Article III – Judicial Procedures for Academic Misconduct

St. Mary’s College of Maryland is committed to the ideals of honesty, personal integrity, and mutual trust.Academic integrity is a responsibility of all students, members of the faculty, and administrative officers. All students are expected to uphold the highest ideals of academic integrity throughout their career at St. Mary’s. The following policy has been adopted for fair judgment in cases of suspected academic misconduct. Students who commit acts of academic misconduct (see “Definitions of Academic Misconduct” below) are subject to in-class penalties imposed by the instructor and to a hearing before the Academic Judicial Board with possibilities of additional penalties. See the “Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities” included in this student handbook.

Section 1: Definitions of Academic Misconduct

Academic misconduct may include, but is not limited to, the following acts:

1. Cheating
   1. Cheating involves dishonest conduct on work submitted for Specific instances of cheating include, but are not limited to, the following:
      1. Assisting another student or receiving assistance from anyone to complete quizzes, tests, examinations, or other assignments without the consent of the instructor.
      2. Using aids unauthorized by the instructor to complete quizzes, tests, examinations, or other assignments. Students are advised to consult individual course syllabi to determine whether Artificial Intelligence software/tools are explicitly prohibited at any point in the course.

2. Plagiarism
   1. Plagiarism is the act of appropriating and using the words, ideas, symbols, images, or other works of original expression of others as one’s own without giving credit to the person who created the work. If students have any questions regarding the definition of plagiarism, they should consult their instructor for general principles regarding the use of others’ work. Among sources commonly used for documenting use of others’ work are the style manuals published by the AmericanPsychological Association, the Council of Biology Editors, the Modern Language Association, and Turabian’s Manual for Writers of Term Papers. The final authority concerning methods of documentation is the course instructor. Specific instances of plagiarism include, but are not limited to, the following:
      1. Word-for-word copying of sentences or paragraphs from one or more sources that are the work or data of other persons (e.g., professional or peers; including books, articles, theses, unpublished works, working papers, seminar and conference papers, lecture notes or tapes, graphs, images, charts, data, electronically based materials, ), without clearly identifying their origin by appropriate referencing.
      2. Closely paraphrasing ideas or information (in whatever form) without appropriateacknowledgement by reference to the original work or works.
      3. Presenting material obtained from the Internet as if it were the student’s own work.
      4. Minor alterations, such as adding, subtracting, or rearranging words, or paraphrasingsections of a source without appropriate acknowledgement of the original work or works.
3. ���󲹱������ھ������پ��Dz�
   1. Falsification involves misrepresentation in an academic Misrepresentation includes, but is not limited to:
      1. Falsely attributing data or judgments to scholarly sources.
      2. Falsely reporting the results of calculations or the output of computer programs, or materials from other electronic sources.
      3. Presenting copied, falsified, or improperly obtained data as if it were the result of laboratory work, field trips, or other investigatory work.
4. Resubmission of work
   1. No student may turn in work for evaluation in more than one course without the permission of the instructors of both courses. No student may turn in previously graded work as all or part of aseparate assignment without the explicit permission of the instructors who assigned both works. This does not apply to graded components of a larger project or drafts of a final paper.

