UC San Diego SearchMenu
Academic Senate Logo

Appendices

Appendix 2: UCSD Policy on Integrity of Scholarship

Enacted 5/23/78, Amended 3/2/82, 5/28/85, 1/27/87, 5/22/90, 5/28/91, 4/26/94, 11/22/94, 4/23/96, 11/25/97, 5/27/03, Effective 9/25/03, 4/25/06, 5/26/09, 3/1/11, 1/31/12, 6/3/14, Effective 9/29/14

Integrity of scholarship is essential for an academic community. The University expects that both faculty and students will honor this principle and in so doing protect the validity of University intellectual work. For students, this means that all academic work will be done by the individual to whom it is assigned, without unauthorized aid of any kind. Instructors, for their part, will exercise care in planning and supervising academic work, so that honest effort will be upheld.

The UCSD Policy on Integrity of Scholarship (herein the “Policy”) states the general rules and procedures associated with student integrity of scholarship. This Policy applies to undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at UCSD and/or enrolled in a UCSD course.  A separate policy exists governing integrity of research. Medical students are governed by policies specified in the Handbook for School of Medicine Advisors and Students, as formulated by the School of Medicine Committee on Educational Policy. Pharmacy students are governed by the Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (SSPPS) Policy on Integrity of Scholarship as formulated by the SSPPS faculty.  In this Policy, the term “in writing” is defined as communications delivered either on paper or electronically via email.

  • I)

    Instructors' Responsibility

    The Instructor shall state in writing how graded assignments and exams will contribute to the final grade in the course. If there are any course-specific rules required by the Instructor for maintaining academic integrity, the instructor shall also inform students of these in writing.

  • II)

    Students' Responsibility

    Students are expected to complete the course in compliance with the instructor's standards.  No student shall engage in an activity that involves attempting to receive a grade by means other than honest effort; for example:

    • No student shall knowingly procure, provide, or accept any unauthorized material that contains questions or answers to any examination or assignment that is being, or will be, administered.
    • No student shall complete, in part or in total, any examination or assignment for another person.
    • No student shall knowingly allow any examination or assignment to be completed, in part or in whole, for himself or herself by another person.
    • No student shall plagiarize or copy the work of another person and submit it as his or her own work.
    • No student shall employ aids excluded by the instructor in undertaking course work or in completing any exam or assignment.
    • No student shall alter graded class assignments or examinations and then resubmit them for regrading.
    • No student shall submit substantially the same material in more than one course without prior authorization.
  • III)

    The Instructional Assistant’s (IA) Responsibilities

    A student acting in the capacity of an Instructional Assistant (IA), a category including but not limited to teaching assistants, readers, and tutors, has a special responsibility to safeguard integrity of scholarship. In this role the student functions as an apprentice instructor, under the tutelage of the responsible instructor. An IA shall equitably grade student work in the manner agreed upon with the course instructor. An IA shall not provide a student with any information or collaboration that would aid the student in completing the course in a dishonest manner (e.g., providing access to unauthorized material related to tests, exams, and homework).

  • IV)

    Responsibility for Resolution of Cases of Violation of the Policy

    The responsibility for maintaining the standards of academic honesty rests with two University authorities: the faculty and the administration. Under the Standing Orders of the Regents, authority over courses and curricula is delegated to the faculty through the Academic Senate. The University of California’s Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline authorizes UCSD administration to discipline students for academic misconduct.  All cases in which the Student is found responsible for violating the Policy will result in both an academic and an administrative sanction.

    • A)
      Academic Responsibilities and Sanctions

      The Instructor shall report the alleged violation to the Academic Integrity Office, shall participate in the process according to the Policy, and when the case is resolved, shall determine the Student’s grade in the course. Any violation of the Policy by the Student may be considered grounds for failure in the course, although less serious consequences may be incurred in less serious circumstances. An Instructor shall not assign an academic sanction for academic dishonesty unless he or she has submitted a report of an alleged violation of the Policy and the Student has either admitted responsibility for, or has been found responsible for, violating the Policy.

