesty remains the responsibility of Judicial Affairs, faculty members are allowed to make a recommendation if in their judgment there are unusual or mitigating or extenuating circumstances. Some examples are:
• retaking the examination or test or redoing the paper or project;
• no credit, or reduced credit for the paper, assignment, or exam in question;
• removal from the course with a grade of ‘F’ if the term is not yet completed; and
• failing grade for the course.

Responsibilities of Judicial Affairs

If, after investigation, the Judicial Affairs Officer determines the student violated the U.T. Dallas Student Code of Conduct or Regents’ Rules and Regulations, the student may choose to resolve the matter administratively by waiving his or her due process right to a hearing (Administrative Disposition), or may choose to dispute the charge at a formal due process hearing.

The Judicial Affairs Officer will investigate the allegation, review the student’s prior disciplinary record, consider the penalty recommended by the faculty member and assess a penalty that is appropriate to the circumstances yet consistent with penalties for similar acts of scholastic dishonesty. In a course in which a failing grade has been assessed for scholastic dishonesty, the student will not be allowed to withdraw as a way of preventing the grade from being entered on their academic record. The Judicial Affairs Officer will inform the student and the faculty member of the decision.

If a hearing is conducted, the Judicial Affairs Officer prepares for the hearing. If the accused student is represented by an attorney, the University is represented by an attorney from the Office of General Counsel of the UT System. The time required of the instructor or faculty member varies depending upon the details and complexity of the facts and supporting evidence. The hearing officer, a faculty or staff member appointed by the President to hear discipline cases, determines if the student violated the Code or Rules and, if so, assesses an appropriate penalty.

Whether the matter is resolved administratively or through a formal hearing, the student may appeal to the President.

Examples of Scholastic Dishonesty

Scholastic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to cheating, plagiarism, collusion, facilitating academic dishonesty, fabrication, failure to contribute to a collaborative project and sabotage. Some of the ways students may engage in scholastic dishonesty are:

• Coughing and/or using visual or auditory signals in a test;
• Concealing notes on hands, caps, shoes, in pockets or the back of beverage bottle labels;
• Writing in blue books prior to an examination;
• Writing information on blackboards, desks, or keeping notes on the floor;
• Obtaining copies of an exam in advance;
• Passing information from an earlier class to a later class;
• Leaving information in the bathroom;
• Exchanging exams so that neighbors have identical test forms;
• Having a substitute take a test and providing falsified identification for the substitute;
• Fabricating data for lab assignments;
• Changing a graded paper and requesting that it be regraded;
• Failing to turn in a test or assignment and later suggesting the faculty member has lost it;
• Stealing another student’s graded test and affixing one’s own name on it;
• Submitting computer programs written by another person;
• Recording two answers, one on the test form, one on the answer sheet;
• Marking an answer sheet to enable another to see the answer;
• Encircling two adjacent answers and claiming to have had the correct answer;
• Stealing an exam for someone in another section or for placement in a test file;
• Using an electronic device to store test information;
• Taking another student’s computer assignment printout from a computer lab;
• Destroying or removing library materials to gain an academic advantage;
• Consulting assignment solutions posted on websites of previous course offerings;
• Transferring a computer file from one person’s account to another;
• Transmitting posted answers for an exam to a student in a testing area via electronic device;
• Downloading text from Internet or other sources without proper attribution;
• Citing to false references or findings in research or other academic exercises;
• Unauthorized collaborating with another person in preparing academic exercises.
• Submitting a substantial portion of the same academic work more than once without written authorization from the instructor.

Proactive Strategies for Faculty

Acts of scholastic dishonesty may occur in lab experiments, on homework, computer programming assignments, general writing and research papers, among others. The following list contains ideas and suggestions that a faculty member might consider as tools for developing a proactive strategy to address the scholastic dishonesty issue.

• Enforce silence during the examination period.
• Require proctors to remain in the testing room throughout the examination period.
• Use a consistent method of grading papers to which you strictly adhere; for example, use a system for marking unanswered questions so that students may not easily fill in or alter answers later and submit them for regrading.
• Require students to remove caps and hats during the testing period.
• Require students to bring blue books at the beginning of the semester, and distribute them yourself at test time.
• Forbid textbooks in the testing room.
• Separate students or assign seats.
• Distribute different test forms. Informing students of this practice is optional.
• Check photo identification against the photo roster and the person sitting for an exam.
• Modify homework, exams and essay topics each semester.
• Establish and publicize your policy for failure to follow instructions on assignments (e.g. a paper must be 95% accurate in format (MLA/APA style) to be graded). Failure to follow your instructions can be a factor in the academic evaluation of the assignment. It may not be an act of scholastic dishonesty.
• Check desks and the surrounding area for unauthorized materials.
• Require students to sign tests and verify the signatures.
• Photocopy completed exams (or a sample of them) for comparison in regrade requests and inform students of this practice.
• Do not post answers to an exam prior to its completion.
• Disallow programmable calculators or require battery removal and reinstallation prior to the start of the exam.
• Clear your web archives of solutions and answers to assignments periodically.
• Establish a restroom policy for exam periods and inform your students what the policy is.
• Use the plagiarism detection program subscribed to by the University.

We recommend that faculty members include a statement about scholastic dishonesty in their syllabi stressing that scholastic dishonesty will not be tolerated. Syllabi should include test-taking rules such as “no caps,” “no books,” “ID required,” “no electronic devices.” Faculty members are empowered to enforce their own published policies, e.g. a student not presenting his or her Comet Card is not issued an exam.

Judicial Affairs has a Syllabus Addendum that contains many of the advisories stated above. Please contact Judicial Affairs to request an electronic copy for distribution to your students. At a minimum, Judicial Affairs provides the following general statement for syllabi:

All episodes of suspected scholastic dishonesty will be reported according to University policy. Students who violate University rules on scholastic dishonesty are subject to disciplinary penalties, including the possibility of failure in the course and/or dismissal from the University. Since such dishonesty harms the individual, all students and the University, policies on scholastic dishonesty will be strictly enforced. Penalties that may be assessed for scholastic dishonesty may be reviewed in Subchapter D. Penalties in The University of Texas at Dallas’ Handbook of Operating Procedures, Title V Chapter 49.

For reasons stated above, policy statements should not include predetermined outcomes, e.g., “Any cheating will result in an ‘F’ in the course.” However, a statement of the faculty member’s typical recommendation in such matters, e.g., “The recommended penalty in most cases of scholastic dishonesty will be ___.”is appropriate.