Section 2: Procedures

1. Confidentiality requirements
   1. If an instructor seeks advice from colleagues or the school administration concerning a suspectedcase of academic misconduct, they should not divulge the name of the student or students involved before taking any action.
   2. If the instructor imposes an in-course penalty (section 4 below), they may not divulge the nameof the student or students involved except to the Office of the Associate Provost.
   3. If the instructor or the Associate Provost requests a hearing from the Academic Judicial Board (AJB), the AP shall inform the Hearing Officer of the AJB about the case, provide the Hearing Officer with a statement of purpose of the hearing, and provide the Hearing Officer with the materials in the files.
   4. All hearings of the AJB (as described below) are confidential. The AJB shall submit its rulingsand recommendations only to the student or students accused of misconduct, the instructor involved in the case, and the Associate Provost.
2. Procedures regarding record-keeping
   1. . The electronic record is immediately sent to the Office of the Associate Provost (AP).
   2. All records of academic misconduct are kept by the AP. This information will be kept on file forpurposes of identifying recidivism and may influence sanctions in subsequent incidents of academic misconduct. Records will also serve as reference for any future claims of ignorance of the College’s academic integrity requirements.
   3. All files containing documents related to academic misconduct are retained for seven years before they are destroyed. The College incident report log recording the name of student and instructor,date of incident, and in-course penalty or AJB hearing is maintained indefinitely in the Office of the AP
      1. Should the student be found not responsible on appeal or by way of the AJB decision, or if the instructor should retract the incident report, the student’s name and record will be expunged from the incident log.
   4. All such records are confidential and may not be discussed with the faculty or other staff members of the College. The sole exception concerns relevant information regarding penalties for academic misconduct and may be forwarded by the Associate Provost as appropriate to any parties involvedin the facilitation of these These parties include but are not limited to the AJB Hearing Officer, the Registrar, the Dean of Students, and the Provost and Dean of Faculty
3. Transparency and expediency standards
   1. Within 30 days of discovery of academic misconduct, the instructor must send a written notification to the student, to their official College email address. The notification may be sent before or following a meeting with the student about the incident.
   2. In making the written notification, the instructor must include the PDF of the incident report form (which includes details about the assigned penalty), as filed in Maxient and the files documenting evidence of the misconduct.
   3. All documentation submitted to the student, the AP, and later to the AJB (should a hearing be necessary) must be identical. Should additionally evidence or documentation be submitted later by any party, it must be made available to the student, Associate Provost, and any subsequent adjudicating body.
   4. For cases of misconduct referred to the AJB for a hearing, the Hearing Officer will submit the AJB Recommendation Letter to the student, instructor, and Associate Provost no later than 15 business days after the hearing. The AJB Recommendation Letter will summarize the incident report and all documents in evidence, testimony from all parties, and the subsequent deliberations. The AJB Recommendation Letter will include a vote on whether the student is found responsibleor not responsible for academic misconduct, and where appropriate, the Letter will make recommendations on suitable sanctions for the Associate Provost’s consideration. While the Letter must list all AJB members present for the hearing, it will not attribute names to any of the descriptions of deliberations or the votes cast.
   5. Upon receipt of the AJB’s Recommendation Letter, the Associate Provost will have 10 business days to complete a review of all materials and send the Hearing Decision Letter to the student, instructor, and Hearing Officer.
   6. If the sanction requires communication with external offices (e.g., Registrar), the Associate Provost will send a second letter to that office and the student under separate cover to maintain confidentiality wherever possible.
4. In-course penalties
   1. If an instructor has compelling evidence of a student’s academic misconduct, they may impose anacademic penalty, including assigning a final grade of “F” to the student for an assignment or for the course.
5. Requests for a hearing by the Academic Judicial Board
   1. If the instructor believes that the matter warrants a review before the AJB they may ask the Associate Provost (AP) to request the Academic Judicial Board to schedule a hearing on the The instructor shall send copies of the request to the student and the AP
   2. If, after review of the documentation and any prior records in the student’s file, the AP may request the Academic Judicial Board to schedule a The AP shall send copies of therequest to the student and the instructor.
   3. Appeal by the student: The student may appeal an instructor’s process for decision of responsibility or in-class penalty to the Associate Provost, who shall first evaluate the standing and claim of the proposed appeal. If a hearing is appropriate, the Associate Provost will request an appeal before the AJB. The student has 10 business days from the date the penalty letter was sent to make the appeal.
   4. If made aware of behavior that constitutes academic misconduct not otherwise documented by an instructor, the AP may submit an Academic Misconduct Form as described under 11 and requesta hearing by the AJB.
6. Hearing Procedures
   1. The AJB will inform the student of the hearing date within 14 business days from the time the Hearing Officer receives the request.
      1. The hearing shall take place as soon as the hearing participants’ schedules will allow. If the student is non-responsive to messages from the Hearing Officer about the timing of the hearing, the hearing will be scheduled according to the availability of all other parties.
         1. The AJB will hold the hearing as scheduled, even if the student never confirms attendance and/or does not appear.
      2. If the request for a hearing is received during a school holiday, the hearing will take place after classes resume.
      3. If the student is graduating, and the matter arises during the student’s final semester, the student may not graduate until the hearing procedures have been completed.
