UC San Diego SearchMenu
UC San Diego Academic Senate Logo

News & Announcements

Revised UCSD Policy on Integrity of Scholarship
June 03, 2019

Dear Colleagues,

The Representative Assembly approved a proposal from the Educational Policy Committee (EPC) to revise Appendix II of the Senate Manual, the UCSD Policy on Integrity of Scholarship, at its February 19, 2019 meeting. The changes are effective Fall Quarter 2019.

The proposal with the complete text of the approved revisions to the UCSD Policy on Integrity of Scholarship is available at: /media/349147/sd-rep-assembly-meeting-packet_feb-19-2019.pdf. The revised Policy will be posted on the Senate’s website in Appendix II of the Senate Manual when it becomes effective, in Fall Quarter 2019.

EPC, in partnership with the Academic Integrity Office (AIO), drafted the policy revisions. Major changes include:

  1. Removing procedural information from Appendix II of the Senate Manual

    The current AI Policy includes both the general rules governing student integrity of scholarship at UC San Diego and the detailed procedures for resolving suspected academic integrity violations, leading to a long and complicated document that is difficult to follow and change. Following the approved revisions, the general rules associated with student integrity of scholarship will continue to reside in Appendix II of the Senate Manual under the UCSD Policy on Integrity of Scholarship. The procedural information will be moved to a separate document available on the AIO and Senate websites in Fall 2019. The procedural information will be maintained by the AIO with Senate oversight from EPC. This change will allow the AIO, in consultation with the Academic Senate, to respond more quickly when opportunities arise to streamline the process or make procedural adjustments due to external factors.

  2. Streamlining the process for resolving academic integrity violations

    Two main changes to streamline the resolution process for suspected academic integrity violations will be implemented to better serve our students and instructors and allow for a more timely resolution of cases.

    1. The current Policy gives instructors the option of meeting with students before submitting a report to the AIO. The new Policy formalizes this optional meeting with an Instructor-Student Resolution form. When the instructor submits this form along with the allegation report, the AIO and Appropriate Administrative Authority (AAA) will be able to expedite the process for those students who accepted responsibility in the meeting with the instructor.

    2. The current Policy affords only one option – the Academic Integrity Review Board (Review Panel) – for resolution of contested allegations. As a result, the system is overtaxed and case resolutions are delayed by 4-6 months. The revised Policy streamlines the process by including two levels of reviews – one for students facing suspension or dismissal from the University (AI Review II) and another for those not facing separation (AI Review I). The changes are intended to reduce delays for students in getting their cases heard, especially for those students facing separation from the University.

  3. Allowing the Appropriate Administrative Authority (AAA) (AAA’s are defined in the AI Policy, examples include the deans of Student Affairs in the colleges or the Assistant Dean in the Graduate Division) to delegate case resolution to the AI Office.

    This proposed change leverages the under-utilized expertise of the AI Office and increases the efficiency of the case resolution process to prevent case backlogs.

  4. Updating and modernizing language and format

    The revised Policy updates and corresponding Procedures document include clearer sections to make content easier to find and reference. The language of the revised Policy has also been updated to match best practices in the academic integrity field (e.g. using the International Center for Academic Integrity’s definition of academic integrity) and to provide clarity (e.g. instead of referring to multiple administrators throughout the document, the appropriate administrative authorities are defined once and then referred to as AAAs throughout both documents).

Questions related to the implementation of the revised UCSD Policy on Integrity of Scholarship may be directed to the Academic Integrity Office, at aio.ucsd.edu. Questions related to the policy revisions may be directed to Lori Hullings, Senate Associate Director, at lhullings@ucsd.edu.


Timothy Rickard
Chair, Educational Policy Committee