Principle

Absolute integrity is expected of every Cornell student in all academic undertakings. Integrity entails a firm adherence to a set of values, and the values most essential to an academic community are grounded on the concept of honesty with respect to the intellectual efforts of oneself and others, and free and open inquiry and discussion in the classroom. Academic integrity is expected not only in formal coursework situations, but in all University relationships and interactions connected to the educational process, including the use of University resources. While both students and faculty of Cornell assume the responsibility of maintaining and furthering these values, this document is concerned specifically with the conduct of students.

A Cornell student’s submission of work for academic credit indicates that the work is the student’s own. All outside assistance should be acknowledged, and the student’s academic position truthfully reported at all times. In addition, Cornell students have a right to expect academic integrity from each of their peers.

Guidelines for Students

A. General Responsibilities

1. A student shall in no way misrepresent their work.
2. A student shall in no way fraudulently or unfairly advance their academic position.
3. A student shall refuse to be a party to another student’s failure to maintain academic integrity.
4. A student shall maintain the integrity of the classroom environment, and not engage in unauthorized sharing of materials beyond the course environment or record classroom lectures and discussions without the prior written permission of instructors.
5. A student shall not in any other manner violate the principle of academic integrity

B. Examples of Violations

The following actions are examples of activities that violate the Code of Academic Integrity and subject their actors to proceedings under the Code. This is not a definitive list.

1. Knowingly representing the work of others as one’s own.
2. Using, obtaining, or providing unauthorized assistance on examinations, papers, or any other academic work. Unauthorized assistance includes any aid not explicitly permitted by the instructor, whether provided by notes or reference aids, by other individuals, by artificial intelligence, or by devices such as phones, laptops, or wearable technology.
3. Citing fabricated or non-existent sources, including false citations generated by artificial intelligence or other tools. Students are responsible for the accuracy and existence of all sources they cite, regardless of how those sources were generated or obtained.
4. Fabricating data in support of laboratory, field, or any other academic work.
5. Buying, selling or otherwise distributing course materials, including exams, presentations, photos, transcripts, lecture content and notes, student assignments such as problem sets, homework, discussion board posts, and student papers, without written authorization from the instructor.
6. Forging a signature to certify completion of a course assignment or a recommendation to graduate school.
7. Unfairly advancing one’s academic position by hoarding or damaging library materials.
8. Misrepresenting one’s academic accomplishments.

C. Specific Guidelines for Courses

1. Examinations.

During in-class examinations no student may use, give, or receive any assistance or information not given in the examination or by the proctor. No student may take an examination for another student. Between the time a take-home examination is distributed and the time it is submitted by the student for grading, the student may not consult with any persons other than the course professor and teaching assistants regarding the examination. The student is responsible for understanding the conditions under which the examination will be taken.

2. Course Assignments.

Students are encouraged to discuss the content of a course among themselves and to help each other to master it, but no student should receive help in doing a course assignment that is meant to test what they can do without help from others. Representing another’s work as one’s own is plagiarism and a violation of this Code. If materials are taken from published sources the student must clearly and completely cite the source of such materials. Work submitted by a student and used by a faculty member in the determination of a grade in a course may not be submitted by that student in a second course, unless such submission is approved in advance by the faculty member in the second course. If a student is submitting all or part of the same work simultaneously for the determination of a grade in two or more different courses, all faculty members in the courses involved must approve such submissions.

3. Unauthorized Recording and Classroom Policy.

The openness and privacy of classroom discussions is essential to Cornell’s traditions of open inquiry and freedom of learning, which include the right to explore, experiment, try out ideas, debate, and change one’s mind in the relative openness and safety of the classroom environment. Students are not permitted to record classroom lectures and discussions, in whole or in part, or related instructional spaces like laboratories or studios, without the prior written permission of instructors. Unauthorized recording is a violation of academic integrity. Where such permission is given (for example, to support student accommodations or second language learners) or where recordings or other materials are made available to all students by instructors, students may not share instructor- or student-generated content (lectures or lecture slides, photos, student assignments or presentations, class discussions or discussion board postings, etc.) either within or beyond the course environment without prior instructor permission. Note that unauthorized sharing of classroom materials may also violate other university policies — for example, the university’s Anti-Doxxing Policy or the Student Code of Conduct.

In addition, students are not authorized to replicate, reproduce, copy, or transmit lectures and course materials, or materials derived from the course including class notes that incorporate the original content in new ways, for sale or general distribution to others without the written consent of the faculty or academic staff member or class participant who is the original source of such materials.

4. Classroom Misconduct and Other Behavior Disruptive to the Educational Process.

A faculty member may impose a grade penalty for any misconduct. Examples of classroom misconduct include, but are not limited to, talking during an examination, and disruptive behavior in the classroom.

1. The faculty member must promptly notify the student of the reason for the imposition of a penalty for classroom misconduct and the degree to which their grade will be affected.
2. Classroom misconduct is not a violation of academic integrity and does not require a Primary Hearing to be held. The student may, however, seek review by the Academic Integrity Hearing Board on the basis either that the finding of guilt is arbitrary and capricious or that the penalty for misconduct is excessive or inappropriate to the circumstances involved. (“Arbitrary and capricious” describes actions which have no sound basis in law, fact, or reason or are grounded solely in bad faith or personal desires. A determination is arbitrary and capricious only if it is one no reasonable mind could reach.)
3. This section does not limit a faculty member’s prerogative to remove a disruptive student from a classroom under appropriate circumstances.
4. Academic Misconduct

Academic misconduct in published and professional work, including manuscripts under review for publication, related to integrity in the conduct of scholarly and scientific research and communication is addressed in Cornell University Policy 1.2. Policy 1.2 applies to faculty, staff, and students.

