IV. Judicial Policy: Academic Infractions

This section of policies and procedures was approved by the Earlham Faculty during the 2007 Fall Semester, and by the Board of Trustees at its February 2008 meeting.

Judicial Policy for Academic Infractions is based on Earlham's academic expectations of its students as set forth in the College's policies. Please refer to the Academic Policy listing at the Web site: www.earlham.edu/policies and Earlham's Approach to Academic Integrity in the Student Handbook.

1. Judicial Authorities for Academic Infractions

   1. The Academic Dean and his/her designee is responsible for advising the instructor and the student(s) about the judicial process and for oversight of the process and reporting results of non-hearing cases.

   2. An Associate Dean from the Academic Administration will convene the hearing when one is required. When necessary, the Academic Dean can designate a convener beyond an Associate Dean from the Academic Administration.

   3. The CJC Faculty Pool is a group of three faculty selected by the Faculty Nominating Committee for three-year, overlapping terms. Members of this pool function as faculty representatives on CJC and the Appeals Board.

   4. The CJC Student Pool is a group of four students selected by Student Government. Members of this pool function as student representatives on CJC and the Appeals Board.

   5. College Judicial Council (CJC) is made up of an Associate Dean, one faculty member, assigned in rotation from the CJC Faculty Pool, and two students from the CJC Student Pool, selected by the Associate Dean serving as Convener. CJC hears cases of alleged academic infractions assigned to them by the Academic Dean. All CJC members participate in the consensus.

   6. The Instructor (or another designated member of the Faculty) bringing the charge is responsible for gathering the information to support the charge.

   7. The Appeals Board (AB), which considers the merit of an appeal and is convened if warranted, is composed of one faculty member and one student member both of whom are assigned from their respective pool, and both of whom did not participate in the original CJC process, and an Associate Academic Dean. All AB members participate in consensus and all decisions of the Appeals Board are final.

   8. A Support Person may accompany the accused or the instructor to the hearing. A Support Person may be any member of the College community: student, staff or faculty, but may not be an attorney at law.

2. Judicial Procedures for Academic Infractions

   1. Filing a Complaint: Any member of the College Teaching Faculty may bring a charge against a student(s). A student may report him/herself for committing an academic infraction. Any student may also bring to the attention of the instructor suspected acts of academic infractions.

   2. Disposition of Academic Infraction Charge: If an instructor suspects that an academic infraction has occurred, the instructor will normally first notify the student and the Academic Dean.

      1. A First Infraction: The Academic Dean will determine if this alleged infraction would be the first recorded infraction by the student. If this would be the First Infraction, the instructor and student will meet.

         1. If the student and instructor agree that no infraction occurred, the matter ends.

         2. If they agree that an infraction has occurred, the instructor will assess an appropriate penalty and will decide whether this will be considered an infraction or a Warning (see Penalties for when a Warning is appropriate). If the student and instructor agree on the penalty, the instructor will report the infraction and penalty to the Academic Dean, who will see that the penalty is appropriately recorded in the student's permanent College file, for an Infraction, or the Dean's Warning file. The Academic Dean will communicate to the student concerning the serious consequences of any subsequent academic infractions. If a student receives a Warning and no further academic infractions, that student's name will be removed from the Dean's Warning file upon graduation.

         3. If the student and instructor do not agree that an infraction has occurred or do not agree concerning the penalty, the instructor will report this to the Academic Dean, and if the student has no history of infractions or warnings, the student may choose either a Dean's Hearing or a CJC Hearing. The Associate Dean or the CJC will decide whether or not an infraction has occurred, what the appropriate penalty is, and whether it will be termed a Warning or a First Infraction.

         4. The Dean's Hearing would involve only the designated Associate Dean from the Academic Administration, the student, the instructor, any appropriate witnesses, and if requested, a support person.

         5. In all other cases, the Academic Dean will arrange for a CJC Hearing.

      2. A Second or Third Infraction or an Infraction following a Warning: If the student's or the Dean's Warning file contains a record of one or more prior academic infractions or a Warning, the instructor will be notified to determine if he/she is ready to proceed with the charge of an infraction. If so, a CJC hearing will be arranged.

         1. If the instructor chooses not to testify because he/she is persuaded that an infraction had not occurred, the matter ends.

         2. If proceeding with a charge of an infraction, the instructor will report to the Academic Dean in writing the formal charge of an Academic Infraction and the result of the conversation with the student.

         3. The Academic Dean will advise the student about procedures and options and write a formal charge letter.

   3. The CJC Hearing Procedure for Academic Infractions

      1. The hearing process begins with the presumption that the accused is innocent until found to be otherwise.

      2. In response to receiving a charge and in advance of the hearing, the designated Associate Academic Dean will contact the parties involved concerning the time of the hearing and process to be followed.

      3. The designated Associate Dean (or his/her clerical support) will schedule a CJC Hearing, which will normally occur no sooner than 24 hours but no longer than 10 days after the student is sent a formal statement of charges.

      4. Persons who must be available at the time of a CJC Hearing include: the members of the Council, that is, two students and one faculty member; the Associate Dean from the Academic Administration; the accused; and the Instructor(s) unless the right to be present is waived in writing prior to the scheduled hearing. Also welcome is an optional Support Person for either party to the case. All members of the Council will participate in the consensus in responding to the charges. The hearing will not be open to the community.