    • B)
      Administrative Authority and Sanction

      The appropriate administrative authority shall impose an administrative sanction in accordance with guidelines authorized by the Educational Policy Committee. For undergraduates, the appropriate administrative authority is the Council of Deans of Student Affairs. For graduate students, the appropriate administrative authority is the Assistant Dean of Graduate Studies. For non-matriculated students enrolled in a UCSD course through Summer Session, the appropriate administrative authority is the Director of Summer Session. For non-matriculated students enrolled in a UCSD course through University Extension, the appropriate administrative authority is the Student Affairs Manager. Administrative sanctions range in severity from administrative probation to dismissal from the University. Students found responsible for multiple cases of academic dishonesty shall be subject to dismissal from the University. Sanctioning guidelines can be found at http://academicintegrity.ucsd.edu.

    • C)
      The Academic Integrity Office (AI Office)

      The AI Office is the initial contact for the Instructor and the administrative manager for the processing of cases of Policy violations. The AI Office may extend any timelines in the Policy when practical exigencies so dictate, in which case all involved parties will normally be notified in writing. The AI Office shall maintain a record of all cases and shall report annually to the Academic Senate Educational Policy Committee, to the Council of Provosts, and to the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs on the number, nature, and type of cases; the pattern of decision- making; the severity and type of academic and administrative sanctions; and other relevant matters as directed by the Educational Policy Committee.

  • V)

    Procedures for Resolution of Cases of Violations of the Policy

    The procedure for resolution of cases of violating the Policy is divided into three phases: A, Reporting Phase; B, Decision and Resolution Phase; C, Appeals Phase.

    • A)
      The Reporting Phase

      When an Instructor has reason to believe that a Student has violated the Policy, the Instructor should proceed in one of two ways: 

      • I)
        Meet with the Student to discuss the suspected violation. If the Instructor decides that there is evidence of a Policy violation, he or she must submit a formal charge describing the suspected violation to the AI Office.
      • II)

        Submit a formal charge to the AI Office describing the alleged violation.          

        All alleged cases of academic dishonesty must be reported. To file a charge of violating the Policy with the AI Office, an Instructor must submit in writing the following information: the Student’s name, the Student’s PID, the course name and number, the date of the alleged incident, and a description of the incident. Upon receiving the charge, the AI Office will initiate the resolution process, as described in Section B below.

        If the Instructor has submitted a formal charge of violating the Policy, he or she will refrain from assigning a course grade for the Student until the charge has been resolved. If the course concludes before the charge is resolved, the Instructor will assign an “X” code for the course in eGrades, which indicates that the X is due to a “Pending Charge of Academic Dishonesty”.

        If there is insufficient time to submit a charge of violating the Policy before grades are due (e.g., suspected violation occurred during the final exam), then the Instructor may assign an X code for the course before a charge is filed with the AI Office. In this case, the Instructor must:

        • i)
          assign an X code in eGrades, which indicates that the X is due to a “Pending Charge of Academic Dishonesty”. eGrades will automatically notify the AI Office that a formal charge is forthcoming, and
        • ii)

          file a formal charge to the  AI Office as soon as possible, normally within fifteen (15) business days of  the grades due date.

          If, after reporting a charge to the AI Office, the Instructor decides to withdraw the charge, the Instructor shall notify the AI Office in writing of his or her decision. The Instructor shall determine the grade for the course based on the student’s academic work. The AI Office shall notify the Student, the appropriate administrative authority, the department chair/program director, and Academic Records that the charge against the Student has been withdrawn by the Instructor. All notations of the charge shall be removed from the Student’s academic record. If an X has been assigned, the Instructor shall assign a grade for the course in eGrades once Academic Records has removed all notations of the charge. The charge may be reinstated in accordance with this Policy should new evidence become available.

          An instructor may not withdraw a charge if a student has accepted responsibility of violating the Policy or has been found responsible for violating the Policy.

    • B)
      The Decision and Resolution Phase

      Once the Instructor has reported a charge of violating the Policy to the AI Office, the AI Office shall immediately notify the appropriate administrative authority in writing, with a copy to the Instructor and to Academic Records that the Student is charged with violating the Policy. Within two (2) business days, the administrative authority  shall notify the Student in writing of the charge and copy the AI Office and the Instructor.

      If Students from two or more undergraduate colleges are allegedly involved in the same incident, the AI Office will direct the case to the chair of the Council of Deans of Student Affairs. The chair will then appoint one of the Deans to proceed with the case for all Students, regardless of undergraduate college. If the charge involves both undergraduate and graduate Students, the chair of the Council of Deans of Student Affairs and the Assistant Dean of Graduate Studies shall consult and agree on how to proceed with the case. If the charges involve non-matriculated students enrolled through Summer Session or Extension, please refer to Section IV.B. on the appropriate administrative authority to be consulted.