D. Principles for Computer Use and Network Systems

The use of computers and network systems in no way exempts students from the normal requirements of ethical behavior in the Cornell University community. Use of a computer and network system that is shared by many users imposes certain additional obligations. In particular, data, software and computer capacity have value and must be treated accordingly. Although some rules are built into computer and network systems, such restrictions cannot limit completely what students can do. In any event students are responsible for their actions whether or not rules are built in, and whether or not they can circumvent them.

Standards of behavior include:

1. Respect for the privacy of other users’ information, even when that information is not securely protected.
2. Respect for the ownership of proprietary software. For example, unauthorized copies of such software for one’s own use, even when that software is not protected against copying is inappropriate.
3. Respect for the finite capacity of the system and limitation of use so as not to interfere unreasonably with the activity of other users.
4. Respect for the procedures established to manage the use of the system.

E. Variances

A faculty member is responsible for informing their students and teaching assistants of variances from this Code that apply to work in their course. These variances should be clearly stated in writing at the beginning of the course or activity to which they apply.

F. Jurisdiction and Penalties

The authority to determine whether a specific action shall be treated as a violation of the Code of Academic Integrity lies with the Academic Integrity Hearing Board. Those who violate the Code of Academic Integrity will be subject to penalties under this Code

Organization and Procedure

A. Reporting

Students and staff members discovering an apparent violation should report the matter to the faculty member in charge of the course or to the chairperson of the appropriate Hearing Board. The chairperson is responsible for ensuring that all members of the school or college know to whom the report should be made.

B. Standard of Evidence

Academic integrity violations shall be evaluated against the “clear and convincing” standard of proof, which refers to a quantum of evidence beyond a mere preponderance but below that characterized as “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Clear and convincing evidence will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief as to the facts sought to be established.

C. Initial Assessment

Faculty members who become aware of an apparent violation shall investigate. As part of the investigation, faculty members may discuss the apparent violation with the student, including questions about the student’s process, sources of information, and techniques used in completing the work. After this initial assessment faculty members may:

1. Decline to move forward with the case; or
2. Notify the student of a Primary Hearing process (II.D), during which further investigation and assessment of evidence may occur; or
3. Offer the Accepting Responsibility process (II.E) to the student.

D. Primary Hearing

1. Holding the Hearing

Primary hearings are to be held by the faculty member unless the penalties available to them are inadequate, in which case, they may refer the case directly to the Hearing Board.

2. Notification

If, after investigation, possibly including discussion with the student, a faculty member believes that a student has violated the Code of Academic Integrity, the faculty member shall present the student with the charge. The charge shall include notification of a primary hearing to be held as soon as practical after the alleged infraction has come to the attention of the faculty member, but with at least one week’s notice to the student. This notification period may be shortened by the agreement of both parties. The charge shall also include notice of the availability of the Respondents’ Codes Counselor.

3. Composition

At the primary hearing the following shall be present: the faculty member concerned, the student in question, and a third-party independent witness. The independent witness shall be a faculty or staff member or a student appointed by the Hearing Board Chairperson or the chairperson of the faculty member’s department. The student may also bring to the hearing an advisor and additional witnesses to testify to their innocence.

If a case involves more than three students, the instructor may delegate the instructor’s role in one or more primary hearings to another tenured, tenure-track, emeritus, or RTE faculty member. Any primary hearing with the instructor not present must be recorded. The instructor retains responsibility for ruling on each case (see II.D.4(c) below) and therefore may wish to engage with a student from whose primary hearing the instructor was absent. If such engagement takes place, it will be treated as part of the primary hearing.

4. Procedure
5. At the primary hearing, the faculty member shall present evidence in support of the charge against the student. The student shall be given the opportunity to respond and, if they wish, to present evidence refuting the charge.
6. The function of the independent witness is to observe the proceedings impartially, and in the event of an appeal from the judgment of the faculty member, be prepared to testify as to the procedures followed.
7. After hearing the student, the faculty member may either dismiss the charge or, if there is clear and convincing evidence that the student has violated this Code, find the student guilty. If the student is found guilty, the faculty member may impose any suitable grade punishment including failure in the course.
8. A student wishing to seek review of the decision may bring the case before the Academic Integrity Hearing Board of the faculty member’s college.
9. Faculty members shall report all findings of violation after a Primary Hearing to the central Academic Integrity registry (II.G). The finding shall be shared with the student, and with the Academic Integrity Hearing Boards of the student’s college and the faculty member’s college.
10. If the student fails to attend the primary hearing without a compelling excuse, the hearing may proceed in their absence.
11. A student charged with violating the Code of Academic Integrity in a course may not drop or change the grading option in that course without the consent of the instructor unless the student has subsequently been cleared of the charges. If the student is taking the course S/U, the instructor may offer the student the choice to change the grading option to LET before assigning a grade penalty following a guilty finding after informing the student of the process for computing the student’s final grade under both options. If this occurs at the end of the semester an incomplete (INC) will be entered as the grade until the matter is resolved.

