The Academic Integrity Committee met 7 times in 2004-5 academic year.

Members of the committee were: Tom Morley(Math), Magnus Egerstedt (ECE) , Wes Angel (undergraduate HAC), Jonothan Olinger (undergraduate, HAC), Bob Kirkman (Public Policy). Present at many of the meetings were Andrea Goldblum (OSI) and Cheryl Contant (CRP/Arch, Ex Officio).

We created the following:

 

 

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY SANCTIONING GUIDELINES

 

This sanctioning model is provided to serve as guidelines in determining appropriate outcomes in academic integrity cases. Individual cases may differ, depending on individual circumstances and consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors.

 

Sanctions should include the following aspects:

 

1.      Change in disciplinary standing – i.e. reprimand, warning, probation, suspension, expulsion.  The most common standing sanctions in cases in which this is a first offense are warning and probation. The difference typically depends on the possible benefit to the student. If the work in question is worth 20% or more of the total grade (100%), then probation is typical.  For work that is worth less than 20%, warning is typical.

 

2.   A learning experience – This typically is the satisfactory completion of the

Academic Integrity seminar that is offered by the Honor Advisory Council. It may also include such things as re-doing an assignment, community service, reading relevant materials and writing a response or research paper or some other individualized assignment.

 

3.   An academic impact – e.g. some reduction of overall grade, 0 on the 

assignment, etc. The typical way to determine the academic impact is to give a 0 on the work in question, and then to deduct from the final course grade an additional amount equal to the work in question. Thus if the total points are 100, and the work is worth x, then the grade can be no higher than 100 – 2x.

Aggravating Circumstances

 

When developing the sanction, the aggravating circumstances should be considered for each aspect of the sanction.  Aggravating circumstances include, but are not limited to:

 

q       Premeditation

q       Multiple acts of misconduct within a single incident or multiple incidents discovered at one time

q       Significance of work in question to the final grade (e.g. major project, final exam)

q       Certainty of benefits (e.g. forged change of grade form, false regrade request, etc.)

q       Direct academic injury to another student

q       Element of criminal-type conduct (e.g. theft)

q       Conduct intimidating others

q       Presence of bribery

 

Here are the statistics for the honor cases in  academic year 2004-5

 

Statistics for Honor System

 

 

AY 2004-05

Number

Percent

 

 

 

Total Cases Adjudicated

353

 

   Resolved Administratively

327

 

   Heard by SHC

26

 

 

 

 

Disposition

 

 

   Responsible

242

 

   Not Responsible

111

 

 

 

 

 

Student expelled 1

Students suspended for disciplinary violation 12

 

 

Cases Heard by Honor Committee:

 

26 total

21 Responsible

5    Not Responsible

 

22 students pending at the end of Spring 2005

 

 

Cases by College:

Total Responsible

Architecture 7 7

Computing 44 34

Engineering 168 122

Management 4 4

Ivan Allen 27 22

Sciences 102 52

Registrar (GT1000) 1 1

 

 

 

Submitted to the Academic Senate October 2005

Tom Morley

Chair, Academic Integrity Committee