   2. The student may not withdraw from the class or from the College before a decision isreached and the imposition of any penalties by the Office of the Associate Provost.
   3. Students who have a disability that necessitates assistance during a hearing may be entitled to reasonable accommodations.
      1. In conversation between the Hearing Officer and the Office of Accessibility Services, the implementation of a reasonable accommodation will be arranged in advance of the hearing. While AJB members will be made aware of any procedural changes necessary to facilitate the accommodation, all usual standards of confidentiality about reasons for accommodations will be upheld to ensure the student’s privacy.
      2. The implementation of a reasonable accommodation is not considered a “deviation from procedure,” as broadly defined under Section 6.
   4. While there is no expectation to do so, the student may submit additional materials to the Hearing Officer in support of their defense.
      1. For additional materials to be eligible for inclusion in the documents in evidence, the student must provide an accompanying letter that explains why their material counters any claims brought forth by the incident report.
      2. Any supplemental materials must be forwarded no later than 5 business days before the scheduled hearing. Such materials may include, but are not limited to, a prepared statement, evidence documenting original work, or communications among classmates or others that attest to the innocence of the student.
      3. To receive full consideration by the AJB, the burden rests on the student to connect any submitted materials effectively and succinctly to the alleged academic misconduct. The AJB will not sort through volumes of information looking for a possible link.
   5. The student may request that an employee or student member of the College community be present as a support person to offer advice to and consult with the student concerning procedural matters during the hearing. This individual shall not testify at the Both parties have the right to beassisted by an attorney. They may do so only if they notify the Hearing Officer of the AJB 5 business days in advance of the hearing. The attorney may not participate in the hearing and may not address the board or Hearing Officer. Attorneys are present as a support and have no speaking role in the hearing process.
   6. The AJB shall meet privately before the hearing to discuss the The hearing shall be adjudicated by the members of the AJB. At least five members of the AJB must be present at any hearing, unless it is impossible to find a quorum of the regularly appointed members of the AJB within the set time. In this case, the Hearing Officer, in consultation with the student conduct officer, may appoint substitutes. The Hearing Officer of the AJB or their designee shall preside.
   7. The Hearing Officer shall keep a record of the hearing. The Hearing Officer shall forward allrecords of the hearing to the Office of the Associate Provost for final storage; upon transfer of those records to the Associate Provost, the Hearing Officer will delete all records and notes of the hearing. All records are held in the Office of the Associate Provost
7. Hearing Policies regarding due process:
   1. In any hearing, the student shall be presumed not responsible unless a preponderance of the evidence establishes their responsibility.
   2. The focus of both the hearing and the deliberations must remain on the evidence pertaining to the incident at hand.
      1. During the hearing, there may be no discussion by the AJB or the complainant of any past known or suspected misconduct on the part of the student.
         1. If the hearing was convened because this is an additional charge of academic misconduct, the AJB will meet first to determine whether the student is responsible.
         2. Once that determination has been made and shared with the Associate Provost, that office will inform the Hearing Officer of the nature of the previous misconductincident and the penalty that was assessed in that incident.
         3. That information may be taken into consideration by the AJB as it deliberates andrecommends the penalty associated with the most recent incident.
      2. All hearings are The only people present at the hearings shall be those determined by the AJB to be material to the proceedings or as outlined herein.
      3. In cases where two students are accused of a linked act of academic misconduct, the students have the right to sever their cases (treat them separately). Where multiple students are accused of a linked act of misconduct, any of the students may petition the AJB tosever their It is up to the Hearing Officer to decide on the suitability of severing multiple cases
         1. The AJB will attempt to balance the competing needs of due process (expediency and a well-prepared board) when scheduling individual cases in a linked act of The 14-day deadline for scheduling a hearing will not apply in cases of linked acts of misconduct.
   3. Students may not be compelled to testify against themselves.
   4. An accused student who fails to attend a hearing may be found responsible for violation of Academic Misconduct rules and may be assessed appropriate penalties, based on the evidence presented. Should this occur, the respondent student shall be informed in writing of the outcome of the AJB hearing.
8. The hearing shall consist of four phases:
   1. Presentation of Evidence: The instructor shall present the evidence of academic misconduct to the board. The AJB shall also hear witnesses which it or the instructor may call.
   2. Presentation of Defense: The student shall present their The student may call witnesses who may offer testimony to clarify the facts of the incident. The names of such witnesses shall be sent to the Hearing Officer of the AJB five business days prior to the hearing. The AJB may limit the number of witnesses called during the first two phases of the hearing. No character witnesses are permitted as part of the presentation of defense. The AJB may question the instructor, the student, and any other parties giving evidence. AJB proceedings are not a court of law and should not be held to the same standard of procedure and evidence.
   3. Responses and Rebuttal: At the conclusion of the presentation of all testimony, both the complainant and the respondent will have an opportunity to address any discrepancies in These will be solicited in turn by the Hearing Officer; parties giving testimony should not address each other directly.
