UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH POLICY 02-03-02
CATEGORY: ACADEMIC AFFAIRS
SECTION: Academic Integrity
SUBJECT: Guidelines on Academic Integrity – Student
and Faculty Obligations and Hearing Procedures
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 2005 Revised
PAGE(S): 19
Academic Integrity
This document contains a set of principles which shall be applicable
to each of the academic units* throughout the University. A student
desiring information about an academic unit's specific procedures and
the makeup of its Academic Integrity Hearing Board may obtain a copy
of the procedures and other necessary information from the Office of
the Dean, either in the academic unit in which he or she is registered
or in the academic unit in which a particular course is taught.
Additional information or guidance may be obtained from the Office of
the Provost. Copies of this document and guidelines for academic
units should be distributed by the deans to all instructional staff in
each academic unit.
*“Academic unit” is used to refer to a college, academic unit, or
regional campus.
Preface
Provided here are Academic Integrity Policy Guidelines based on the
1983-86 document which was initially approved by the Board of Trustees
on the recommendation of the University Senate Council. The original
document evolved from and represented careful deliberation among
staff, Senate committees, and student leaders of the University. The
purpose of this document is to clarify and codify the rights and
responsibilities that are inherent in traditional faculty-student
relationships and to reflect procedural modifications that were
approved, effective January 1, 1989, by the Chancellor.
In following the Guidelines, the faculty members of each academic unit
of the University are expected to adapt them to the circumstances of
their own academic unit.
The Guidelines are designed to assure due process, equity, and prompt
and objective review by third parties, with appropriate appeals
procedures. There is a general intent to maintain confidentiality, to
avoid unnecessary formality, and to resolve issues at the lowest
possible level.
Faculty have a particular interest and responsibility in assuring that
the Guidelines are adhered to, by virtue of their profession and their
role as academic officials of the University. Any failure to follow
these Guidelines would be harmful to the whole University community.
All members of the University community have access to advice and
interpretation regarding these Guidelines. Students may consult with
the Campus Judicial Coordinator, faculty may consult with their dean
or academic unit hearing officer, and any individual may ask for any
other guidance they need from the Office of the Provost.
In general, we seek to preserve the traditional freedoms and duties
associated with academic endeavors. The University should work to
preserve the rights and responsibilities of faculty and students in
their relationships with one another. Just as faculty and students
must be free to seek truth and to search for knowledge with open
minds, they must also accept the responsibility that these activities
entail, maintaining the highest standards of integrity, mutual
respect, and honest inquiry.
Historical Background
In March 1965, the Senate Council approved a policy statement on the
subject of academic integrity. It was there declared, in language
that is as true and vital today as then, that:
The University of Pittsburgh seeks excellence in the discovery
and dissemination of knowledge. Excellence in scholarship cannot
be achieved in situations which are contaminated by dishonest
practices. All members of the University community are obligated
to adhere strictly to the highest standards of integrity in
study, research, instruction, and evaluation.
It is presumed that those who instruct and administer observe
such standards of integrity. Administrators and senior faculty
members are presumed further to encourage these standards among
their junior colleagues. Students are presumed to accept the
concept of academic integrity and to seek to live by it but they
may need continuing clarification of the concept and guidance in
its observance. Particularly, students need the assurance that
those who work honestly will not suffer thereby in comparisons
with the dishonest. Those who cannot or will not adopt the
concept and practices of academic honesty do not belong within
the University.
These principles are reaffirmed.
In February 1974, the Senate Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom
reported to the Senate Council, recommending a general statement on
academic integrity as follows:
The integrity of the academic process requires fair and impartial
evaluation on the part of faculty, and honest academic conduct on
the part of students. To this end, students are expected to
conduct themselves at a high level of responsibility in the
fulfillment of the course of their study. It is the
corresponding responsibility of faculty to make clear to students
those standards by which students will be evaluated, and the
resources permissible for use by students during the course of
their study and evaluation. The educational process is perceived
as a joint faculty-student enterprise which will perforce involve
professional judgment by faculty and may involve--without penalty-
-reasoned exception by students to the data or views offered by
faculty.
