Kenyon Home » Human Resources » Faculty Handbook » 1.5 ACADEMIC HONESTY

Kenyon CollegeHuman Resources

1.5 ACADEMIC HONESTY

(approved April 1991)

Instructors should respond to inquiries concerning the forms that academic dishonesty may take in the particular kinds of work required in their courses. Also, instructors are responsible for detecting instances of academic dishonesty and dealing with suspected instances according to the procedures adopted by the faculty. Those procedures are designed to make the responsibility of judging and penalizing instances of suspected academic dishonesty a collegiate matter.

Regularized procedures and standards exist for reporting, investigating, and adjudicating alleged instances of academic dishonesty. These procedures and standards are maintained by the Academic Infractions Board (AIB), which consists of students and faculty members.

The AIB consists of three faculty members (serving two year terms) and two student members. The faculty members of the AIB will be elected by the faculty during the elections for faculty committees in the spring. The student members of the AIB will be appointed by Student Government at the second meeting of Student Council in the fall semester. The Provost will appoint the chair of the AIB after elections are held.

Back to Top

For a complete discussion of academic honesty, please see the Course of Study.

Back to Top

Alleged instances of academic dishonesty can be reported by any member of the campus community. A student who suspects academic dishonesty presents the evidence to the instructor, who will then act upon the information as described below. A staff member or an instructor who suspects a student of academic dishonesty presents the evidence to the chair of the department or program. (If the instructor is the department chair or program chair, he or she shall select another member of the department or program--preferably a former chair--to act as chair for the purpose of the procedures.) If the chair concurs that suspicion of academic infraction is warranted, the chair reports the alleged violation to the chair of the AIB.

If an accusation is accepted for hearing by the AIB during a period in the academic calendar when the full board cannot be constituted, the accused student may choose (1) to have the case heard and decided by the available faculty members of the board, or (2) to have the case heard and decided by the full board when that body can be fully convened. If the accused student chooses this latter procedure, for the interim his or her transcript will show an "NG" for the course for which an academic infractions case is pending. In exceedingly rare instances when a case could not be heard by the full board -- when, for example, the student is on the verge of graduating- the associate provost in charge of supervising the work of the AIB, in consultation with available members thereof, may hear cases.

The student must decide whether or not to contest the accusation. If the student chooses not to contest the accusation, then the AIB will assume that the academic infraction was intentional and assess a penalty accordingly. In such cases, the AIB bases its judgment on only the material from which the charges arise and the collegiate records of the accused student. If the student wishes to present any other information to the AIB, then the student must contest the charges and go through the full hearing as outlined below. To contest the charges, then, is not necessarily to "plead innocent," but only to exercise the right to present information that may be relevant to either the question of guilt or the question of appropriate punishment.

At the outset of all courses of study under their instruction, Kenyon faculty and staff should always clearly specify the forms that academic infractions may take in the particular kinds of work required in their courses, and should always respond to student inquiries about these matters. Instructors are responsible for detecting instances of academic infractions, and for dealing with suspected instances according to the procedures adopted by the faculty and described below. These procedures are designed to make the responsibility of judging and penalizing those who commit academic infractions a collegiate matter.

The accused student is informed in writing of the alleged infraction and of the place and time of the hearing. The members of the board meet with the student, the department or program chair, the instructor, and the student's faculty advisor or another faculty member of the student's choice. The department or program chair and the instructor will answer questions put by the members of the board; they are not to conduct an examination of the student. The role of the faculty advisor is to ask clarifying questions and to advise the student, not to present a defense. It is the student's obligation to present his or her own response.

At the first stage of the hearing, the board, using only the evidence of the student's work and such immediately appropriate evidence as the alleged improperly acknowledged source, will decide whether or not an academic infraction exists, regardless of the question of intent. If the board finds the evidence unconvincing, the case is dismissed and both the student and the department or program involved as well as the instructor for whose course the charges were brought will be informed of the outcome in writing. Records of the proceedings along with a report of the conclusions reached will be sent to the associate provost charged with overseeing the work of the AIB.

If the board finds the evidence convincing, the case will continue on to a second phase of the hearing. The purpose of this phase of the proceedings will be to determine the student's degree of culpability and to assess penalties, if necessary, for the infraction. At this point, the issue of intent will be on the table. The AIB will be empowered to ask for any other evidence or testimony it deems relevant to its decision, including the collegiate records of the accused student.

Once all of the evidence is presented to the AIB, the board will deliberate in private and decide 1) whether the student is guilty of an academic infraction; and 2) the degree of culpability in the case- which can range from none to severe culpability- and recommend penalties, if any, to the associate provost charged with overseeing the work of the AIB. (In the event the associate provost charged with overseeing the work of the AIB is involved in the case itself, the other associate provost will assume responsibility in his or her stead.)

The associate provost will then review the case to assure that appropriate procedure and precedent were followed in the case. If the associate provost determines that they were followed, he or she will inform the student in writing of the results of the hearing and the penalty to be imposed. If the associate provost concludes that procedure or precedent were not followed in the case, she or he will consult with the board about his or her objections to the recommendation, and will seek to reach a new consensus prior to issuing the decision letter. It is the responsibility of the associate provost in charge of overseeing the work of the AIB to see that the final decision of the board is carried out.


Back to Top

A student who believes the verdict or the penalty is unfair has the right to appeal to the Provost within three days of receipt of the letter from the Associate Provost. The scope of the appeal ordinarily shall be limited to whether the decision of the Board is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence contained in the record of the charges and subsequent hearing. The student carries the burden of establishing, whether by information previously made known to the Board at the hearing or through newly discovered evidence, that the decision is patently unfair or unjust. The Provost may decline to hear an appeal that fails to state specific grounds for review of the Board's decision.

Back to Top

In addition to written notice to the student concerning results of any hearing, copies of that notice will be sent to the participants of the hearing, the student's academic advisor, the instructor(s) of the pertinent course, the pertinent department or program chair(s), the Dean of Students and the Dean for Academic Advising for inclusion in the student file, the administrative assistant to the associate provosts, and the Office of the Registrar.

Materials collected for an academic hearing will be, at the conclusion of that hearing, delivered to the Associate Provosts' office, where they will remain until all students charged have graduated or withdrawn from the College.

For each hearing of the AIB, the Associate Provost will prepare a sealed letter containing the student's academic transcript and stating the student's previous violations of academic honesty, if any, and whether the student is on conditional enrollment. The AIB may consider this information in assessing penalties. A student against whom charges have been brought for an academic infraction may not while such charges are pending nor after being found guilty of an infraction seek to drop, withdraw from, or change the grading to a pass/fail basis in any course for which charges were brought. The board may, in assessing a penalty, consider whether such penalty will have any practical effect upon the student's academic record and recommend such action that it deems just and appropriate. A student's withdrawal from the college while charges are pending or anytime after the rendering of a decision in an academic infractions case will not preclude the addition of such information to the student's permanent record at the College.

The Associate Provosts' Office will summarize infractions and actions recommended, and that information can be used, without reference to specific students, for reporting to the Committee on Academic Standards, in training sessions for new members of AIB, and for periodic release to campus media. Notifications to students of results will be kept permanently; however, a winnowing of all other materials can generally occur after four years.


Back to Top

All faculty and administrative persons involved in a case of suspected academic dishonesty are required to maintain strict confidentiality.

Back to Top