   4. Board Findings: Based on the evidence presented in the submitted documentation and facts clarified through testimony in the hearing, the board shall then rule on whether the student is responsible or not responsible for academic misconduct. In the case of a student’s appeal of an instructor’s in-course penalty, the Board may alternatively be asked to find whether the requested sanction is deemed appropriate. All deliberations by the AJB shall be made in private, with only members of the AJB present, and their counsel, if any. All decisions of the AJB are made by a majority vote of those voting, with all members, including the Hearing Officer, eligible to vote.
9. Determination of Responsibility and AJB Recommendation Letter
   1. If a student is found not responsible for academic misconduct, the AJB may recommend that the instructor remove any penalty that has been imposed. Because there may still be a dispute over thestudent’s grade or class standing, the AJB shall recommend a course of action for the instructor to take concerning the student. The recommendation shall be made in consultation with both the student and the instructor. The Associate Provost shall arbitrate any disputes which cannot be resolved in this manner. The Associate Provost may also consult with the AJB Hearing Officerprivately to discuss the board’s reasoning behind its recommendations.
   2. If a student is found responsible of academic misconduct, mitigating circumstances may be considered when recommending a penalty. Further, as mentioned above, if this is a repeated incident, if the AJB determines that the student is responsible, the Associate Provost will notify theHearing Officer of the AJB of the past incident and penalty, and this information can be used to inform the AJB’s recommendation for the penalty related to the current case.
   3. It is, however, the student’s responsibility to know the policies and definitions regarding academic If appropriate, the AJB shall then recommend an alternate academic penalty to the Associate Provost.
   4. If the case was referred to the AJB at the request of the instructor or of the AP, or if the student appeals their responsibility and is found responsible, the penalty may range from simply upholding any penalty given by the instructor to expulsion from the The AJB mayrecommend modified sanctions from the proposed in-course penalty.
   5. The penalties that may be recommended by the AJB include, but are not limited to:
      1. 0 points for the assignment
      2. Upholding any in-class penalty applied by the professor (e.g. F for the course)
      3. Non-repeatable F for the course
      4. Notation on the transcript that the F was due to academic misconduct
      5. Suspension for a semester or a year
      6. Ineligibility to participate in sports and/or study abroad
      7. Any combination of these penalties
      8. Expulsion
   6. The Hearing Officer shall send the AJB Recommendation Letter to the Associate Provost, copying in the student and instructor, informing them of the finding and (if appropriate) any penalty The official letter shall be sent to the student by email using the student’s official College email address (read receipt enabled). The AJB Hearing Officer may convey any pertinent information to the board members in confidence.
10. Decision Letter issued by the Associate Provost
    1. The Associate Provost relies heavily on the AJB Recommendation Letter to describe the hearing’s presentations of evidence and defense, subsequent deliberations, vote, and where appropriate, recommended sanctions. While this letter will inform the Decision Letter, the Associate Provostmay accept or reject the AJB’s findings of responsibility, and may accept, modify, or reject the AJB’s recommended sanctions.
    2. If the student is found not responsible for academic misconduct in the Associate Provost’sDecision Letter, no penalty may be imposed, and all records of the incident and subsequent hearing will be deleted.
    3. If a student is found not responsible in a charge of academic misconduct, they may not be tried again for the same instance of misconduct.
    4. The Associate Provost may meet with the student in advance of determining a penalty.
    5. The Associate Provost will review the student’s record to consider any past incidents of misconduct before applying sanctions.
    6. If the Associate Provost imposes a penalty for academic misconduct, the Associate Vice President shall:
       1. Send notice to the student stating the penalty.
       2. Send a copy of the letter to the instructor and the Hearing Officer of the AJB.
       3. If appropriate, inform the Office of the Registrar and the dean of students that the student may not withdraw from the relevant course or from the College because of a penalty for academic misconduct.
       4. Send all relevant information concerning the penalty to all parties involved in the imposition of the penalty.
    7. Per the Associate Provost’s judgment, the penalty may be reduced, affirmed, or expanded fromthe recommendations of the instructor and At their most severe, penalties may include suspension or expulsion from the College.
    8. A student may appeal any finding of responsibility or penalty imposed by the Associate Provost to the Provost/Dean of Faculty. See Article III, Section 10 for appeal procedures.
11. Basis upon which an Appeal to the Associate Provost (AP)/ Provost and Dean of Faculty May Be Considered
    1. An appeal may be made for one or more of the following purposes:
       1. To determine whether the original hearing was conducted in conformity with the prescribed procedures of this Code. Minor deviations from designated procedures will not form the basis for sustaining an appeal unless it is determined that such deviation resulted insignificant For any material deviations from designated procedures, the Provost and Dean of Faculty may opt to remand the matter for reconsideration.
       2. To present new evidence which could not reasonably be made available at the time of theoriginal Such cases, at the discretion of the Provst and Dean of Faculty, may be remanded back to the appropriate evaluator (instructor, AP, AJB) for reconsideration in light of new evidence.
       3. To determine whether the sanction imposed was appropriate to the violation with which the respondent student was charged.
12. Appeal Procedures
    1. The respondent student may appeal any finding of responsibility or imposition of penalty up to but not including the Provost/Dean of Faculty’s decision.
    2. All appeals must be made in written form specifying all reasons given for the appeal and given to the Vice President for Academic Affairs/Dean of Faculty within ten (10) business days afterreceiving the Hearing Decision Letter from the AP.
    3. The Provost/ Dean of Faculty will notify the complainant(s) and Hearing Officer of a pendingappeal to permit the complainant(s) to submit a statement of the impact of the appeal