EKU Honor Code and Pledge

Standard AI Statement

Preamble
Academic Dishonesty Defined
Pledge
Procedures for Dealing with Academic Integrity Cases
Sanctions
Helpful Definitions

Preamble

Eastern Kentucky University is a community of shared academic values, foremost of which is a strong commitment to intellectual honesty, honorable conduct, and respect for others. In order to meet these values, students at Eastern Kentucky University are expected to adhere to the highest standards of academic integrity. These standards are embodied in the Eastern Kentucky University Academic Integrity Policy, which all students shall pledge to uphold by signing the Eastern Kentucky University Honor Code. By honoring and enforcing this Academic Integrity Policy, the University community affirms that it will not tolerate academic dishonesty.

Academic Dishonesty Defined

Academic integrity is a fundamental value for the Eastern Kentucky University community of students, faculty, and staff. It should be clearly understood that academic dishonesty is not tolerated and incidents of it will have serious consequences. Anyone who knowingly assists in any form of academic dishonesty shall be considered as responsible as the student who accepts such assistance and shall be subject to the same sanctions. Academic dishonesty can occur in different forms, some of which include cheating, plagiarism, and fabrication.

Cheating

Cheating is an act or an attempted act of deception by which a student seeks to misrepresent that he/she has mastered information on an academic exercise. Cheating includes, but is not limited to:

- Giving or receiving assistance not authorized by the instructor or University representative; - Participating in unauthorized collaboration on an academic exercise;
- Using unapproved or misusing electronic devices or aids during an academic exercise.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism occurs when a student represents work taken from another source as his/her own. It is imperative that a student gives credit to information, words, ideas, and images that are integrated into his/her own work. Acknowledgement of a source of information in any form should consist of complete, accurate, and specific references and, if verbatim statements are included, quotation marks as well. Examples of plagiarism include, but are not limited to:

- Using words, ideas, or images from another source (including the Internet); whether in quotation marks or not, without giving credit to that source in the form of a bibliographic citation;
- Facts, statistics, or other supporting materials that are not clearly common knowledge without acknowledgment of the source.

Fabrication

Fabrication is a form of deception and occurs when a student misrepresents written or verbal information in an academic exercise. Fabrication includes, but is not limited to:

- Citation of information not taken from the source indicated. This may include the incorrect documentation of secondary source materials;
- Listing sources in a bibliography not directly used in the academic exercise;
- Submission in a paper, thesis, lab report, practicum log, or other academic exercise of falsified, invented, or fictitious data or evidence, or deliberate and knowing concealment or distortion of the true nature, origin, or function of such data or evidence;
- Submitting as your own any academic exercise (verbal, written, electronic, or artistic work) prepared totally or in part by another person.

Pledge

I hereby affirm that I understand, accept, and will uphold the responsibilities and stipulations of the Eastern Kentucky University Honor Code and Academic Integrity Policy.

Procedures for Dealing with Academic Integrity Cases

Step 1 - When a violation of the Academic Integrity Policy is suspected:

If an incident of alleged violation of the AI Policy is suspected, any member of the EKU community can initiate the process of review by reporting the incident, in writing, directly to the responsible faculty/staff. The responsible faculty/staff may elect to conduct his/her own review of the allegations or may elect for the matter to be referred to the Academic Integrity Office.

     Option A: The Faculty/Staff Member Conducts a Review of the Allegations:

If the responsible faculty/staff chooses to continue the review of the allegations autonomously, the faculty/staff should obtain and assess the applicable information in determining whether a violation of the AI policy has occurred. If the faculty/staff member determines that an AI policy violation has occurred, a notification of the violation must be made to the Office of Academic Integrity for recordkeeping. At this point, the faculty/staff also notifies the student in writing of the allegation, the sanction, AND the right to contest the allegation and sanction according to the AI Policy procedure. If the student accepts responsibility for the violation and the sanction in writing, the case is closed. There is no appeal from this decision. Upon determination of responsibility, the AI Coordinator will enter the report data in the database. If the student does not accept responsibility and chooses to contest the allegation and/or sanction, the process proceeds to Step 2. Note: The faculty/staff involved in Step 1 should request information from the AI Coordinator regarding the student’s previous violations of the AI Policy prior to rendering a sanction in this particular case.

    Option B: The Faculty/Staff Member Refers the Case to the Academic Integrity Office:

If a faculty/staff chooses to directly refer the case to the AI Office, the AI Coordinator will meet with the student to discuss the alleged violation. If the student chooses not to contest the allegation and sanction, the sanction is imposed and the case is closed. There is no appeal from this decision. Notification of the violation is made by the AI Office for recordkeeping. If the student contests the allegation and/or sanction, the AI Office will schedule a hearing, as soon as practicable, with the specific College Academic Integrity Committee from which the incident occurred. (Then proceed on to Step 3.)