      • 1)

        The Student’s deadline for responding to charge(s) of violating the Policy

        Within ten (10) business days of the date of notification by the appropriate administrative authority, the Student must respond to the administrative authority acknowledging receipt of the charge and arranging to meet (either in person or via telephone) with the administrative authority to discuss the charge(s) and possible administrative sanctions. The administrative authority shall review the charge(s) with the Student and may advise and assist the Student regarding possible administrative sanctions and the process for resolution of the charge(s) of violating the Policy. Within twelve (12) business days of the date of notification by the administrative authority, the Student must report to the administrative authority his or her decision either to accept the charge of violating the Policy or to contest the charge and request an Academic Integrity Review.

        If the Student does not meet with or notify the Dean of his or her decision by the end of the twelfth (12) business day following the date of notification by the Dean, he or she will be presumed to have decided to accept the charge(s) of violating the policy.

      • 2)
        Decision I: Student accepts charge(s) of violating the Policy
        • a)
          Administrative Sanction

          Administrative sanctions range from administrative probation to dismissal from the University, depending on the severity of the case, any previously recorded offenses, and any mitigating circumstances.

          For undergraduate students, the appropriate Dean shall make a recommendation of the administrative sanction(s) to the Council of Deans of Student Affairs. The Council of Deans of Student Affairs shall determine the administrative sanction(s) and shall notify the AI Office of the decision within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the AI Office notification of the charge.

          For graduate students, the Assistant Dean of Graduate Studies shall determine the administrative sanction(s) and shall notify the AI Office of the administrative decision within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the AI Office’s notification of the charge.

          For non-matriculated student enrolled in a UCSD course through Summer Session or UCSD Extension, the appropriate administrative authority identified in Section IV.B. shall determine the administrative sanction(s) and shall notify the AI Office of the administrative decision within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the AI Office’s notification of the charge.

          A record of the administrative sanction(s) shall be maintained by the AI Office, the appropriate administrative authority, the Council of Deans of Student Affairs (for undergraduates), and Academic Records.

        • b)
          Academic Sanction

          Within ten (10) business days of being notified of the administrative sanction(s), the AI Office shall notify the Instructor, the department chair/program director, and Academic Records of the administrative sanction(s). Academic Records shall update or remove all notations of the charge from the Student’s academic record and direct the Instructor to assign a grade for the course in eGrades. 

          The Instructor shall determine the grade for the course. If an X has been assigned, the Instructor shall assign a grade for the course by submitting the grade in eGrades. If the outcome is not determined within the calendar year, Academic Records shall direct the Instructor to submit a clerical error form to assign a grade and Academic Records will post the assigned grade.  Upon notification from Academic Records that the final grade has been recorded, the AI Office will notify the Instructor, the appropriate administrative authority, and the department chair/program director of the resolution of the case with a report of both the administrative and academic sanctions.

      • 3)

        Decision II: The Student contests the charge of violating the Policy and requests an Academic Integrity Review

        If the Student contests the charge of violating the Policy (Decision II), he or she must submit to the appropriate administrative authority  a written request for an Academic Integrity Review  with an explanation of why the charge is contested.

        • a)
          This request must be received by the appropriate administrative authority within twelve (12) business days of the date of the notification of the charge.
        • b)
          Within two (2) business days of receiving the Student’s written request for an Academic Integrity Review, the administrative authority shall transmit the written request to the AI Office along with any additional relevant documentation.
        • c)
          Within two (2) business days of receiving the administrative authority’s request, the AI Office shall notify the Student, the Instructor, and the administrative authority in writing that the request for an Academic Integrity Review was received.
      • 4)
        The Academic Integrity Review (AIR)

        The purpose of an Academic Integrity Review is to explore and investigate the incident giving rise to the charge and to reach an informed, evidence-based conclusion as to whether the Policy was violated.

      • 5)

        Composition of the Academic Integrity Review Board and the Review Panel

        The composition of the Academic Integrity Review Board (AIRB) shall be as follows:

        • a)
          Twenty-five (25) faculty members appointed by the Academic Senate Committee on Committees.
        • b)
          At least six (6) graduate students appointed by the Graduate Student Association in collaboration with the Assistant Dean of Graduate Studies.
        • c)
          At least twelve (12) upper division undergraduate students, two from each college, appointed by the college Dean.