E. Accepting Responsibility

When a student fails to uphold the principles of Academic Integrity, there is an opportunity for further education and growth. So as an alternative to the Primary Hearing and Appeals process, the Code offers the following Accepting Responsibility process.

1. The Accepting Responsibility process does not result in a finding of violation of the Code of Academic Integrity. In that sense, the process is akin to a warning. But the process does provide for consequences in the form of a limited penalty and mandatory completion of a workshop.
2. Participation in the Accepting Responsibility process is voluntary for both the faculty member and the student: if either party wishes to use the Primary Hearing and Appeals process, that process shall take precedence.
3. Students who choose the Accepting Responsibility process waive all appeals on the matter to the AIHB and Dean. Procedural questions may be directed to the Dean of Faculty.
4. Faculty who wish to offer the Accepting Responsibility process to a student shall present the charge, evidence, and penalty to the Accepting Responsibility record keeper. The evidence should meet the clear and convincing threshold. The penalty should be limited to the course work involved in the charge.
5. The record keeper shall convey the charge, evidence, and penalty to the student. Further, the record keeper shall determine whether the student is eligible to participate in the Accepting Responsibility process. Students are ineligible if they have previously accepted responsibility or have a previous finding of violation of Academic Integrity.
6. If the student is ineligible, the record keeper shall not disclose that fact to the faculty member but instead after three business days shall notify both the student and faculty member that the student will be pursuing the standard Primary Hearing and Appeals process.
7. If the student is eligible, the record keeper shall offer the student the choice of the Accepting Responsibility process or the Primary Hearing and Appeals process. The student shall have three business days to make the choice. A student who chooses to accept responsibility shall have three business days as a cooling off period to change their choice. A student who fails to make a choice shall be deemed to have chosen the Primary Hearing and Appeals process. The record keeper shall communicate the student’s final choice to the faculty member.
8. A student who accepts responsibility must complete an educational workshop organized by the Accepting Responsibility record keeper. The workshop must be attended in person and may require additional outside work. If the student fails to complete all requirements of the workshop within two weeks, the record keeper shall notify the faculty member that the student has defaulted on the Accepting Responsibility agreement, and that the faculty member may begin a Primary Hearing and Appeals process. In that process, the faculty member is not bound by the penalty previously stated during the Accepting Responsibility process. A student who defaults will be ineligible for Accepting Responsibility in the future.
9. If evidence appears that exonerates the student after the student has attended the educational workshop, the faculty member may reverse the penalty that was imposed. The student will, however, remain ineligible for Accepting Responsibility in the future.
10. A student who receives an Accepting Responsibility offer in a course may not drop or change the grading option in that course without the consent of the instructor unless the student has subsequently been cleared of the charges. If the student is taking the course S/U, the instructor may offer the student the choice to change the grading option to LET after informing the student of the process for computing the student’s final grade under both options.

F. College Academic Integrity Hearing Boards

1. Composition.

Each college and school in the University, including the School of Continuing Education and Summer Sessions but excluding the Graduate School, shall establish its own Academic Integrity Hearing Board. (The Graduate School shall establish an Academic Integrity and Grievance Board according to the Code of Legislation of the Graduate Faculty.) A model Hearing Board consists of the following:

1. A chairperson who is a member of the faculty and, preferably, an experienced Board member, appointed by the dean of the college for a two-year term.
2. Three or more faculty members elected for three-year terms by the faculty of the college, except that in the case of the School of Continuing Education and Summer Sessions, the faculty members shall be appointed by the dean. When a college or school has a graduate program, at least one-third of the Hearing Board faculty members must be members of the graduate faculty.
3. Three or more students elected by the student body of the college or appointed by the dean of the college for at least one year, and preferably two-year terms. When possible, student terms should be staggered.
4. A nonvoting record-keeper responsible for keeping clear and complete records of the proceedings.
5. Jurisdiction
6. a. The student may seek review of the decision of the primary hearing if:
7. They believe the procedure was improper or unfair.
8. They contest the finding of the faculty member.

iii. They believe the penalty was too strict considering the offense.

1. After holding a primary hearing, the faculty member may bring the case to the Hearing Board if they believe a failing grade is too lenient considering the offense.
2. A student found guilty of more than one violation of the Code, or of a violation after having completed the Accepting Responsibility process, may be summoned before the college Hearing Board by the dean of their college. The Hearing Board may impose an additional penalty for such repeated offenses.
3. The dean of a student’s college who receives a report that a student has committed a violation of academic integrity while attending another academic institution or while enrolled in a Cornell-sponsored off-campus program may, if they feel the situation warrants, summon the student to appear before the College Hearing Board. The Hearing Board may impose any penalty, including an additional penalty, it feels appropriate for the violation involved.
4. The Academic Integrity Hearing Board shall hear all cases that come before it de novo. While the Hearing Board may recommend an increase in any penalty imposed at the primary hearing, it should consider raising the penalty, if it is the student seeking review, only in the exceptional case.
5. The individual seeking review shall notify the chairperson of the Hearing Board of the faculty member’s college within ten working days of the primary hearing. An exception to this deadline may be granted at the discretion of the chairperson of the Hearing Board on a showing of good cause.
6. Procedures
7. Each Board shall conform to procedures established by the Faculty Senate. Any college or school wishing to adopt a Board or procedures varying from this model must receive prior approval from the Dean of the Faculty.
8. The Academic Integrity Hearing Board shall convene as soon as practical after notification of a request for review, although seven days notice should be given to all parties if possible. If a grade for the student in the course must be submitted before a case can be decided, the faculty member shall record a grade of incomplete, pending a decision by the Hearing Board.
9. Those present at the hearing shall be:
10. The student, who has the right to be accompanied by an advisor and/or relevant witnesses.
11. The faculty member, who has the right to bring relevant witnesses.