Step 2 - When an Academic Integrity Charge or Sanction is Contested:

After the faculty/staff and student have met and the student chooses to contest the charge and/or sanction, the faculty/staff will refer the case to the AI Office, within 5 academic days of the meeting. The AI Coordinator will meet with the student to discuss the charge and/or sanctions and the right to contest these. If the student chooses not to contest the charge and sanction, the case is closed. There is no appeal from this decision. Notification of the violation is made by the AI Office for recordkeeping. If the student contests the allegation and/or sanction, the AI Office will schedule a hearing, as soon as practicable, with the specific College Academic Integrity Committee from which the incident occurred. (Then proceed on to Step 3.)

Step 3

At the College Academic Integrity Committee hearing, both the student and the faculty/staff will present their information. The Committee members will review all of the information presented and then deliberate in private. At the discretion of the Chair of the Committee, the proceeding may be extended to an additional meeting. At this level of hearing and continuing throughout the process, the student has the option of having a Peer Advisor present. Absent exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the student as determined by the Chair of the Committee, if the student who has been notified of the hearing fails to appear, the proceeding may take place in his/her absence and the Committee’s decision will be binding. If the Committee determines that the student has violated the AI Policy, before the sanctioning stage of the hearing, the AI Coordinator will provide the Committee information regarding whether the student has any previous AI Policy violations recorded and sanctions imposed. The Committee will deliberate again in private in order to determine the appropriate sanction for this violation. The Chair will announce the decision of the Committee to those present at the conclusion of the hearing.

Step 4

A student can appeal the decision of the College Academic Integrity Committee to the University Academic Integrity Committee. This appeal can only be made based upon irregularities in procedure, new evidence not available for the first hearing, or punishment not consistent with the violation. The student will notify, in writing, the AI Office of their request to appeal to the University Academic Integrity Committee within 5 academic days of the College Academic Integrity Committee’s decision, and a meeting of the University Academic Integrity Committee will be scheduled as soon as practicable.

Step 5

At the University Academic Integrity Committee appeal review meeting, the Committee members will consider all the written information supplied by the student. The Committee can modify or set aside the applied sanction, refer the case back to the College Academic Integrity Committee, or uphold the decision. The Chair of the Committee will notify the student of its decision, in writing, within 5 academic days of the hearing. The decision of the University Academic Integrity Committee is final, unless the Committee determines suspension or expulsion is the appropriate sanction to be imposed.

Step 6 through Step 9

The following steps will ONLY be necessary if it is determined that the student may face the sanctions of suspension or expulsion for the alleged AI Policy violation. According to KRS 164.370, Eastern Kentucky University’s Student Disciplinary Council is the only body authorized to suspend or expel a student.
KRS 164.370 provides that: “Each board of regents may invest the faculty or a committee of the faculty and students with the power to suspend or expel any student for disobedience to its rules, or for any other contumacy, insubordination, or immoral conduct. In every case of suspension or expulsion of a student the person suspended or expelled may appeal to the board of regents. The board of regents shall prescribe the manner and the mode of procedure on appeal. The decision of the board of regents shall be final.”

Step 6

If the College Academic Integrity Committee or University Academic Integrity Committee or AI Coordinator determines that the sanction of expulsion or suspension is appropriate for the AI Policy violation and the student wishes to appeal the sanction, the student must notify, in writing, the AI Office, within 5 academic days of the decision of the College or University Academic Integrity Committee’s decision, of his/her desire to appeal. As soon as practicable, the AI Office will schedule a hearing before the Student Disciplinary Council.

Step 7

At the Student Disciplinary Council hearing, both the student and the faculty/staff will present their information. The Council will review all of the information presented and then deliberate in private. At the discretion of the Chair of the Student Disciplinary Council, the proceeding may be extended to an additional meeting. Absent exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the student as determined by the Chair of the Council, if the student who has been notified of the hearing fails to appear, the proceeding may take place in his/her absence and the Committee’s decision will be binding. If the Council determines that the student has violated the AI Policy, before the sanctioning stage of the meeting, the AI Coordinator will provide the Council information regarding whether the student has any previous AI Policy violations recorded and sanctions imposed. The Council will deliberate again in private in order to determine the appropriate sanction for this violation. The Chair will announce the decision of the Council to those present at the conclusion of the hearing.

Step 8

If the student chooses to contest the allegation and/or sanction, the student can appeal to the Provost. The student will notify, in writing, the AI Office of his/her request and grounds for such request, within 5 class days of the Student Disciplinary Council’s decision. An appeal to the Provost can only be based upon irregularities in procedure, new evidence not available for the first hearing, or punishment not consistent with the violation. The Provost will render a decision, in writing, within 10 academic days of receipt of the appeal.