          For each AIR request, the AI Office shall select from the AIRB five (5) members (the “Review Panel”), which shall normally be composed of three faculty members, one graduate student, and one undergraduate student. The AI Office shall also select a college Dean or the Assistant Dean of Graduate Studies, who is not the Dean or Assistant Dean of the Student, to serve as the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer shall conduct the review and advise the Review Panel on procedure, but shall not vote. In the event that a five-member Review Panel is not available (e.g., during the summer months or due to unforeseen circumstances, a recusal or challenge of a Review Panel member, or last minute absences), the Student shall be given the option of electing to proceed with a reduced Review Panel. If the Student elects to proceed with a reduced Review Panel, the Presiding Officer, or the AI Office when appropriate, may agree to proceed with not less than two (2) faculty members and one (1) student (either undergraduate or graduate).

          A Review Panel member may recuse himself or herself or the Student may challenge the participation of a Review Panel member only when a reasonable person would recognize a conflict of interest or an inability of the Review Panel member to be unbiased; for example, when there is a personal or authoritative relationship between the Student and a Review Panel member. The Presiding Officer shall make the final determination on challenges to Review Panel composition. In the event that the AIR cannot proceed due to Review Panel composition, the Presiding Officer shall call for a continuance until such time as an appropriate Review Panel can be constituted.

      • 6)

        Notice of the Academic Integrity Review

        As soon as possible, and normally no longer than one quarter after receipt of the request for an AIR, the AI Office shall schedule a review of the case by a Review Panel. The AI Office shall normally provide at least ten (10) business days’ notice to the Student and the Instructor of the time, date, and location of the AIR, although exceptions can be made if both the Student and the Instructor agree.

        The notice shall include a statement that the UCSD Policy on Integrity of Scholarship is alleged to have been violated and a statement that an AIR has been scheduled. If the time and place of the AIR are not known, the notice shall include a statement indicating that a subsequent notice will be sent specifying same. In the event that the time or place is adjusted after the original notice is sent, an email notifying the parties to this effect shall be deemed sufficient notice.

        Objections to the time and date of the AIR will be ruled on by the Presiding Officer no later than five (5) business days before the AIR. Academic Integrity Reviews shall not normally be rescheduled to accommodate the Student’s work, class, or personal conflicts unless undue hardship would otherwise be experienced by the Student. Academic Integrity Reviews shall not normally be rescheduled to accommodate the availability of Relevant Parties.

      • 7)

        The Review Packet

        Once an AIR has been requested by the Student, the relevant documents will be collected, including the facts of the charge by the Instructor and the Student’s dispute of the facts of the charge. The Student or the Instructor may also submit to the AI Office additional documents relevant to the charge, or the names and contact information of any additional people (e.g., classmates, teaching assistants) who have knowledge relevant to the charge (Relevant Parties). All documents must be submitted to the AI Office within ten (10) business days of the receipt of the review request by the AI Office.

        The AI Office will make available to the Presiding Officer, the Instructor, and the Student a copy of the documents relevant to the charge (the Review Packet) no later than five (5) business days before the date of the AIR.

        Newly available documents not included in the Review Packet can be presented at the AIR subject to the approval of the Presiding Officer. In such circumstances, the Presiding Officer should provide the Review Panel, the Student, and the Instructor with adequate time to review the new information.

      • 8)

        Parties Attending the AIR

        A Relevant Party is one with direct and material understanding of the case.

        Normally, the Instructor bringing the charge forward and the Student requesting the AIR must be present for the AIR. However, in lieu of attending the AIR, the Instructor and/or the Student may forfeit in-person participation and provide a written statement.

        The Student’s absence from or silence during the AIR shall not imply acceptance of responsibility. The University will normally conduct a single AIR to address the charges made against multiple Students in the same incident unless the Students would experience substantial prejudice as a result of a joint AIR. The appropriate administrative authority with whom the Students meet to request an AIR will, in consultation with the AI Office, hear and decide on prejudice concerns.

        Recognizing their formal role in the University instruction, in cases where an Instructional Assistant (IA) is involved, the IA may also be present for the entire AIR rather than partially as a Relevant Party.

