Any member of the academic community may refer a suspected violation of academic integrity
to the Academic Judiciary Office. The accusation should be submitted using the online
reporting form found on the academic integrity website within two weeks of the discovery
of the suspected violation. All faculty are encouraged to discuss the situation with
their Chair, Undergraduate Program Director or Dean’s Office before submitting an
official accusation. When it is not possible for the accusation to be made within
the two-week period, justification for the delay should be included in the filing
documentation. Course instructors who suspect violations of academic integrity must
report their suspicions to the Academic Judiciary Office; they may not establish a
penalty independently. An instructor will be asked to provide a recommended penalty
on the accusation report submitted to the Academic Judiciary Office. The instructor’s
recommended penalty is noted on the accusation report submitted to the Academic Judiciary
committee. Instructors may wish to consult with the Academic Integrity Officer before
identifying recommended penalties.
When the Academic Judiciary Office receives an accusation, each student is notified
by email and instructed to make an appointment with the Academic Integrity Officer
to discuss the accusation. This meeting may include an academic advisor or other
professional from the student’s College/School to address the implications of the
accusation on degree progress or other related academic issues/concerns. Students
are encouraged to invite an advisor to offer counsel on any potential academic implications.
A copy of the accusation report (including a course instructor's recommended penalty,
if applicable) and supporting documentation, if any, will be given to all parties
named in the report. Students accused of academic dishonesty will have two weeks
from the date of notification to inform the staff within the Academic Judiciary Office
whether or not they intend to appeal the accusation. In the meantime, a student's
academic record will notate an "I" grade in the course signifying that there is a
pending academic judiciary matter (for course-based accusations), as well as pending
remarks of academic dishonesty. The "I" grade and the pending remarks will remain
until the matter is resolved. Students should continue attending class and completing
coursework for in-progress courses.
Academic dishonesty includes any act that is designed to obtain fraudulently, either
for oneself or for someone else, academic credit, grades, or other recognition that
is not properly earned or that adversely affects another's grade or misrepresents
one's academic status.
The following represents examples of academic dishonesty and does not constitute an
exhaustive list:
Plagiarism: copying someone else's writing or paraphrasing it too closely, even if
it constitutes only some of your written assignment, without proper citation. Even
if this is done accidentally or in a minor or unfinished assignment (i.e., draft).
Representing work generated by artificial intelligence as one's own work.
Collusion: two or more students helping one another on an exam or assignment when
it is not permitted
Cheating on exams or assignments by the use of books, electronic devices, online resources,
notes, or other aids when these are not permitted, or by copying from another student.
Ringers: taking an exam for someone else or permitting someone else to take one’s
exam or paying someone to take exam/complete assignments
Submitting the same paper in more than one course without permission from the instructors
Altering an exam or paper after it has been graded in order to request a grade change
Falsifying documents or records related to credit, grades, status (ex: adds and drops,
GPNC grading, transcripts) or other academic matter
Posting answers or requesting answers on websites, group chats, or social media when
it is prohibited
Stealing, concealing, destroying or inappropriately modifying classroom or other instructional
material, such a posted exams, library materials, laboratory supplies or computer
programs
Preventing relevant material from being subjected to academic evaluation.
Presenting fabricated excuses for missed assignment or tests
Falsifying attendance roster; signing in for someone else; unauthorized clicker use;
using someone else's clicker
Electronic Devices Electronic communication devices, including cellular phones, speakers, calculators,
electronic translators, smart watches, and headphones must be secured in a closed
container (and not, for example, worn on a belt or around the neck) and must be turned
off (and not, for example, simply set on vibration mode) during any examination. Note:
even if a student does not answer a ringing cell phone during an exam, it can be considered
academic dishonesty for not having it turned off.