Consistent with these considerations (and without limiting their
scope and application in their entirety to the academic programs
of the University), faculty and students are directed to observe
the following guidelines:
1. Faculty should meet and students should attend their classes
when scheduled, faculty should be available at reasonable
times for appointments with students, and both parties
should keep such appointments, faculty and students should
make appropriate preparations for classes and other
meetings, students should submit their assignments in a
timely manner, and faculty should perform their grading
duties in a timely manner.
2. The general content of a course or other academic program
should be described with reasonable accuracy in catalogues
or other written documents available to students. The
content, objectives of, and standards for evaluation
(including the importance to be assigned various factors in
academic evaluation) in a course should be described by the
faculty member at the first or second class meeting,
preferably in a written hand-out.
3. Integrity of the academic process requires that credit be
given where credit is due. Accordingly, it is unethical to
present as one's own work the ideas, representations, or
words of another, or to permit another to present one's own
work without customary and proper acknowledgement of
sources. The limits of permissible assistance available to
students during a course or an academic evaluation should be
determined by the faculty member and described with
reasonable particularity at the first or second class
meeting, or well in advance of an evaluation, so as to allow
for adequate student preparation within the permissible
limits.
4. All academic evaluations should be based upon good-faith
professional judgment, in accordance with applicable
standards; factors such as race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, political affiliation, and activities
outside the classroom that are unrelated may not be
considered in matters of academic evaluation, academic
assignments, or classroom procedures, nor shall reasoned
views expressed by students during the course adversely
prejudice any students.
5. University records, which shall contain only information
reasonably related to educational purposes, shall be
considered a matter of privacy not to be released except
with student consent, or as may be permitted by law;
provided, that any student shall be permitted to review his
or her own personal record, except for its confidential
contents (such as the recorded comments of counseling
personnel).
6. The faculty of each academic unit shall establish rules
implementing these principles, and procedures pertaining to
the investigation and redress of grievances.
The above Guidelines cannot be fulfilled in the University of
Pittsburgh as a whole unless they are fulfilled in each and every
academic unit. University-wide Guidelines of implementation as
outlined above are accordingly appropriate as an expression of a
common understanding and dedication. These principles are presented
in some detail in the two model codes of this statement, which deal
with student and faculty responsibilities, respectively. Each
academic unit is required to adopt regulations conforming to these
documents. The development of exact procedures remains sufficiently
flexible to provide proper discretion on the part of the individual
faculty; however, such procedures must be designed to assure fair and
orderly review of particular cases and should adhere closely to the
language of the attached codes.
The dean of each academic unit will be responsible for furnishing to
the Provost the regulations and procedures adopted by the faculty and
any amendments. The codes of each academic unit will be reviewed to
ensure reasonable conformity with the principles and procedures of the
attached model codes. The dean shall also assure that all full-time
and part-time students and faculty are informed about the existence
and availability of the applicable regulations and procedures.
In cases that involve a student registered in one academic unit, but
in which the faculty member involved holds his or her appointment in
another academic unit, the jurisdiction shall be held by the academic
unit which offered the course (usually the academic unit in which the
faculty member is appointed). Remedial action benefiting the student
must be approved by the dean of the academic unit in which the course
is offered. However, in offenses involving academic integrity, only
the dean of the academic unit in which the student is matriculated can
suspend or dismiss the student from the University. In cases that
cross academic unit boundaries, consultation between the appropriate
administrative officers may be appropriate.
Academic Integrity:
Student Obligations
I. Student Obligations
A student has an obligation to exhibit honesty and to respect the
ethical standards of the profession in carrying out his or her
academic assignments. Without limiting the application of this
principle, a student may be found to have violated this
obligation if he or she:1
1. Refers during an academic evaluation to materials or
sources, or employs devices, not authorized by the faculty
member.
2. Provides assistance during an academic evaluation to another
person in a manner not authorized by the faculty member.
3. Receives assistance during an academic evaluation from
another person in a manner not authorized by the faculty
member.