        The Student may be accompanied by an Associated Students Student Advocate in the AIR. The Student should present his or her own case, but the Advocate may assist the Student with questioning and procedural issues. The Advocate may not normally appear at the AIR in lieu of the Student, but in the event that the Advocate is present but the Student is not, the AIR may continue at the discretion of the Presiding Officer, questions may be asked of the Advocate, and the Advocate may address procedural issues on behalf of the Student. Prior to the AIR, the AI Office shall be available to advise the Instructor of the procedures and options for presentation of the case, but the Instructor may be accompanied in the AIR only by a faculty colleague acting under the same restrictions as a Student Advocate.

        The Instructor and the Student shall have the right to present Relevant Parties and question all Relevant Parties present at the AIR. In lieu of Relevant Parties attending the AIR, the Instructor and/or the Student may submit written statements from Relevant Parties as part of the Review Packet. Normally, Relevant Parties are present at the AIR only for the time they are presenting their statements and being questioned by the Instructor, the Student, and the Review Panel.

      • 9)

        The Academic Review Process

        The Review Panel shall hold an AIR and decide based on the preponderance of evidence presented at the AIR whether or not the Student is responsible for violating the Policy. Academic Integrity Reviews are fundamentally educative and investigative in nature, and thus the rules of evidence used in legal proceedings do not apply.

        The Presiding Officer shall conduct the AIR in such a manner as to ensure fairness to the Student and to the Instructor, to maintain order and decorum, to facilitate presentation of evidence, and to provide an opportunity for questions to be asked by the Review Panel.

        No AIR shall be undertaken without a reliable recording. The Presiding Officer shall provide for either a reliable audio recording of the AIR or keep written minutes summarizing the AIR. Any recording shall be retained as part of the permanent record by the Student’s administrative authority. Transcripts of the AIR will not be made by the University, but if either the Instructor or the Student makes a transcript at his or her own expense, copies should be provided to the other party for the cost of the copy or ten cents per page, whichever is less. Procedures for such record keeping are covered by the UCSD Student Records Policy as implemented by PPM 160-2.

        No other recording or broadcasting devices shall be allowed in the AIR.

        The final determination of the case shall rest with the Review Panel. The Instructor and the Student, along with any other parties to the AIR, will be excused before the Review Panel begins its deliberations. Review Panel deliberations shall always be confidential and conducted in private with only the Review Panel members and the Presiding Officer present. The responsibility of the Review Panel is only to determine whether the Student violated the Policy, although the Review Panel can make recommendations regarding administrative sanctions to be considered by the appropriate administrative authority. In AIRs where there is more than one Student charged, the Review Panel must make a separate determination for each Student.

        Within five (5) business days from the date on which the AIR is completed, the Presiding Officer shall forward via email the Review Panel’s determination to the appropriate administrative authority, with copies to the AI Office, the department chair/program director, the Instructor, and the Student.

      • 10)

        Determination of Sanctions

        If the student is found responsible for violating the Policy, sanctions shall be determined as follows:

        • a)
          Administrative Sanction

          If an undergraduate Student is found responsible for violating the Policy, the appropriate Dean shall make a recommendation of the administrative sanction(s) to the Council of Deans of Student Affairs. The Council of Deans of Student Affairs shall determine the administrative sanction(s) and shall inform the Student and the AI Office in writing within ten (10) business days after the receipt of the notice of the Review Panel’s determination.

          If a graduate Student or non-matriculated Student enrolled in a UCSD course through Summer Session or University Extension is found responsible for violating the Policy, the appropriate administrative authority identified in Section IV.B. shall determine the administrative sanction(s) and shall inform the Student and the AI Office in writing within ten (10) business days after the receipt of the notice of the Review Panel’s determination.

          A record of the administrative sanction(s) shall be maintained by the AIC, the appropriate Dean or administrative authority, the Council of Deans of Student Affairs (for undergraduates), and Academic Records.

        • b)
          Academic Sanction

          The AI Office shall notify the Instructor, the department chair/program director, and Academic Records of the administrative sanction(s) and shall direct the Instructor to assign a grade for the course in eGrades if an X has been assigned.

