Honor Code UPPS No. 07.10.01

Issue No. 6

Effective Date: 08/25/2010

Review: June 1 E4Y

Attachments I, II, III

01. POLICY STATEMENTS

01.01 The purpose of this UPPS is to provide policies and procedures related to academic honesty, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations, Board of Regents, The Texas State University System, Section VI, Subsection 5.3.

01.02 Texas State University-San Marcos expects students to engage in all academic pursuits in a manner that is beyond reproach. Students found in violation of the Honor Code are subject to disciplinary action.

01.03 To support the goal of maintaining a climate of academic honesty, Texas State has adopted the Texas State University-San Marcos Honor Code (see Attachment I).

02. DEFINITIONS

02.01 "Academic work" means the preparation of an essay, thesis, report, problem, assignment or other project submitted for purposes of grade determination.

02.02 "Violation of the Honor Code" includes, but is not limited to, cheating on an examination or other academic work, plagiarism, collusion and the abuse of resource materials.

a. “Cheating" means engaging in any of the following activities.

1) Copying from another student's test paper, laboratory report, other report, or computer files, data listings, or programs, or from any electronic device or equipment.

2) Using, during a test, printed, audio, or electronic materials not authorized by the person giving the test.

3) Collaborating, without authorization, with another person during an examination or in preparing academic work.

4) Knowingly, and without authorization, using, buying, selling, stealing, transporting, soliciting, copying or possessing, in whole or in part, the contents of an unadministered test.

5) Substituting for another student or permitting another person to substitute for oneself in taking an examination or preparing academic work.

6) Bribing or coercing another person to obtain an unadministered test or obtain information about an unadministered test.

7) Purchasing or otherwise acquiring and submitting as one's own work any research paper or other assignment prepared by another individual or by a firm. This section does not apply to the word-processing of the rough or final versions of an assignment by a professional service.

8) Submitting the same essay, thesis, report, or other project, without substantial revision or expansion of the work, in an attempt to obtain credit for work submitted in another course.

9) Falsifying data.

b. “Plagiarism" means the appropriation of another's work and the unacknowledged incorporation of that work in one's own written, oral, visual, or original performative work that is offered for credit.

c. “Collusion" means the unauthorized collaboration with another person in preparing any work offered for credit.

d. “Abuse of resource materials" means the mutilation, destruction, concealment, theft, or alteration of materials provided to assist students in the mastery of course content.

02.03 Following are definitions of persons, with their titles and responsibilities, with jurisdiction over the Honor Code.

a. “Instructor" means a faculty member with the responsibility for teaching a particular academic course, regardless of that person's academic rank, e. g., professor, associate professor, assistant professor, instructor, assistant instructor, lecturer, or graduate teaching assistant.

b. “Student" means any person enrolled in a course, whether a full-time or part-time student, whether for credit or audit, and whether in residence, or by extension or any form of distance education.

c. “Honor Code Council” means a group made up of a minimum of fourteen trained faculty members, two from each college, except the University College and the Graduate College. The Council will include fourteen trained students representing at least five colleges. The Faculty Senate will appoint the faculty representatives to serve three-year renewable terms (with possible reappointment) with two appointees designated as chair and vice chair. On an annual basis, the Associated Student Government (Senate and House) will appoint the undergraduate and graduate representatives, with approval by the vice president for Student Affairs. The orientation session for the Council will cover the Honor Code policy thoroughly, as well as procedural process. Every member will also sign a confidentiality agreement, and provide their contact information to be kept in the associate vice president for Academic Affairs (AVPAA) office should they need to be contacted.

d. The “Hearing Committee” means a group of representatives from the Honor Code Council that must include an equal number of faculty, excluding the chair or vice chair, and students with a minimum of three each to hear an appeal. A total of seven committee members must attend the hearing with the chair or vice-chair serving as the hearing officer and not voting as a member of the committee. The hearing will follow Roberts Rules of Order.

02.04 "Academic penalty" means one or more of the following sanctions that may be imposed in cases involving violation of academic honesty.

a. A requirement to perform additional academic work not required of other students in the course.

b. A reduction to any level of the grade in the course, or on an examination, or on other academic work affected by violation of the Honor Code.

c. A requirement to withdraw from the course with a grade of "F" or a "W".

02.05 "Disciplinary penalty" means any penalty that may be imposed in a student disciplinary matter pursuant to The Official Texas State Code of Student Conduct. This code of conduct can be found at: http://www.dos.txstate.edu/handbook/rules/cosc.html.

03. PROCEDURES

03.01 The following procedures are outlined in Attachment II.

03.02 When a faculty member reasonably suspects that a student under the faculty member’s supervision has violated the Honor Code, the faculty member will follow these procedures. The faculty member’s proceedings are informal and are not adversarial. The student or faculty member may consult with the Honor Code Council chair regarding the matter or with the associate vice president for Academic Affairs (AVPAA) on policy and procedural concerns.

a. Within a reasonable time frame, the faculty member will contact the student orally or in writing to schedule a meeting to discuss the matter, with other communication arranged for exceptional circumstances. In the case of an online or distance learning course, the faculty may conduct all processes through electronic meetings. The faculty member will explain to the student both the suspected code violation and the evidence that supports the suspicion that the violation occurred. The faculty member may rely on documents, written statements, or other evidence. If the faculty member relies on such evidence, the faculty member must provide the student with copies.