4. Engages in unauthorized possession, buying, selling,
obtaining, or use of a copy of any materials intended to be
used as an instrument of academic evaluation in advance of
its administration.
5. Acts as a substitute for another person in any academic
evaluation process.
6. Utilizes a substitute in any academic evaluation proceeding.
7. Practices any form of deceit in an academic evaluation
proceeding.
8. Depends on the aid of others in a manner expressly
prohibited by the faculty member, in the research,
preparation, creation, writing, performing, or publication
of work to be submitted for academic credit or evaluation.
9. Provides aid to another person, knowing such aid is
expressly prohibited by the faculty member, in the research,
preparation, creation, writing, performing, or publication
of work to be submitted for academic credit or evaluation.
10. Presents as one's own, for academic evaluation, the ideas,
representations, or words of another person or persons
without customary and proper acknowledgment of sources.
11. Submits the work of another person in a manner which
represents the work to be one's own.
12. Knowingly permits one's work to be submitted by another
person without the faculty member's authorization.
13. Attempts to influence or change one's academic evaluation or
record for reasons other than achievement or merit.
14. Indulges, during a class (or examination) session in which
one is a student, in conduct which is so disruptive as to
infringe upon the rights of the faculty member or fellow
students.
15. Fails to cooperate, if called upon, in the investigation or
disposition of any allegation of dishonesty pertaining to a
fellow student.
16. Violates the canons of ethics of [here refer to relevant
discipline or disciplines].
II. Procedures for Adjudication
No student should be subject to an adverse finding that he or she
committed an offense related to academic integrity, and no
sanction should be imposed relating thereto, except in accordance
with procedures appropriate for disposition of the particular
matter involved. The degree of formality of proceedings, the
identity of the decision maker or decision makers, and other
related aspects properly reflect such considerations as the
severity of the potential sanction, its probable impact upon the
student, and the extent to which matters of professional judgment
are essential in arriving at an informed decision. In all cases,
however, the objective is to provide fairness to the student as
well as an orderly means for arriving at a decision, starting
first with the individual faculty member and then designated
administrative officers or bodies.
These Guidelines are not meant to address differences of opinion
over grades issued by faculty in exercising good faith
professional judgments of student work. They are meant to
address matters in which a faculty member deals with a student
regarding an alleged breach of academic integrity. In matters of
academic integrity, the succeeding procedural steps must be
followed:
1. Any member of the University community may bring to the
attention of the faculty member a complaint that a student
has failed, in one or more respects, to meet faithfully the
obligations specified in the above Section I.2 Acting on
his or her own evidence, and/or on the basis of evidence
submitted to the faculty member, the faculty member will
advise the student that he or she has reason to believe that
the student has committed an offense related to academic
integrity, and the student will be afforded an opportunity
to respond. If the accused student and the faculty member
accept a specific resolution offered by either of them, the
matter shall be considered closed if both parties sign a
written agreement to that effect and submit it to the Office
of the Dean. The Office of the Dean will maintain a written
record of the argument, signed by the student and the
faculty member. These records are not to be added to the
student's individual file, and they are to be destroyed when
the student graduates or otherwise terminates registration.
The Office of the Dean may provide such information on an
individual student for the following uses:
a. to a faculty member who is involved with a student
integrity violation at the initial stage and who wishes
to use this previous record in determining whether a
resolution between the faculty member and the student
or an academic integrity board hearing may be most
appropriate, especially in the case of repeat
offenders; and
b. to the Academic Integrity Hearing Board of an academic
unit after a decision of guilt or innocence has been
made in a case, but before a sanction has been
recommended.
2. If an agreed-upon resolution between the faculty member and
the student cannot be reached, the faculty member will file
a written statement of charges with the appropriate
administrative officer. Such statement should set forth the
alleged offenses which are the basis of the charges,
including a factual narrative of events and the dates and
times of occurrences. The statement should also include the
names of persons having personal knowledge of circumstances
or events, the general nature and description of all
evidence, and the signature of the charging party. If this
occurs at the end of a term, and/or the last term of
enrollment, the "G" grade should be issued for the course
until the matter is decided. In situations involving the
student’s last term before graduation, degree certifications
can be withheld pending the outcome of the hearing, which
should be expedited as quickly as possible.