iii. The third party independent witness, if a primary hearing was held.

1. Any other person called by the chairperson.
2. Should the student or faculty member fail to appear before the Hearing Board, the Board shall have full authority to proceed in their absence.
3. The Board members shall hear all available parties to the dispute and examine all the evidence presented. The Board may solicit outside advice at the discretion of the chairperson. The chairperson shall preside over the hearing to ensure that no party threatens, intimidates, or coerces any of the participants.
4. The student shall have the right to present their case and to challenge the charges or the evidence. The student’s advisor may assist the student in the presentation and questioning.
5. At least two-thirds of the voting Board members shall be present at every hearing, including two students and two faculty members. Both parties may agree in writing to waive this quorum. Of those present, a simple majority shall decide the issue. The chairperson shall vote only in the case of a tie vote. The Board shall find the student guilty only if there is clear and convincing evidence indicating that the student has violated this Code.
6. The chairperson shall notify each party to the dispute, in writing, of the Board’s decision and, if appropriate, the penalty imposed. If the judgment of the faculty member is affirmed by the Board, or if the Board decides a different penalty is warranted, the dean of the faculty member’s college and the dean of the student’s college shall also receive the report.
7. If the student’s college is different from the faculty member’s, the chairperson shall alter the composition of the Board hearing the case by substituting or adding one faculty member and one student from the Hearing Board of the student’s college.
8. If the student being charged is a graduate student, at least one-third of the Hearing Board student members at the hearing must represent a commensurate degree to the student being charged (e.g., a doctoral student for PhD students, a professional master’s student for MPS or similar students). If a college or school Hearing Board is unable to provide such representation, the Graduate School will assign commensurate student representatives to serve as ad hoc members of the Hearing Board for that hearing.
9. The Board may act in one or more of the following ways
10. Find the student innocent of the charge.
11. Find the student guilty of the charge and
12. Recommend to the faculty member that they reduce the penalty given.
13. Affirm the faculty member’s decision.

iii. Recommend that the faculty member record a failing grade for the course, or for some portion of it.

1. Recommend to the dean of the student’s college that the student be placed on probation (or the college’s equivalent).
2. Recommend to the dean of the student’s college that the student be suspended from the University for a period of time.
3. Recommend to the dean of the student’s college that the words “declared guilty of violation of the Code of Academic Integrity” be recorded on the student’s transcript. The Hearing Board may set a date after which the student may petition the Board to have these words deleted from the transcript.

vii. Recommend to the dean of the student’s college that the student be expelled from the University.

viii. Recommend to the dean of the student’s college any other suitable action, including counseling, community service, or reprimand.

1. The dean of the student’s college shall be notified of the decision of the college Hearing Board within 7 days. Unless an appeal is fled under the guidelines established below, the dean of the student’s college shall ensure that the decision of the Hearing Board is carried out and shall notify all parties of the implementation and the decision.
2. Review of Decision.

The student may appeal a decision of the Hearing Board. The appeal must be directed to the dean of the student’s college, in writing, and shall be constructed according to one or both of the guidelines established below. The appeal shall normally be submitted within 4 weeks of notification of the Board’s decision, but exceptions to this deadline may be granted by the dean on showing of good cause. If the Board’s decision involves students from more than one college, the deans involved shall consult with each other.

1. Appeal of a finding of guilt. A student who has received a finding of guilt from the Board, or whose finding of guilt in a Primary Hearing was upheld by the Board, may appeal on one or both of the following grounds:
2. Additional evidence which might have affected the outcome of the hearing became available following the hearing
3. A violation of procedure by the Hearing Board that might have prejudiced the outcome of the hearing.

The dean may deny the appeal or send the case back to the Hearing Board for reconsideration.

1. Appeal of a penalty. The student may appeal the findings of the Hearing Board regarding penalties. The appeal shall specify the reasons why the student believes the penalty is inappropriate. After consultation with the Hearing Board, the dean may take one of the following actions:
2. If a grade penalty has been exacted (II.D.4.b.i-iii), the dean may recommend to the faculty member that the grade penalty be reduced.
3. If another penalty has been exacted (II.D.4.b.iv-viii), the dean may modify or decline to carry out the recommended penalty.

In all but the most unusual circumstances, it is the expectation that the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Board will be upheld by the dean. The dean’s decision cannot be appealed.