Step 9

If the Provost upholds the decision of the Student Disciplinary Council, and if the student chooses to contest the allegation and/or sanction, the student can appeal to the Board of Regents. The student will notify, in writing, the AI Office of his/her request and the grounds for such request, within 5 academic days of the Provost’s decision. An appeal to the Board of Regents can only be based upon irregularities in procedure, new evidence not available at the first hearing, or punishment not consistent with the violation. The decision of the Board of Regents is final.

Sanctions

Minimum Sanction:
The standard minimum sanction for an AI Policy violation shall be the assignment of an “F” for the test, assignment, activity in which an incident of academic dishonesty occurred. The student will not be allowed to retake or rewrite the test, assignment, or activity. A student so assigned an “F” will not be permitted to drop or withdraw from the course.

Minimum Sanction for student with one previous Academic Integrity Policy violation:
The standard minimum sanction for an AI Policy violation for a student with one previous AI Policy violation will be an “FX” recorded for the course on the student’s transcript. The “FX” grade denotes failure in the course due to academic dishonesty. A student so assigned an “FX” for a course will not be permitted to drop or withdraw from the course.

Sanctions:
In addition to the minimum sanctions for an AI Policy violation, other appropriate educational sanctions may be assigned. These sanctions may be given even if this is the first violation of the AI Policy. Such sanctions could include, but are not limited to, the following:

Removal from the course

Educational sanctions

Community service

Restriction of computer access

Precluded from graduating with Honors

Assigned an "F" for the course

"FX" notation on transcript

Suspension*

Expulsion*

* Note: According to KRS 164.370, Eastern Kentucky University’s Student Disciplinary Council is the only body authorized to suspend or expel a student, Steps 6 through Step 9.

"FX" Notation:
The “FX” grade will be changed to an “F” on the student’s transcript upon completion of the educational sanctions so specified by the faculty/staff (Step 1) or other hearing bodies. A course with a grade of “FX” may not be repeated until the “FX”grade is changed to a “F”. The student can then choose to repeat the course with the grade earned in the later taking replacing that of the “F” grade.

Helpful Definitions

Scheduling of hearings:
Hearings will be scheduled as soon as practicable after the AI Coordinator receives written notification of the charge of an Academic Integrity violation.

Triviality:
A case may be dismissed if it is found to be trivial. A trivial case is one with no possible consequences to a matter of legitimate concern of the academic community or one with no tendency to undermine trust within the community.

Coordinator:
The AI Coordinator is a faculty member who coordinates the EKU Academic Integrity Policy and procedure. The AI Coordinator does not take part in any actual hearings, but is available to answer procedural questions. The Coordinator is responsible for maintaining all records of all incidents involving the EKU Academic Integrity Policy.

College Academic Integrity Committee:
The College Academic Integrity Committee is comprised of 5 members (1 faculty from the department where the incident arose, 2 faculty from the college at large, and 2 students from the college at large but not from the department where the incident arose.) If this case involves a graduate student, at least one of the students on the Committee will be a graduate student. One member, elected by the Committee, will serve as Chair. The Committee is responsible for determining the facts, and, if the student is found to have violated the AI Policy, the Committee must determine the appropriate sanction. To determine that a violation has/has not has occurred, 4 of the 5 Committee members must agree. To determine the sanction, 3 of the 5 Committee members must agree.

Student Disciplinary Council:
The Student Disciplinary Council is comprised of 7 members, one faculty from each of the Colleges, and two students (one undergraduate and one graduate student) named by the President of the University. One member, elected by the Council, serves as Chair.

University Academic Integrity Committee:
The University Academic Integrity Committee is comprised of 6 members. At the beginning of the academic year, there will be 2 names (1 faculty, 1 student) from each college and one name (faculty/staff) from the Library submitted to the President’s office for appointment to the Committee. For each AI hearing, the College from which the incident arose will have both the faculty and student serve as members of this specific Committee. The remaining members of the Committee will be randomly drawn from two separate categories in order for the make-up of the Committee to be 3 faculty and 3 students. One member, elected by the Committee, will serve as Chair. An appeal to this Committee can only be based upon irregularities in procedure, new evidence not available for the first hearing, or punishment not consistent with the violation. The Committee can modify or set aside the applied sanction, refer the case back to the College Academic Integrity Committee, or uphold the decision. The decision of the University Academic Integrity Committee is final, unless the Committee determines suspension or expulsion is the appropriate sanction to be imposed.

Peer Advisor:
An accused student has the right to have another willing student act as his or her advisor/advocate and to assist the student throughout the process, beginning at Step 4 and continuing through Step 9. The student can be any presently enrolled EKU student.

Silent Advisor:
An accused student has the right to have an attorney present at any proceeding at Step 4 and continuing through Step 9. The attorney is not permitted to speak in any hearing through this process.