3. The dean’s designated academic integrity hearing officer
will transmit the written statement of charges to the
student, together with a copy of these regulations.
4. The letter of transmittal to the student, a copy of which
shall also be sent to the faculty member or charging party,
will state a time and place when a hearing on the charges
will be held by the Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing
Board.
5. In proceedings before the academic unit’s Academic Integrity
Hearing Board, the student shall have the right:
a. to be considered innocent until found guilty by clear
and convincing evidence of a violation of the student
obligations of academic integrity;
b. to have a fair disposition of all matters as promptly
as possible under the circumstances;
c. to elect to have a private or public hearing;
d. to be informed of the general nature of the evidence to
be presented;
e. to confront and question all parties and witnesses
except when extraordinary circumstances make this
impossible;
f. to present a factual defense through witnesses,
personal testimony, and other relevant evidence;
g. to decline to testify against himself or herself;
h. to have only relevant evidence considered by the
Academic Integrity Hearing Board;
i. to have a record of the hearing (audio tape), at his or
her own expense, upon request.
6. The hearing should provide a fair inquiry into the truth or
falsity of the charges, with the charged party and the
faculty member or charging party afforded the right to cross-
examine all adverse witnesses. At the level of the academic
unit’s Academic Integrity Hearing Board, legal counsel shall
not be permitted, but a non-attorney/law student
representative from within the University community shall be
permitted for both faculty and students. A law student
cannot be used as a representative at the Academic Integrity
Hearing Board.
7. Any member of the University community may, upon showing
relevancy and necessity, request witnesses to appear at the
hearing. Witnesses who are members of the University
community shall be required to appear, and other witnesses
shall be requested to appear, at a hearing. When
necessitated by fairness or extraordinary circumstances, the
Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board may make
arrangements for recorded or written testimony for use in a
proceeding.
8. HEARING PROCEDURE: The hearing will be conducted as
follows:
a. the Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board will
not apply technical exclusionary rules of evidence
followed in judicial proceedings nor entertain
technical legal motions. Technical legal rules
pertaining to the wording of questions, hearsay, and
opinions will not be formally applied. Reasonable
rules of relevancy will guide the Chair of the Academic
Integrity Hearing Board in ruling on the admissibility
of evidence. Reasonable limits may be imposed on the
number of factual witnesses and the amount of
cumulative evidence that may be introduced;
b. the alleged offense or offenses upon which the
complaint is based shall be read by the Chair of the
Academic Integrity Hearing Board;
c. objections to procedure shall be entered on the record,
and the Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board
shall make any necessary rulings regarding the validity
of such objections;
d. the charging party shall state his or her case and
shall offer evidence in support thereof;
e. the accused or representative(s) for the accused shall
have the opportunity to question the charging party;
f. the charging party shall be given the opportunity to
call witnesses;
g. the accused or representative(s) for the accused shall
be given the opportunity to question each witness of
the charging party after he or she testifies;
h. the charging party shall inform the Chair of the
Academic Integrity Hearing Board when his or her
presentation is completed, at which time the Academic
Integrity Hearing Board members shall be given an
opportunity to ask questions of the persons
participating in the hearing;
i. the Academic Integrity Hearing Board shall recess, and
the Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board shall
make a determination as to whether the charging party
has presented sufficient evidence to support a finding
against the accused, if such evidence is
uncontroverted. The parties may be required to remain
in the hearing room during the recess or may be excused
for a time period set by the Chair of the Academic
Integrity Hearing Board;
j. depending upon the determination of the Chair of the
Academic Integrity Hearing Board, the matter shall be
dismissed or the accused shall be called upon to
present his or her case and offer evidence in support
thereof;
k. the accused may testify or not as he or she chooses;
l. the charging party shall have the opportunity to
question the accused if the accused voluntarily chooses
to testify;
m. the accused or representative(s) for the accused shall
have the opportunity to call witnesses;
n. the charging party shall have the opportunity to
question each witness of the accused after he or she
testifies;
o. the accused shall inform the Chair of the Academic
Integrity Hearing Board when his or her presentation is
complete, and the Academic Integrity Hearing Board
members shall have an opportunity to ask questions of
the accused as well as the accused’s witnesses;
p. the Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board shall
have an opportunity to address the hearing board on
University regulations or procedure in the presence of
all parties, but shall not offer other comments without
the consent of all parties; and,
q. the hearing shall be continued and the members of the
Hearing Board shall deliberate in private until a
decision is reached and recorded.
