Academic Honor Code

Fifteen minutes prior to the commencement of a hearing, all panel members will be present with the statements of the accuser and accused, and all submitted evidence. It is expected that panel members will avail themselves of these fifteen minutes to review the statements and evidence.

A hearing shall progress first with the presiding member stating the case name, number, and complaint. The accused student will then be asked by the presiding member to submit a plea of “responsible” or “not responsible” for the conduct reported in the complaint. Following an answer to this question, the case-presenter for the University will present evidence, followed by a presentation of evidence by the case-presenter for the accused student. Any witnesses will then be called first by the case-presenter for the University, and then by the case-presenter for the accused. Following the questioning of any witnesses and of the accused and complainant, the originating complainant will be afforded the opportunity to make a final statement. The accused student will then be given the opportunity to do the same. Upon conclusion of final statements, both the accused and the complainant will be asked to recess while the hearing panel deliberates. They will be asked to be prepared to reconvene following deliberation.

In certain cases, such as those involving collaboration, more than one accused student may be heard in a single hearing, following the basic procedures outlined in the preceding paragraph.

All hearings should be tape-recorded for the sake of record keeping and so that proceedings may be available for review should an appeal warrant it.

The presentation of evidence will come in the form of an oral report to be given by each case-presenter. The case-presenter will present all evidence that the hearing panel should consider and give insight into the role of any witnesses that might be called. These presentations will give the University and the accused student equal opportunity to present both sides.

Witnesses will be called by the panel in an order predetermined by the case-presenters, first calling witnesses for the University, and then for the accused student. Witnesses will be asked to respond to questions by the hearing panel, and will not be questioned by either case-presenter. The presiding member of the hearing panel reserves the right to recall witnesses at any time during the proceeding.

The hearing panel under the supervision of the faculty advisers will deliberate on whether the accused student is responsible for violations specified in the complaint. The standard used to determine responsibility is to be “based on clear and convincing evidence presented by witnesses and case presenters,” as specified in the Honor Code (see III.E.2.a below).  A simple majority vote of the three hearing panel members is required in any determination of responsibility.

In exceptional cases when the panel feels that there is not sufficient evidence to come to a determination and has good reason to believe that additional relevant evidence can be obtained in a timely manner with further investigation, a hearing may be continued when a majority of panel members feels a continuance best serves the interests of justice and fairness.  If a case is continued, the presiding member will ask the case-presenters to obtain the additional evidence, and will send a request to the internal chair to set a new date and time for the case to resume, with a brief explanation of the reasons for the continuance and of the further evidence to be obtained.

After deliberation, the decision of responsibility and the sanction, if applicable, will be announced to the complainant and accused student by the presiding member. Whether the decision was split is not to be disclosed at this time.

Accused students will not contact professors or other complainants about the case once the hearing panel has rendered a decision. If accused students contact the professor once a decision has been rendered by the hearing panel, further disciplinary action may result.

If for some urgent reason, a member of the hearing panel cannot be present at the time of the hearing, the internal chair may hear the case instead of that hearing panel member.

If the internal chair is also not available, then the external chair may hear the case.

The presiding member will also deliver the written majority opinion and any dissenting opinion to the complainant, who may not be the instructor of the course involved, to the external chair, the AVPAA, and the faculty advisers via email. If the originating complainant is not the faculty member in whose course the violation occurred, that faculty member will be delivered the opinion via email.

The majority opinion will contain the finding and an outline of the reasoning the hearing panel followed in making its decision.

Authorship of majority and dissenting opinions is not to be disclosed. The identification of dissenters will be reported by the presiding member only to the internal chair and only in the case that a letter of appeal is filed and an appeals board must be assembled.

The presiding member will also notify the complainant and the accused of the possibility to appeal based on criteria outlined in the Honor Code, and of the appeal process.   Following the hearing, questions regarding the appeal process should be directed to the external chair.

Past academic integrity violations are relevant to these deliberations.  The faculty advisers are responsible for obtaining this information from the office of the AVPAA.  The faculty advisers will not disclose this information to any hearing panel member unless a determination of responsibility has been made.  Such knowledge will be used in determining the specific sanctions.

Note that, according to the Honor Code, “If a student is suspended or expelled by the Academic Honor Council, an automatic appeal will be registered with the President of Trinity University for a final decision. The dispositive authority of the Council shall not prejudice the executive powers of the President of the University including executive privilege of granting pardon or clemency” (Section III.F.5).

