Biomedical Sciences Graduate Student Handbook
remain on the student’s transcript indefinitely and will not be subject to course drop or withdrawal.
3. The student may accept the responsibility for the violation, but contest the proposed academic
sanction. In this circumstance, the student must submit the “Academic Honor Policy Referral to
Contest Sanction” form along with supporting documentation to the Office of the Dean of the
Faculties. The Dean of the Faculties (or designee) will review the submitted documentation to
determine whether the instructor has imposed a sanction that is disproportionate to the offense.
The Dean of the Faculties may affirm or modify the sanction as appropriate. The decision that
results from this review is final.
The student may deny responsibility. In this circumstance, the instructor submits the ‘‘Academic Honor Policy
Hearing Referral’’ form along with supporting documentation to the Dean of the Faculties Office for an
Academic Honor Policy Hearing. The student is issued a letter detailing the charges within ten class days of the
receipt of the referral, and the schedule for the hearing will be set as soon as possible and within 90 days from
the date of the letter. These timelines may be modified in unusual circumstances. Unless all parties agree, the
hearing will not be held any sooner than 7 class days from the student’s receipt of the charge letter. The process
then proceeds to Step 2.
If the student is found to have a prior record of academic dishonesty or the serious nature of the allegations
merits a formal hearing, the instructor must refer the matter to Step 2 for an Academic Honor Policy Hearing by
submitting the “Academic Honor Policy Hearing Referral” form and appropriate documentation to the Office of
the Dean of the Faculties.
Allegations of academic dishonesty involving a graduate student engaged in any phase of the preliminary
examination, thesis, or dissertation will be treated as egregious and will be resolved through the Step 2 process,
in which the Major Professor will serve as the ‘‘instructor’’ under the hearing procedures. The Dean of the
Faculties and the student’s academic dean, (as well as the Vice President for Research in cases involving grant-
funded research), should be informed as soon as possible of all such allegations. The decision regarding whether
to submit a hearing referral will be made by a committee consisting of the department chair and two faculty
members appointed by the academic dean, one of whom should be the student’s committee member serving as
the University representative (if one has been identified), excluding the Major Professor. In rendering its
decision, this committee should review all available information and consult with the Major Professor and the
academic dean.
Step 2. Academic Honor Policy Hearing. A panel consisting of five members shall hear the case. The panel shall
include: one faculty member appointed by the dean from the unit in which the academic work is conducted; one
faculty member appointed by the Dean of the Faculties who is not from that unit; and two students appointed
through procedures established by the Dean of Students Department. The panel shall be chaired by the Dean of
the Faculties (or designee), who votes only in case of a tie.
The hearing will be conducted in a non-adversarial manner with a clear focus on finding the facts within the
academic context of the academic work. The student is presumed innocent going into the proceeding. After
hearing all available and relevant information from the student and the instructor, the panel determines whether
or not to find the student responsible for the alleged violation using the ‘‘preponderance of the evidence’’
standard. If the student is found responsible for the violation, the panel is informed about any prior record of
academic honor policy violations and determines an academic sanction (and disciplinary sanction, if
appropriate). In some cases, a Step 1 sanction may have been appropriately proposed prior to the convening of
an Academic Honor Hearing. If the student is found responsible in these cases, the panel typically will impose a
sanction no more severe than that which was proposed by the faculty member. The panel is required to provide a
clear written justification for imposing a sanction more severe than the sanction proposed in Step 1.
The chair of the Academic Honor Policy hearing panel will report the decision to the student, the instructor, the
academic unit, the Dean of Students Department, and the Registrar, if appropriate.