9. A suitable record (audio recording) shall be made of the
proceedings, exclusive of deliberations to arrive at a
decision.
10. The proposed decision, which shall be written, shall include
a determination of whether the charges have been proved by
clear and convincing evidence, together with findings with
respect to the material facts. If any charges are
established, the proposed decision shall state the
particular sanction or sanctions to be imposed. Prior
violations or informal resolutions of violations may be
considered only in recommending sanctions, not in
determining guilt or innocence. Once a determination of
guilt has been made, and before determining sanctions, the
Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board should find
out from the appropriate dean(s) whether prior offenses and
sanctions imposed have occurred.
11. The proposed decision shall be submitted to the dean, who
will make an independent review of the hearing proceedings.
The dean may require that the charges be dismissed, or that
the case be remanded for further proceedings whenever he or
she deems this to be necessary. Upon completion of such
additional proceedings, if any, and within a reasonable time
the dean shall issue a final decision. The dean may reject
any findings made by the Academic Integrity Hearing Board
adverse to the student, and may dismiss the charges or
reduce the severity of any sanction imposed, but the dean
may not make new findings adverse to the student or increase
the severity of a sanction, except in the case of repeat
offenders of the Academic Integrity Guidelines.
12. The Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board shall then
transmit to the charged party and the faculty member copies
of all actions taken by the Academic Integrity Hearing Board
and the dean. If a sanction is imposed, the notice to the
student will make reference to the student's opportunity, by
petition filed with the provost, to appeal to the University
Review Board.
III. Timeliness
It is the responsibility of all parties, including administrative
officers, to take prompt action in order that charges can be
resolved quickly and fairly. Failure of the faculty member to
utilize these procedures diligently may constitute grounds for
dismissal of charges. Parties have the right to seek review by
the Provost or to petition the University Review Board for an
appeal from a decision of an Academic Integrity Hearing Board or
investigatory committee within five (5) working days of the date
of the decision letter.
IV. Sanctions
The alternative sanctions which may be imposed upon a finding
that an offense related to academic integrity has been committed
are the following:
1. Dismissal from the University without expectation of
readmission.
2. Suspension from the University for a specific period of
time.
3. Reduction in grade, or assignment of a failing grade, in the
course in which the offending paper or examination was
submitted.
4. Reduction in grade, or assignment of a failing grade, on the
paper or examination in which the offense occurred.
Individual academic units can add other sanctions approved
by the dean of the academic unit and the Provost. Such
sanctions must be made known to students.
In administering sanctions, academic units must strive to achieve
consistency in their application. That is, within the same
units, the same sanctions should be applied for the same
offenses, unless extenuating circumstances can be documented,
e.g., the student is a repeat offender.
The imposition of such sanctions may be considered by the
academic unit in the preparation of any report concerning a
student submitted to a government agency, accrediting body, or
other person or institution in accordance with the requirements
of law or the written consent of the student.
V. Academic Integrity Hearing Board
The Academic Integrity Hearing Board shall be composed of both
faculty and students and consist of: [Here state the number of
persons on the board; the manner and criteria of selection; the
terms of service; the means for choosing individuals to serve in
particular cases, if a panel of the entire board is to have this
responsibility; and other related organizational matters.]
In electing or appointing members to the Academic Integrity
Hearing Board, emphasis should be placed on obtaining faculty
members with expertise and/or concerns related to academic
integrity matters. Regardless of the selection process, it is
the responsibility of the dean to provide all new Academic
Integrity Hearing Board members with an orientation designed to
familiarize the new members with the academic integrity guideline
for the given unit. Hearing Board members should be elected or
appointed in a way to ensure continuity of membership as well as
an orderly turnover of the membership.