An F for the course is considered to be an appropriate penalty grade for an academic
integrity violation that occurs within the context of a course or courses. A more
severe penalty may be recommended under certain circumstances. For example, where
premeditation or conspiracy (e.g., use of ringers or electronic devices) is involved,
penalties such as suspension or expulsion may be considered. In all cases a written
report of the offense and the recommended penalty of the course instructor must be
forwarded to the Academic Judiciary Office in order that students may be formally
notified of the accusation, recommended penalty, and procedures for accepting the
recommended penalty or appealing the accusation and requesting a hearing. A course
for which a penalty grade has been assigned cannot be dropped or taken Pass/No Credit.
In addition to any penalty imposed by the Academic Judiciary, a student who is found
responsible for a first offense of academic dishonesty will have an academic dishonesty
notation on their record and for course-based offenses, will be given a Q grade for
the course, signifying that they have violated academic integrity policies. The Q
is computed in the student's GPA as an F. After successfully completing the non-credit
academic integrity course (called the Q Course), the academic dishonesty notation
and the Q grade (if applicable) are removed. The Q grade is replaced with the penalty
grade. Students must successfully complete the University's Q Course no later than
the academic semester immediately following the finding of an academic integrity violation.
If the Q grade is not resolved by the end of the following term, it can convert to
a permanent Q/F.
The Q Course requires attendance at every session that meets on Wednesdays for 1 hour
(1:00 – 2:00pm) per week for 10 weeks during the fall and spring semesters. Students
are encouraged to register at least one month before the start of the course.
You may find out more about the Q course by calling the Division of Undergraduate
Education at 631-632-7080 or email: academic_judiciary@stonybrook.edu.
If a student is found responsible for two or more violations of academic integrity,
the Academic Judiciary Committee will consider recommending a penalty in addition
to those already established for the separate offenses. The penalties for a second
offense include suspension or permanent expulsion from the University, a permanent
notation on the student's academic record of academic dishonesty, and/or a permanent
Q grade for all courses (past and current) for which the student was found responsible
for violating academic integrity.
A student accused of violating academic integrity policies may appeal the accusation
through the Academic Judiciary Office. An accusation that is not appealed will be
considered as a finding of responsibility for violating academic integrity. By appealing
the accusation, the student asserts that they did not violate University policy concerning
academic integrity. Students may not appeal /request exceptions for having a Q grade
on their record or taking the Q course.
All appeals must be presented in writing not later than two weeks after notification
of the accusation and meeting with the Academic Judiciary Office to discuss the accusation
and the academic integrity policies and procedures. On receiving a student's request
for an appeal, the Academic Judiciary Office will inform the instructor or reporting
individual and schedule a hearing. In cases of first offenses, where students do not
appeal, the recommended penalty of the reporting individual/instructor will be applied,
with very few exceptions.
Students who appeal an accusation for a course that is in progress should continue
attending the class and completing coursework. Any student who is granted a hearing
and is found not responsible of violating academic integrity will receive their earned
grade in the course.
A student who is granted a hearing and is found responsible for violating academic
integrity will receive penalties as described above. These penalties may differ from
the penalty recommended by the reporting individual/instructor.
NOTE: A student who is found responsible for violating academic integrity and is determined
to have presented false evidence or false statements at the hearing may have a second
accusation of dishonesty brought against them by the hearing board. This would constitute
multiple accusations and potentially more serious penalties, including suspension
or permanent expulsion.
Academic judiciary hearing boards consist of appointed members from the Academic Judiciary
Committee, but may also include faculty and staff who have volunteered to serve on
the hearing boards.
A five-person hearing board will consist of two faculty, one professional staff member
and/or teaching assistant, and two undergraduate students; majority vote determines
outcome. The Academic Integrity Officer (or designee) will normally serve as non-voting
hearing officer. In those situations, where the student and course are in the College
of Engineering and Applied Sciences (CEAS), one faculty member and one student representative
will be from the CEAS. Additional faculty will be consulted to address specific technical
issues as appropriate.