          Within ten (10) business days after receiving the official notice from the AI Office, the Instructor shall determine the grade for the course. Academic Records shall update or remove all notations of the charge from the Student’s academic record and direct the Instructor to assign a grade for the course in eGrades. If the outcome is not determined within the calendar year, Academic Records shall direct the Instructor to submit a clerical error form to assign a grade and Academic Records will post the assigned grade. Upon notification from Academic Records that the final grade has been recorded, the AI Office will notify the Instructor, the appropriate administrative authority, and the department chair/program director of the resolution of the case with a report of both the administrative and academic sanctions and that the case is closed.

          If the Review Panel finds the evidence insufficient to sustain the charge of violating the Policy, the administrative authority and the Instructor shall dismiss the matter without further action against the Student, who shall be permitted either to complete the course without prejudice or to withdraw from it. The AI Office shall notify the Student of his or her options and, within five (5) business days of the date of the letter, the Student shall notify the AI Office of his or her decision. If the Student does not notify the AI Office within this timeframe, it shall be assumed that the Student is electing to complete the course without prejudice. The AI Office shall then notify the Instructor and Academic Records of the Student’s decision. If the Student withdraws from the course, the course shall not be listed on his or her transcript.

    • C)

      The Appeals Phase

      The Student may appeal the determination of the Review Panel, the academic sanction determined by the Instructor, and/or the administrative sanction(s) determined by the appropriate administrative authority.

      • 1)
        Appeal of the Determination of the Review Panel: 

        An undergraduate student may appeal the Review Panel’s determination by submitting a written appeal to the  AI Office, within five (5) business days of formal notification of the determination of the Review Panel. The AI Office will forward the student’s appeal to the appropriate Provost.  Council of Provosts will consider the appeal within ten (10) business days from the date the appeal was received. The decision of the Council of Provosts regarding the student’s appeal shall be sent to the student in writing and copied to the Student’s Dean, the AI Office, and Academic Records.

        A graduate student may appeal the Review Panel’s determination by submitting a written appeal to the AI Office within five (5) business days of formal notification of the determination of the Review Panel. The AI Office will forward the student’s appeal to the Dean of Graduate Studies.  The Dean of Graduate Studies will consider the appeal within ten (10) business days from the date the appeal was received. The decision of the Dean of Graduate Studies shall be sent directly to the Student in writing and copied to the Assistant Dean of Graduate Studies, the AI Office, and Academic Records.

        A non-matriculated student enrolled in a UCSD course through Summer Session or UCSD Extension may appeal the Review Panel’s determination by submitting a written appeal to the AI Office within five (5) business days of formal notification of the determination of the Review Panel. The AI Office will forward the student’s appeal to the Council of Provosts for students enrolled through Summer Session and the Dean of Extension for students enrolled through UCSD Extension. The designated authority will consider the appeal within ten (10) business days from the date the appeal was received. The decision of the designated authority shall be sent directly to the Student in writing and copied to the appropriate administrative authority, the AI Office, and Academic Records.

        The basis for appeal of the Review Board’s determination shall be: (i) that standards of procedural fairness were violated, e.g., that the Student did not have sufficient opportunity to present his or her side of the case; or (ii) that there exists newly discovered important evidence that has substantial bearing on the determination of the Review Panel. If the appeal is sustained, the case shall be referred back to the AI Office to schedule a new AIR before a new Review Panel. Except for such appeals, the determination of the Review Panel shall be final.

      • 2)
        Appeal of the Academic Sanction:

        Appeals must be submitted to the Educational Policy Committee within five (5) business days of receiving notice from the AI Office of the academic sanction assigned. If the case was reviewed by a Review Panel, the Committee shall receive the determination of the Review Panel and accept its determination as to the facts of the case. The Educational Policy Committee shall consider the appeal in accordance with its established procedures.

      • 3)
        Appeal of Administrative Sanction:

        An appeal of the administrative sanction(s) shall be submitted by an undergraduate student to the Council of Provosts with a copy to the AI Office within five (5) business days of receiving notice of the administrative sanction. The Council of Provosts shall evaluate the Student’s appeal and make a final decision within ten (10) business days of receiving the appeal. The decision of the Council of Provosts shall be sent by the Chair of the Council of Provosts to the Student in writing and copied to the Dean, the AI Office, and Academic Records. EC 2/10/17

        An appeal by a graduate student shall be directed to the Dean of Graduate Studies with a copy to the AI Office within five (5) business days of receiving notice from the AIC of the administrative sanction. The Dean of Graduate Studies shall evaluate the Student’s appeal and make a decision within ten (10) business days of receiving the appeal. The decision of the Dean of Graduate Studies shall be sent to the Student in writing and copied to the Assistant Dean of Graduate Studies, the AI Office, and Academic Records.