VI. Review and Appeal
A student or faculty member may seek to have a dean’s final
decision (or a determination that the charges are not subject to
adjudication) reviewed by the Provost, who may seek the advice of
the University Review Board, or the student may appeal to the
University Review Board, whose recommendation shall be made to
the Provost.3 The action of the Provost, taken with or without
the advice of the University Review Board, shall constitute an
exhaustion of all required institutional remedies.4
Academic Integrity:
Faculty Obligations
I. Faculty Obligations
A faculty member accepts an obligation, in relation to his or her
students, to discharge his or her duties in a fair and
conscientious manner in accordance with the ethical standards
generally recognized within the academic community, (as well as
those of the profession).
Without limiting the application of the above principle, members
of the faculty are also expected (except in cases of illness or
other compelling circumstance) to conduct themselves in a
professional manner, including the following:
1. To meet their classes when scheduled.
2. To be available at reasonable times for appointments with
students, and to keep such appointments.
3. To make appropriate preparation for classes and other
meetings.
4. To perform their grading duties and other academic evaluations in
a timely manner.
5. To describe to students, within the period in which a student may
add and drop a course, orally, in writing, or by reference to printed
course descriptions, the general content and objectives of a course;
and announce the methods and standards of evaluation, including the
importance to be assigned various factors in academic evaluation and,
in advance of any evaluation, the permissible materials or references
allowed during evaluation.5
6. To base all academic evaluations upon good-faith
professional judgment.
7. Not to consider, in academic evaluation, such factors as
race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age,
national origin, and political or cultural affiliation, and
life style, activities, or behavior outside the classroom
unrelated to academic achievement.6
8. To respect the confidentiality of information regarding a
student contained in University records; and to refrain from
releasing such information, except in connection with intra-
University business, or with student consent, or as may be
permitted by law.7
9. Not to exploit his or her professional relationship with
students for private advantage; and to refrain from
soliciting the assistance of students for private purposes
in a manner which infringes upon such students' freedom of
choice.
10. To give appropriate recognition to contributions made by
students to research, publication, service, or other
activities.
11. To refrain from any activity which involves risk to the health
and safety of a student, except with the student's informed consent,
and, where applicable, in accordance with the University policy
relating to the use of human subjects in experimentation.
12. To respect the dignity of students individually and collectively
in the classroom and other academic contexts.8
II. Grievance Procedures
Any member of the University community having evidence may bring
to the attention of the department chair and/or dean a complaint
that a faculty member has failed, in one or more respects, to
meet faithfully the obligations set forth above. The chair or
dean, at his or her discretion, will take such action by way of
investigation, counseling, or action--in accordance with
applicable University procedures--as may appear to be proper
under the circumstances. The faculty member's and student's
interest in confidentiality, academic freedom, and professional
integrity in such matters will be respected.
III. Individual Grievances
In order to provide a means for students to seek and obtain
redress for grievances affecting themselves individually, the
following procedures should be followed. These are not intended
and shall not be used to provide sanctions against faculty
members.
IV. Procedures
Where an individual student alleges with particularity that the
actions of a faculty member have resulted in serious academic
injury to the student, the matter shall (if requested by the
student) be presented to the Academic Integrity Hearing Board for
adjudication. Serious academic injury includes, but is not
necessarily limited to, the awarding of a lower course grade than
that which the student has earned or suspension from a class.
However, this is not intended to address normal grading decisions
of faculty in exercising good-faith professional judgment in
evaluating a student’s work.
It is the responsibility of the student, before seeking to have a
grievance adjudicated, to attempt to resolve the matter by
personal conference with the faculty member concerned, and, if
such attempts are unavailing, to call the matter to the attention
of the (department chair, associate dean, etc., as appropriate)
for consideration and adjustment by informal means. If a matter
remains unresolved after such efforts have been made, the
following grievance procedures shall be employed:
1. The aggrieved student will file a written statement of charges
with the dean’s designated Academic Integrity Administrative Officer.