The standard of evidence used by the hearing board is "clear and convincing." Students
may be found responsible on the basis of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence,
or a combination of the two. This may include, for example, any of the following:
a dramatic change in writing style; possession of accessible notes, devices (i.e.
mobile phones, clickers, calculators, translators, etc.), or similarly prohibited
material during an exam; observed communication between students during an exam; or
unusual similarity among exams, papers, assignments, projects, or other work, including
similarity with online resources.
A student accused of violating academic integrity will be given an opportunity to
address the hearing board. The student may bring an advisor or witness. In no such
case shall the advisor be an attorney. An advisor may not speak on behalf of a student
nor do they have privilege of the floor. The Academic Judiciary Office must be notified
of the intention to bring advisors or witnesses no later than two working days prior
to the hearing.
The board may call its own witnesses and introduce pertinent information to the hearing.
The board may bring an advisor, who may remain during the entire hearing. The reporting
individual/instructor and the student may ask each other questions, as well as ask
questions of each other's witnesses.
When two or more students are accused in the same academic dishonesty case, they can
request to meet with the board independently of the other student(s) and their advisors
and witnesses.
The hearing officer may dismiss any participant who exhibits disruptive behavior during
the hearing. The board will attempt to reach a decision on the basis of the evidence
before it regardless of the presence or absence of the persons concerned, their witnesses,
or their advisors. In cases where reasonable notice of absence for cause has been
given (at least 24 hours), the hearing will be postponed and rescheduled as soon as
possible.
Hearings normally proceed as follows:
The individual/instructor reporting the violation of academic integrity makes a statement
summarizing the case and reviews supporting documentation, if any. This statement
cannot be interrupted by questions or challenges. However, the hearing officer may
ask the speaker to repeat something for clarification.
The student accused of violating academic integrity then makes a statement responding
to the accusation. The student may present evidence at this point supporting their
appeal of the accusation. The student's statement cannot be interrupted by questions
or challenges. However, the hearing officer may ask the speaker to repeat something
for clarification. If the hearing involves multiple students accused in the same case,
all students will be present for the reporting individual/instructor’s statement.
However, each student will make a separate response statement, without any other students
present. If a statement by any of the students implicates any of the others, the implicated
student will be informed so that they can respond.
The members of the hearing board may ask questions of any of those present, including
witnesses. Witnesses will normally not be present for the initial statements and will
be called in to the hearing room only after initial statements are presented and the
hearing board's initial questions are answered. Their presence will normally be permitted
only during their own statements. Either party may call witnesses.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the board will make a decision of finding the student
"responsible" or "not responsible" for violating academic integrity. All decisions
will be made by majority of the members present. The individual votes and tally are
not divulged.
Although there can be substantial variance, hearings are normally completed within
about an hour. Students and reporting individuals/instructors will be notified by
email of the outcome of the hearing.
Decisions made by the Academic Judiciary Committee can be appealed by submitting a
detailed statement (either as e-mail text or an attachment) to academic_appeals@stonybrook.edu.
In situations where the student is in the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences
(CEAS), the appeal will be forwarded for consideration to the CEAS Office of the Dean.
Appeals are only considered based on new evidence not available at the time of the
hearing and/or errors in procedure. Appeals must be submitted within seven (7) business
days of the original hearing committee's decision. Instructions for appeals and specific
deadlines are included in the email with the decision by the hearing committee.
An Academic Judiciary appeal that is denied on the first appeal review, may be appealed
to the Senior Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education (or designee) only when
new documentation not available at the time of the hearing or evidence of procedural
error is provided. Appeal requests should include the original request, as well as
the new documentation and/or evidence of procedural error, and must be submitted within
seven (7) business days of the communication of the decision from the first appeal.
Appeals should be addressed to: Senior Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education,
at academic_appeals@stonybrook.edu. The appeal decision of the Senior Associate Provost
for Undergraduate Education (or designee) is final.
Once an accusation has been initiated, the hearing or review procedures prescribed
by these rules will be completed whether or not the reporting individual or student
remains associated with the University.
All Academic Judiciary email will be addressed to students at the email address on
record in the Registrar's Office.