6. Annual Reports.

Each college Academic Integrity Hearing Board shall submit a summary report of its proceedings (without identifying any particular student) to the Dean of the Faculty at the end of the academic year. The names of the members of the Board and any significant departures in procedure should be reported as well.

7. Honor Codes

The existing school honor codes as in the College of Veterinary Medicine and the Law School are not governed by the foregoing legislation, but current versions of these honor codes must be kept on file with the Office of the Dean of the Faculty. In the case of allegations against a student enrolled in a course subject to a school honor code but registered in another college, all actions beyond the primary hearing revert to the Hearing Board of the student’s college.

8. Graduate School

Graduate students are subject to the Code of Academic Integrity. The Graduate School maintains graduate-specific procedures that are governed by the Code of Legislation of the Graduate Faculty.

G. Central Academic Integrity Registry

1. Central Records

A central registry of Academic Integrity records shall be maintained by the university. These records shall include findings of violations through the Primary Hearing and Appeals process as well as completed Accepting Responsibility processes. Each record shall include information about the course, the charge, a summary of evidence, the decision of the faculty member, penalties, and the outcome of any appeal process.

2. Disclosure

The central registry shall disclose records (including Accepting Responsibility and Primary Hearings and Appeals) to Hearing Boards considering other charges in relation to the same event or student, and to deans or associate deans of colleges in furtherance of legitimate educational interests.

Beyond these stated situations, the central registry  and the college record keepers shall not disclose violations unless specifically directed by the student or as required by law.

If the student is found not in violation by the Hearing Board or Dean then all records of the case, including the report of the primary hearing, shall be expunged from the central registry, and all files or records held by the Colleges.

No, you do not have to offer Accepting Responsibility to a student, nor do you have to agree to it if a student requests it. You may choose to pursue a primary hearing if you believe that Accepting Responsibility is not an appropriate outcome for the violation.

No. You should offer Accepting Responsibility only when you have clear and convincing evidence that the student is guilty. You will have to document that evidence when you report the event.

To protect the student’s confidentiality, you won’t be told about prior violations. Instead, a few days after you report the event, you will be told that the student is proceeding with the primary hearing process. Unless the student divulges a prior violation to you, it will be indistinguishable whether they are proceeding with a primary hearing because of a prior violation, or because of some other reason such as wanting to prove their innocence.

The first instructor that reports the event will take precedence over other instructors. Other instructors will be told that the student is proceeding with the primary hearing process.

You will hold a primary hearing as usual.

Yes. Graduate and professional students will have dedicated workshops that focus on their future careers and/or research activities. These workshops are for Master’s and PhD students only.

The Code says that the penalty must be limited to the course work involved. For example, if the student cheated on a homework assignment, the penalty should be limited to just that assignment. A zero on the course work involved is the highest penalty you should assign. If you believe that is insufficient, then you should instead proceed with the Primary Hearing process.

The penalty and the workshop attendance are disincentives, albeit smaller disincentives than the maximum penalties available with the primary hearing process. Further, students have imperfect information about the future: whether you will offer the Accepting Responsibility process to them, or whether it would be more beneficial to cheat on a future assignment than the current assignment.

Students meet in a small group with a trained facilitator. They discuss values, situations, habits, and skills.

You will be notified. You should then initiate a primary hearing.

If the new evidence leads you to believe the student was not guilty, you should undo the grade penalty and contact your college’s AIHB recorder to update the student’s record. The student will remain ineligible for Accepting Responsibility in the future, because they already attended the workshop.

You may believe that a student may have violated the Code based on a variety of factors. You may have observed suspicious conduct, or TAs, colleagues, staff members, or other students may have told you about suspicious activities. You may even have received anonymous reports of suspected violations.

In order to determine whether a violation has occurred, you may hold an informal discussion with the student (but you do not have to). This informal discussion does not constitute a primary hearing. Even if a student admits the offense during an informal discussion, you cannot assign a penalty without holding a primary hearing.

A simple careless act may not be a violation of the Code. For example, if a student forgets to put in a footnote, you might penalize the student in the normal course of grading, but do not charge the student with a violation of the Code.

On the other hand, do not excuse a real violation simply because the student did not understand the rules: your course guidelines, the Code guidelines, plagiarism guidelines, and the like. Ignorance or lack of understanding is no excuse. Student should usually assume that any work that they submit for academic credit should be the product of their own effort. If you permit or encourage collaboration for assignments, make clear what degree of collaboration is permitted. If the students are unsure of how much, if any, collaboration is permitted, they should ask you or the TAs in the course.

If you believe that a student may have violated the Code, summon the student to a primary hearing—via a letter, memo, or email. Within the written message, describe the general nature of the charge; identify the hearing date, time, and location; explain that the student has the right to introduce witnesses and evidence; and explain that a Respondents’ Codes Counselor may be available to assist the student:

The Charge. Your letter should at least briefly explain the nature of the suspected offense. You need not provide all the detail and evidence that prompted you to hold a hearing, but provide enough information so that the student can prepare to respond to your charge—by preparing an explanation, marshalling relevant evidence, arranging for witnesses, and the like.

The date, time, and location. You must provide the student with at least seven days’ notice so that the student has sufficient time to prepare. It is reasonable to communicate beforehand with the student to work out a time that is convenient to both of you (and other attendees). After receiving the notice, the student should reply and either confirm the hearing time or request a change in schedule:

A student may waive the right to seven days’ notice and ask the instructor to conduct the hearing sooner. The instructor may agree do so.