        An appeal by a non-matriculated student enrolled in a UCSD course shall be directed to the Council of Provosts for students enrolled through Summer Session and the Dean of Extension for students enrolled through UCSD Extension, with a copy to the AI Office within five (5) business days of receiving notice from the AIC of the administrative sanction. The designated authority shall evaluate the Student’s appeal and make a decision within ten (10) business days of receiving the appeal. The decision of the designated authority shall be sent to the Student in writing and copied to the appropriate administrative authority, the AI Office, and Academic Records.

        A decision of the Council of Provosts, the Dean of Graduate Studies, or Dean of Extension regarding an appeal is final.

  • VI)

    Policy Regarding Student Academic Records

    • Until a charge of violating the Policy has been resolved, the student’s transcript will show a blank grade for the course. Academic Records will note in attached text to the course (i.e., not on the student’s transcript) that the hold is for a  “Pending Charge of Academic Dishonesty”.
    • Once a charge is filed with the AI Office, the student shall not drop or withdraw from the course. If the Student drops the course before the charge of violating the Policy has been resolved, he or she will be administratively reenrolled in the course by Academic Records.  If a student drops or withdraws from a course before a charge is filed with the AI Office, the resolution process will proceed as described in the Policy but no academic sanction will be applied.
    • The “Pending Charge of Academic Dishonesty” notation shall not be removed by Academic Records until notification from the AI Office that the case has been resolved or that the Instructor has withdrawn the charge. 
    • If a passing grade is assigned to a student found responsible for violating the Policy and a conflict arises because of the Student’s enrollment in a duplicate, cross listed, or equivalent course taken after the charge has been resolved, Academic Records shall ensure that the grade given in the course with the Academic Dishonesty charge is not removed from the GPA. All other academic regulations pertaining to duplicate course enrollment will be enforced.
    • If the student has been found responsible for violating the Policy, the grade assigned by the Instructor will be counted in the Student’s GPA even if the course is retaken. Academic Records will permanently note in text attached to the course (i.e., not on the Student’s transcript) that the grade was given as a result of  “Academic Dishonesty”.
    • If the student withdraws from UCSD before the final resolution of the case, the following policy shall govern. If the student is found responsible for violating the Policy and the Instructor assigns the student a final grade in the course, this grade shall be permanently entered on the transcript. If the administrative sanction is dismissal, the transcript shall bear a notation that readmission is contingent upon approval from the Chancellor. Any administrative penalty less severe than dismissal shall be imposed if and when the student returns to the University.
    • If a case of alleged Policy violation is also the subject of an administrative inquiry under the Policy on Integrity of Research, then the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the Review Panel, may make such modifications in procedure as are necessary to coordinate the two inquiries.
    • If the administrative sanction is suspension or dismissal, the fact that the student was suspended or dismissed for violating the Policy must be posted on the academic transcript for the duration of the sanction.
  • VII)

    Review of this Policy

    The Educational Policy Committee shall periodically review this Policy and propose changes as it deems necessary.

  • VIII)

    Academic Dishonesty in Independent Exams
    In cases where academic dishonesty is reported in independent exams (exams held outside of coursework), such as placement exams and qualifying exams, the procedures described above shall apply, with exception to the language regarding administration of a grade as an academic sanction in section V.B.10.b and appeals of the academic sanction (section V.C.2).

    • A)

      Academic Sanctions

      The academic sanction will be determined by the faculty member or faculty committee with ultimate responsibility for evaluating the exam. The sanction will establish the following:

      • 1)
        Evaluation of exam results. This may include granting the student full, partial, or no credit for the exam.
      • 2)

        Provision to allow or deny the student the ability to repeat the exam.

        The responsible party shall report the academic sanction to the Student and the AI Office, which shall notify the appropriate administrative offices of the sanction (per Section V.B.10.b).

    • B)

      Appeals of the Academic Sanctions

      Appeals of academic sanctions must be submitted to the Educational Policy Committee following the timelines specified in the section V.C.2 of the Policy.