      5. A CJC Hearing is not a court of law and need not adhere to rules of procedure or evidence followed in a state or federal courtroom. A CJC Hearing, however, does not take as its standard the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criterion of a courtroom. A CJC determination shall be made on the basis of a preponderance of evidence.

      6. The Associate Dean convenes and conducts the hearing. He/She has the authority to rule on procedural issues and questions and to dismiss disruptive persons from the proceedings.

      7. After introductions of persons present, the hearing begins with the Associate Dean reading the charges. The Associate Dean, instructor and the accused may make brief opening statements. The accused may also choose not to speak at any point during the hearing.

      8. Witnesses and evidence may be presented, first by the instructor and then by the accused. If the Instructor has waived his/her right to attend, another Associate Dean from the Academic Administration will present the evidence. Any member of the Council may ask questions, as may the instructor or accused. The Support Person may also ask questions if so led. All relevant evidence will be admissible. The Associate Dean from the Academic Administration determines relevancy and will identify in the hearing any evidence that will be inadmissible.

      9. The instructor or designated Associate Dean and accused may make final personal statements.

      10. The CJC Council will then deliberate privately to consider, first, whether the accused is guilty. If the accused is found to be responsible, the Council engages in a penalty phase of deliberations to determine what sanction(s) is appropriate.

          1. To encourage the application of similar sanctions for similar infractions, the Associate Dean will explain what sanctions are usually applied to an infraction.

          2. A student's judicial history will be taken into consideration during the penalty phase of a hearing.

          3. CJC may choose one of, or several among, all available sanctions and may also design a particular penalty for a particular infraction.

      11. Immediately after CJC reaches a decision, the Associate Dean will notify the student and instructor of the result in the presence of CJC.

      12. Parties to the case will receive a written or electronic statement of the decision, including information about the appeals process, within three class days of the decision. Students will be directed to pick up the final letter and sign for it at the Office of the Academic Dean.

      13. Once a semester, a summary report on CJC actions will be shared with the community.

3. Appeals Process for Academic Infractions

   1. A written appeal petition from either the complainant or the accused must be given to the Academic Dean within five class days from the day CJC's decision was sent or within a calendar week should the decision occur at the end of a semester or before an academic break period.

   2. Acceptable grounds for appeal are only these: a lapse of process that might have made a difference in the outcome, persuasive new evidence, or an inappropriate penalty. The written petition for an appeal should address one or more of these three grounds in detail.

   3. The Hearing Officer of the Appeals Board receives the written petition and with the board members considers the merit of the appeal. This may require a review of the file of the proceeding and listening to the recording of the hearing.

      1. The Hearing Officer for Appeals is the alternate Associate Academic Dean who did not participate in the original CJC process.

      2. The Appeals Board includes one alternate faculty member and one alternate student who did not participate in the original CJC process.

      3. All decisions of the Appeals Board are final.

      4. The Appeals Board's decision is rendered in writing to the Academic Dean and he/she sends it to the concerned parties within five class days of the appeal.

   4. If the Appeals Board agrees that an appeal has merit, it refers the appeal to CJC for Appeals (CJC-A), which is made up of the Appeal Board's Hearing Officer, one CJC alternate faculty member and one CJC alternate student member who have not yet been involved with the case. This group follows the procedure of CJC as outlined in this document in Section IV.B.3.

   5. A decision rendered by CJC-A is final.

4. Sanctions for Academic Infractions

   Sanctions resulting from an Academic Infraction include, but are not limited to:

   1. A First Infraction or a Warning will usually result in a 0 or F on a specific work or for the course.

      1. The first time a student is accused of a breach of Academic Integrity, the student and instructor, or student and hearing body, may decide that this was an educational experience for the student. Some infractions will be clearly intentional and egregious, such as buying a paper form an on-line source, stealing a paper from a classmate, or using a cell phone to cheat on a test. Infractions the professor or Dean or CJC deems egregious and intentional can be called a First Infraction. There are also infractions that are clearly opposed to Academic Integrity as stated in our policy but less clearly the result of dishonesty on the student's part. Perhaps the student did not fully understand the rules of citation or what constitutes producing independent work. Since plagiarism does not rely on intention, students may at times need to learn more about how to actively avoid plagiarism. In these cases, the student will receive a Warning rather than a First Infraction. Because the student is expected to learn from this experience, if a student has a further infraction, that Warning will be treated as if it were a First Infraction.

   2. For a Second Infraction or an Infraction following a Warning, a student will normally be suspended for the remainder of the semester and for the following semester.

      1. Students who are suspended as a consequence of academic dishonesty will not be able to transfer College credits toward an Earlham degree from courses taken elsewhere while on suspension.

      2. A student may return to Earlham after a period of suspension on the condition that he/she provides a written statement affirming commitment to Earlham's standard of Academic Integrity.

         1. The statement should be sent to the Academic Dean who will include it in College Judicial Council files.

         2. The statement will be placed in the student's file.

   3. For a Third Infraction or a Second Infraction following a Warning, a student will usually be expelled from the College.

<< Previous | Continue >>

Earlham College · 801 National Road West · Richmond, Indiana 47374-4095
Send corrections or comments to Web Editor.
Copyright Information

This page last updated: June 3, 2008