Guidelines: This classification is merited when one of three conditions applies:

1. The evidence in the final analysis was not clear and convincing but was indicative of a likely violation of the Honor Code.
2. The student's failure to satisfy requirements was due to a reasonable misunderstanding of the instructor's guidelines. However, students have a responsibility to clarify any instructions that they are not certain they have fully heard or correctly understood.
3. The panel finds the alleged violation to be a result of negligent or careless scholarship (e.g., a student properly cites the majority of her sources in her paper but fails to properly use in-text citations in an instance in which she pulls material from a source in her bibliography). It is important to note that this sanction does not apply to cases in which a student is ignorant of the rules of the Academic Honor Code or proper citation practices. For example, this class would not apply to a case in which a student claimed to be unaware that she needed to cite encyclopedia sources in her paper. 

Sanction: In the case of lack of clear and convincing evidence, a letter will be issued warning the accused student that the behavior or actions described in the allegation are not tolerated, and that all future academically related behavior and actions should avoid even the appearance of violating the Academic Honor Code.  In the case of unclear or verbal only instructor guidelines, a letter will be issued directing the student to be more aware of the need to be clear about what is and is not allowed, and to seek clarification from the instructor if there is any doubt. In the case of negligent or careless scholarship, a letter will be issued warning the student that extra caution should be taken when completing coursework in the future. In addition, the student will complete a CD-ROM focusing on ethical principles as they apply to academic integrity, or similar assignment at the discretion of the Hearing Panel. 

For any student that pleads "Responsible" to an Honor Code violation that is his or her first offense and that cooperates with the Honor Council to ensure that the correct finding is reached, the course grade penalty will be reduced by a 1/3 letter grade such that: 

• Class 1: Minor Violation will be reduced from a 1/3 letter course grade reduction to a 0 letter course grade reduction.
• Class 2: Substantial Violation will be reduced from a 2/3 letter course grade reduction to a 1/3 letter course grade reduction.
• Class 3: Major Violation will be reduced from a 1 letter course grade reduction to a 2/3 letter course grade reduction. 

The external chair shall notify the internal chair, the accused student, the initial complainant, the faculty advisers, and the AVPAA of the receipt of any petition for rehearing by the end of the first class day following the day of its receipt.

In order to gain insight into the rationale for the original decision, the Decision Committee will have access to the file for the original case.
For petitions that request an appeal on the basis of improper procedure, the committee must determine whether the petition has made a “reasonable argument” that the Honor Council has not followed procedure. A “reasonable argument” is an argument that could be substantiated; it is not the job of this committee to determine if proper procedure has been followed.
For petitions that request an appeal on the basis of additional evidence, the committee must determine whether or not the new evidence is pertinent to the original case. That is, if the evidence were submitted in the original case, would it have been considered relevant by the original Hearing Panel? If so, then the evidence is pertinent. The new evidence submitted does not need to be sufficient to determine responsibility on its own, it must only be worth consideration.
Petitions that request to amend a sanction will be automatically accepted by the committee.
The internal chair, by the end of the second class day following confirmation by the committee that the petition has been accepted, will assemble the Appeals Board, appointing one of the seven (7) members to preside over the appeals board. The internal chair will notify these members of their appointment and set a date for all seven (7) members and the faculty adviser(s) to meet. The internal chair will also notify the accused student and originating complainant of the date, and encourage both to attend.

In the case of an appeal of a sanction, the Appeals Board will hear from the petitioner should he or she be present and willing to address the Board. The Appeals Board will then hear from the student should he or she desire to respond to the petition. A faculty adviser must be present for deliberation to ensure due process.

In addition to the evidence and statements provided by the accused student and the originating complainant, the Appeals Board will receive the file for the original case by the internal chair before the rehearing. The file contains all of the evidence and statements used in the original case, as well as the corresponding opinion letter. The Appeals Board may consider the file during questioning and deliberations.
 
If the Appeals Board decides to amend a sanction, the Board must assign a sanction under the Honor Council’s class-based system.

“Follow[ing] the same procedures as the original hearing” will be interpreted as allowing both the original complainant and the accused student to make statements, to present evidence, to make comments to the Appeals Board as evidence is reviewed, and to make final statements to the Appeals Board. The role of the Appeals Board is to uphold or overturn the original decision. If the Appeals Board chooses to amend responsibility to “not responsible” they may also assign letters of warning.The Appeals Board holds the right to amend responsibility and sanctioning as they see fit.
 
A case-presenter will be assigned to the student automatically. The original complainant will also have the ability to request a Case Presenter if they choose to. If possible the case presenter from the original hearing will be assigned to them. If the original case-presenter is not available the internal chair may assign a case-presenter. Should either the student or professor deny a case presenter, any questions or clarifications may be directed to the co-chairs or presiding member of the Appeals Board.  A faculty adviser, as usual, must be present to ensure due process.

The presiding member will submit the opinion letter of the Board to the accused student, original complainant, and the AVPAA within 5 class days of the hearing date.