1) After conferring with the student, the faculty member will give the student three business days to respond to the suspected code violation. The student may respond in writing or in person, and may present evidence and witnesses, in a manner determined by the student. However, neither the faculty member nor the student may have legal representation at any meeting. This is an informal process and not an adversarial legal process and any recommendation does not imply a legal finding.

2) If the student fails to respond within three business days, the faculty member may proceed to determine the matter as provided below.

b. The faculty member will consider the evidence and the student’s response and determine whether the student violated the Honor Code. The student will then receive notification of the determination and any resulting academic penalty. The faculty member will also advise the student of the option to accept or reject either the faculty member’s determination or the academic penalty.

1) If the faculty member is convinced the student did not intentionally violate the Honor Code, the matter will end and no further action is required unless the student requests written documentation of the faculty member’s determination.

2) If the faculty member is convinced the student violated the Honor Code, the faculty member may assess an academic penalty as defined in Section 02.04.

3) In addition to an academic penalty, a faculty member may recommend additional disciplinary action to the dean of Students.

4) Upon a determination of a suspected violation, the faculty member should fill out the Honor Code Review Form (see Attachment III), and shall also:

(a) note his or her determination and any academic penalty;

(b) give the student an opportunity to indicate the student’s acceptance or rejection of the faculty member’s decision;

(d) immediately deliver the form and copies of any evidence to the AVPAA with copies to the student and the faculty member’s dean.

03.03 The Council chair will convene a hearing with the Hearing Committee if (1) the student rejects the faculty member’s determination; or (2) the student has a record of previous violations of the Honor Code.

a. Once the chair is notified that the student rejects the faculty’s determination, the chair will make every effort to schedule the hearing within ten business days. The chair will make exceptions on a case-by-case basis for extenuating circumstances. In the case of an online course or any other distance learning course, all processes may occur through electronic meetings.

b. Prior to the hearing, the Council chair will give the student and faculty member at least five business days’ notice of the reported code violation, make available the supporting evidence, and provide the hearing’s date, time, and place. The student will have the opportunity to respond to the code violation and evidence during the hearing. In addition, the student is allowed to provide evidence to refute the allegation. The student should provide copies of any evidence at least three days prior to the hearing. If there is a “no-show” by the student, the hearing will be held without the student.

c. Reviewing academic penalties. When the Hearing Committee reviews an academic penalty, it will ask the faculty member to submit, in writing, the documentation and evidence that supports the suspected offense. The Hearing Committee may request additional materials from either party. The Hearing Committee will consider all materials submitted and make its recommendation as provided in Section 02.04. The committee makes two assessments, whether the student is guilty of academic dishonesty and a recommendation as to whether or not the sanction should be upheld. A tie vote confirms the faculty member’s determination. If there are multiple students challenging the same findings, the Committee will hear each student’s evidence separately and will vote on the evidence separately.

d. After conducting its review, the Hearing Committee will submit its recommendation to the student, faculty member, the dean of the college where the alleged violation occurred, and the dean of the college of the student’s major.

03.04 The dean of the college where the violation occurred may request all evidentiary materials from the Council chair. The dean has ten business days to review and make a decision. After receiving the dean’s decision, the student or faculty member has five business days to file an appeal to the provost.

03.05 As provided in the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Regents, The Texas State University System (Chapter VI, Section 5.36), the vice president for Academic Affairs (Provost) or a designee will hear appeals of academic decisions and reach a decision within ten days. Grounds for appeal are limited to allegations that:

a. proper due process procedures were not followed. However, deviations from prescribed procedures will not necessarily invalidate a decision or proceeding unless they caused significant prejudice to the student;

b. the penalties assessed are not commensurate with the code violation committed; or

c. the university has violated a right guaranteed to the student by the Constitution or laws of the United States or the State of Texas.

03.06 The vice president for Academic Affairs will render a final decision on the appeal within a reasonable time and will inform all parties of the decision.

Note: If any portion of this UPPS conflicts with the Regent’s Rules and Regulations, the latter will prevail.

04. REVIEWERS OF THIS UPPS

04.01 Reviewers of this UPPS include the following:

Position Date

Provost June 1 E4Y

Associate Vice President for June 1 E4Y

Academic Affairs

Vice President for Student Affairs June 1 E4Y

Chair, Honor Code Council June 1 E4Y

Chair, Faculty Senate June 1 E4Y

05. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

This UPPS has been approved by the following individuals in their official capacities and represents Texas State policy and procedure from the date of this document until superseded.

Provost; senior reviewer of this UPPS

President