A student who has an academic conflict that would prevent attending at the scheduled time should notify you and request a different date or time.

Since the primary hearing is designed to be informal, you may hold it in your office. If your office is unsuitable, any other room conducive to professional, but informal and private, conversation will suffice.

The right to introduce witnesses and evidence. Your summons should make clear that the student may introduce witnesses and any other evidence that may help to establish the student’s innocence.

The availability of procedural advice. The Respondents’ Codes Counselors (RCC), a law student employed by Cornell University who is familiar with the various University policies and procedures, is available to help members of the Cornell community.

If, without prior notice and good reason, a student does not appear for a primary hearing that you scheduled according to the guidelines above, you may proceed with the hearing, drawing whatever conclusions and making whatever decisions you think are appropriate concerning guilt and penalties, subject to Code limitations.

You, the student, and an independent witness attend the primary hearing. You and the student may bring other people, as mentioned below.

• Ask your department chair or the AIHB chair to appoint an independent witness: a faculty member or student who will observe the proceedings impartially and may take written notes (which may be substantive, procedural, or both). The independent witness should not be connected with the course in which the violation The Code states, “The function of the independent witness is to observe the proceedings impartially, and in the event of an appeal from the judgment of the faculty member, be prepared to testify as to the procedures followed” The independent witness is not involved in the questioning or deliberation but is only an observer, whose presence serves as a brake upon improper behavior by you or the student. If the student appeals your decision to the AIHB, the independent witness may have to testify as to what happened during the hearing.
• You may invite other individuals—e.g. students, TAs, or other members of the university community—who have information bearing on the case.
• The student may bring evidence, as well as witnesses who have information bearing on the case.
• The student may bring an advisor.

Usually, the student’s advisor will be a member of the university community (e.g. a RCC, a faculty member, or administrator), but the student may choose as an advisor a parent or an attorney.

• If a student’s advisor is a parent, you might ask the student the purpose of the parent’s presence; based on the answer, determine whether to permit the parent to attend.
• It would be highly unusual for a student to bring an attorney to a primary hearing, because the presence of attorneys may chill what is designed to be an informal discussion between members of the university community. If the student brings an attorney as an advisor, you may request the presence of an attorney from the Office of University Counsel and may adjourn the hearing in order to do so.
• If a parent or lawyer does attend, that person should not be speaking on behalf of the student or intervene or otherwise upset the proceedings. You control the hearing, and if you think that person is out of order, warn them; if they persist, you may ask them to leave the hearing.

The Code reads, “The student’s advisor may assist the student in the presentation and questioning.” Generally, the student should not expect the advisor to present the student’s defense. That role is always primarily the student’s.

Although a primary hearing is a serious investigative proceeding, it usually unfolds as an informal but focused conversation between you and the student, in the presence of the independent witness. The hearing is designed so that you can gather information and the student can respond to the charge. Your chief goals are to determine whether the student violated the Code and, if so, to determine the penalty to assign.

The typical procedure is as follows. You present the evidence to support your charge. This may include statements from witnesses of the alleged violation and any other evidence. You give the student the opportunity to respond to the evidence presented and present evidence to refute the charge. This evidence may include statements from witnesses who were at the scene of the alleged violation or any other evidence. Both you and the student may pose questions to witnesses.

Generally, you will communicate the finding (guilty or not guilty) and the penalty to the student at the close of the hearing and follow up with a written message summarizing in broad terms what transpired during the hearing, who attended, and what you decided.

Occasionally, you may want additional time to deliberate, to consult further, or to conduct primary hearings with other students who may be involved in the case. If you need more time, tell the student you will get back to the student soon, in writing. Then, make every effort to proceed expeditiously and communicate the decision to the student at the earliest opportunity.

Try to arrange to have all witnesses available during a hearing, so that they can present their accounts, the student or you can respond, and you can determine how much weight to assign to the witnesses’ accounts.

You are acting as an officer/agent of Cornell when investigating an academic integrity charge, so you have the authority to request that a student, staff, or faculty member appear as a witness at a hearing. However, the university does not have subpoena power, so attendance cannot be compelled. (Faculty and administrators have a duty to cooperate, and deans may use a more coercive form of persuasion.)

You might best proceed by inviting prospective witnesses to attend and explain why their presence is important. If they do not want to attend, use persuasion, rather than coercion, to seek compliance.

If you are unsuccessful in eliciting attendance, the second best option would be to obtain written statements from them. Because the Code does not specify that a student being charged has the right to confront witnesses who provide evidence, you and the student may introduce evidence from witnesses who are unable or unwilling to be present.

If witnesses decline, you may proceed in their absence and in the absence of their written statements. You may summarize what you learned from them.

If prospective witnesses request anonymity, try to persuade them to reveal their identity, in order to be most fair and forthcoming to the student being charged. You may consider an account from an anonymous witness only in extraordinary circumstances.

No matter how information from witnesses is presented during the primary hearing, the student should be given the opportunity to respond. Based on the witness information and the responses, you will exercise your own judgment determining how much weight to assign to the witness account.

Unless you are using the accepting responsibility process, do not allow the student to waive the right to a primary hearing. Instead, if the student is willing to admit guilt, let the student waive the right to a week’s notice for the hearing, bring in an independent witness, and hold a short primary hearing—and do not forget to notify the AIHB of the outcome.

Different activities may follow a primary hearing, depending on whether you find the student not guilty or guilty:

• If you find the student not guilty, notify the student in The case ends here. No records of the incident are kept.
• If you find the student guilty, notify the student of the finding and of the penalty that you assign. Although you may notify the student in person, you must also provide the student with a letter that documents your You must also share the letter with your college’s AIHB record keeper and AIHB chair.

[Note: The Code says to immediately report a violation to the record keeper of the faculty member’s AIHB. This should actually be the record keeper of the AIHB of the college that offers the course. A faculty member may be teaching a course for a different college.]

Your letter should contain a brief description of the charge, the hearing date, decision, penalty, and the names of everyone who attended the hearing. (If the student is enrolled in a college different from the one in which the violation took place, your college’s record keeper will send your letter to the record keeper of the student’s college.)

The AIHB Chair may choose to write a letter to the student. In some colleges at Cornell, this letter is routinely written to all students convicted of a violation.

The Code says that the student can appeal your decision to the AIHB of your college on three grounds:

• The student believes the procedure was improper or unfair and that the procedural violations may have influenced the outcome of the case.
• The student contests your finding of
• The student believes the penalty that you imposed was too strict considering the

If the student appeals and you have to submit a final grade before the appeal process is complete, submit a grade of INC (Incomplete). After the student’s appeals are exhausted, change the INC to a regular letter grade.

No. An appeal to the AIHB is the one way in which a student can claim a kind of freedom from the direct authority that you hold in the primary hearing and in the course, and the student’s freedom to appeal must be protected.

Upon hearing about the offer of such incentives, the AIHB—or anyone else—might ask your dean to investigate and change the grade if the dean found your action improper.

Seriously consider a student’s request to schedule (or reschedule) a hearing so that a RCC can attend, but you are not bound to grant it. Students should be advised that the RCC is a resource but not guaranteed to be available for any particular hearing. In considering the request, consider the availability of all parties and witnesses. AIHB proceedings are not limited by the RCC’s schedule.

The student may, of course, bring another advisor to the hearing if the RCC is not available.

You have several options in this situation. Keep in mind that it is best to settle the case as soon as possible but that you have to be fair to the student:

• Check whether the student is willing to waive the one-week notice; if the student agrees, schedule and hold the primary hearing.
• Provide the student with a one-week notice and conduct a primary hearing on the scheduled (You may schedule a hearing for the study period or during finals week. You may even need ask the student to stay longer than planned or to return to campus after departing.)
• Schedule the hearing as soon as possible after the student will return for the subsequent semester, g. during the registration period before classes begin or during the first few days of the semester.

If you or the student will not be back at Cornell during the ensuing semester—e.g. because you are leaving or because the student will be on required or voluntary leave, studying abroad, participating in an internship, or graduating—do your best to conduct the hearing before the end of the semester. Contact the AIHB chair for advice.

If you need to submit a course grade before the primary hearing, submit an INC (incomplete) grade. Change the INC to a regular letter grade after the academic integrity proceedings conclude.

The Code is silent with respect to cases in which you charge more than one student with an academic integrity violation.

You should investigate each student’s involvement individually before making any decisions about using the accepting responsibility process. For example, you can email the students (or call them to your office) to ask who contributed which parts of an assignment, or to ask whether they are already aware of any violations. You can then charge students appropriately.

If the only conclusion you can reach from your investigation is that someone in the group is guilty — but you don’t know who — then you should proceed with primary hearings for all group members. Use the hearings to continue the investigation and uncover whatever clear and convincing evidence you can.

In the end, you should offer accepting responsibility to a student only if you have clear and convincing evidence that student themself has committed a violation, which could include knowingly allowing another student to commit a violation.

If no coherent narrative emerges that establishes which group members are at fault, you should be cautious about using the accepting responsibility process. It would not be clear what responsibility is actually being accepted. Proceeding with the primary hearing process is the better choice.

When holding primary hearings, exercise your best judgment in determining whether to conduct separate hearings or a joint hearing. You may feel that by questioning all the charged students during one hearing, you can best determine who did what, when, why, and how. On the other hand, holding separate hearings, perhaps back to back, might give you a better chance to find inconsistencies in the students’ statements.

If a student objects to a joint hearing and demonstrates that a joint hearing would be unfair, cause prejudice, or harm the student’s privacy, schedule separate hearings. Generally, err on the side of caution and grant a request for a separate hearing unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.

In a primary hearing with more than one student charged with a violation present, consider individually the guilt or innocence of each student, as well as penalties.

If you must submit a grade for student who has been charged with an academic integrity violation, submit the grade INC (incomplete) unless one of the following applies:

1. all hearings and appeals have been completed, or
2. the time for all appeals has passed, or
3. the student has given written notice that an appeal will not be

If you submitted a grade INC, as soon as one of the above three points is satisfied, change the grade.

If you believe that a student who is not currently enrolled in your course may have been party to a Code violation involving your course, consider either of the following options:

(1) conduct a primary hearing (as you would for a student enrolled in your course) or (2) ask your college’s AIHB chair to hold a board hearing.

• If you hold a primary hearing and find the student guilty, you cannot assign a penalty because only grade-related penalties are available to You have two options:

• • Impose no penalty but notify your college’s AIHB record keeper that the student has been found guilty of a All findings of guilt must be sent to the AIHB record keeper.
  • Refer the case to the AIHB so that they can determine a suitable The procedures for this option would be identical to those described for any hearing.
• If you ask your college’s AIHB Chair to summon the student to a board meeting, then the AIHB will hear the case de novo, as they do in all board hearings.

The Code reads, “A student charged with violating the Code of Academic Integrity in a course may not drop that course without the consent of the instructor unless the student has subsequently been cleared of the charges.”

If such a student drops your course without your permission, contact the registrar of the student’s college and request that the student be manually re-enrolled. Ask the AIHB Chair of your college for help, if necessary.

If a student legitimately drops your course and, afterward, you discover evidence that the student may have violated the Code, summon the student to a hearing as you would for students who remain enrolled in your course.

• If, after the hearing, you find the student not guilty, no records are kept, and no penalties ensue.
• If you find the student guilty and want to assign a grade-related penalty, you may need to contact the registrar of the student’s college and arrange for the student to be re-enrolled in your course. However, this may not be fair to the student, for so much time may have elapsed between the student’s dropping the course and the primary hearing that the student cannot catch up with the material in the
• If you find the student guilty and want to assign a non-grade-related penalty, contact the AIHB, as usual.

Once a student has been found guilty of an academic integrity violation, the finding of guilt can be overturned only by the AIHB. If a student contacts you with additional evidence that might persuade you to overturn your earlier finding of guilty, choose one of these alternatives:

• Decline to meet with the student and encourage the student to appeal to the AIHB with the additional evidence.
• Convene a follow-up primary hearing to consider the new

If you are not persuaded by the new evidence, you may still encourage the student to appeal to the AIHB. If you are persuaded that the guilty finding should be overturned, forward the matter for review and approval by the AIHB, with a statement setting forth why the board should overturn the earlier finding.

An undergraduate or graduate student who is supporting you in a course, or a graduate student fully responsible for teaching a course, is responsible for maintaining university guidelines for academic integrity and must uphold community values concerning academic integrity.

An undergraduate or graduate student who is supporting you in a course should notify you of any suspected misbehavior among students. You, not the TA, are responsible for investigating and determining whether to bring charges.

A graduate student who is responsible for teaching a course should pursue possible academic integrity violations just as you would. The student should consult with more experienced instructors or the AIHB chair.

Students supporting you in your course are expected to maintain academic integrity as they carry out their own academic pursuits. They are accountable for violations they commit in connection with the course. For example, if a TA provides students with inappropriate assistance, the TA may be brought up on academic integrity charges.

You could educate your TAs as to their responsibilities with regard to academic integrity:

• TAs could remind students of relevant academic integrity guidelines and address areas that may be ambiguous, e.g. which assignments are collaborative or individual, and when and to what degree students may assist one another.
• TAs could help you prevent violations by identifying places where students may be confused about academic integrity guidelines or places where students may be inclined to take undue shortcuts.
• TAs should inform you when the see behavior that may violate academic.

If someone proctoring an exam sees behavior that suggests that students may be violating the Code, exercise discretion. Try to avoid publicly calling attention to the students. However, you may make a public announcement to the entire class reminding them to keep their eyes on their own papers and shield their papers from nearby classmates.

The exam proctors should be told ahead of time to bring to your attention unusual and suspicious behavior. You and the proctors could use these approaches during the exam when you see suspicious behavior:

• Bring the behavior to the attention of other proctors and ask them to watch carefully to verify what the original proctor saw.
• Write down, as soon as possible, the unusual and suspicious
• Discretely ask the student for notes or other inappropriate aids that the student was using.
• Speak to the student (in private or in a whisper) and arrange for the student to change seats: to a spot where the student would not have easy access to the exams of any other students.
• When the exams are handed in, set aside those of the students that may be violating the Code for later examination.

The Code says that your instructor has the right to hold the primary hearing in your absence if you fail to attend without a compelling excuse.

If your chosen RCC can’t attend the primary hearing, feel free to ask your instructor to reschedule the hearing. However, as a resource, the RCC is not guaranteed to be available for any particular hearing. In considering your request, Your instructor has to consider the availability of all parties and witnesses as well as the timeliness of the hearing. And it may not be possible for your instructor to grant your request.

The Code of Academic Integrity is silent on this issue. Your instructor might want all suspected students in a single hearing because a general discussion by all parties may provide the best chance of uncovering the truth. However, you can certainly ask to hold a primary hearing for you alone, explaining your reasons. Your instructor may or may not agree.

If you are charged with an academic violation, then you may not drop the course without the professor’s consent. The Code says, “A student charged with violating the Code of Academic Integrity in a course may not drop that course without the consent of the instructor unless the student has subsequently been cleared of the charges.”

You cannot change the grading option for the course while academic integrity matters are pending. For example, if you are registered for a letter grade that cannot be changed to S/U until after the matter is completely resolved.

If you do drop the course or change the grading option, those changes will be reversed until the academic integrity process is completed.