2. If the dean’s designated Academic Integrity Administrative
Officer determines that the charges are subject to adjudication under
the terms of the Academic Integrity Guidelines, he or she will
transmit the charges to the faculty member, together with a copy of
these regulations.
3. The letter of transmittal to the faculty member, a copy of
which shall also be sent to the student, will state the
composition of a committee that has been named to meet with
the involved parties to make an informal inquiry into the
charge. The purpose of this committee is to provide a last
effort at informal resolution of the matter between the
student and the faculty member.
4. The committee shall meet with the faculty member, the
student, and others as appropriate, to review the nature of
the problem in an attempt at reaching a settlement of the
differences. This is not a formal hearing, and formal
procedural rules do not apply. Upon completion of this
meeting, if no mutually agreeable resolution results, the
committee may produce its own recommendation for a solution
to the conflict.
5. Should the committee recommend that the faculty member take
some corrective action on behalf of the student, its
recommendations shall be provided to the faculty member. As
promptly as reasonable and at least within five (5) working
days after the faculty member receives the recommendations
of the committee, the faculty member shall privately take
that action which he or she elects, and so advise the
student and chair of the committee of that action.
6. Should the committee conclude that the faculty member need
not take corrective action on behalf of the student, this
finding shall be forwarded to both the faculty member and
the student.
7. If the student elects to pursue the matter further, either
because he or she is dissatisfied with the resulting action
of the faculty member or the conclusion of the committee, he
or she should discuss this intent with the chair of the
committee, who should review the procedures to be followed
with the student. If the student wishes to proceed with a
formal hearing, the chair of the committee shall advise the
Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board that the case
appears to involve a student's claim of serious academic
injury, and that the formal hearing procedure must be
initiated.
8. The formal hearing should provide a fair inquiry into the
truth or falsity of the charges, with the faculty member and
the student afforded the right to cross-examine. At the
level of the Academic Unit Academic Integrity Hearing Board,
legal counsel shall not be permitted, but a representative
from within the University community shall be permitted for
both faculty and students.
9. A suitable record (audio recording) shall be made of the
proceedings, exclusive of deliberations to arrive at a
decision.
10. The proposed decision, which shall be written, shall include
a determination of whether charges have been proved by clear
and convincing evidence, together with findings with respect
to the material facts. If any charges are established, the
proposed decision shall state the particular remedial action
to be taken.
11. The proposed decision shall be submitted to the dean, who
will make an independent review of the hearing proceedings.
The dean may require that the charges be dismissed, or that
the case be remanded for further proceedings whenever he or
she deems this to be necessary. The dean may limit the
scope of any further proceedings or require that part or all
of the original proceedings be reconvened. Upon completion
of such additional proceedings, if any, the dean shall issue
a final decision. The dean may reject any findings made by
the Academic Integrity Hearing Board, may dismiss the
charges, or may reduce the extent of the remedial action to
be taken. If the dean believes the remedial action to be
taken may infringe upon the exercise of academic freedom, he
or she will seek an advisory opinion from the Senate
Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom (TAF) before
issuing his or her own decision. The decision of the dean
shall be in writing, shall set forth with particularity any
new findings of fact or remedies, and shall include a
statement of the reasons underlying such action.
12. The dean shall then transmit to the faculty member and to
the student copies of all actions affecting them taken by
the hearing authority and the dean. Suitable records shall
be maintained as confidential and retained in the Office of
the Dean.
V. Remedial Action
Remedies on a student's behalf should usually be those agreed to
willingly by the faculty member. Other remedial action to
benefit a student may be authorized by the dean only upon
recommendation of the Academic Integrity Hearing Board and
limited to: allowing a student to repeat an examination;
allowing a student to be evaluated for work that would otherwise
be too late to be considered; directing that additional
opportunities be afforded for consultation or instruction;
eliminating a grade that had been assigned by a faculty member
from the transcript; changing of a failing letter or numerical
grade to a "pass" or "satisfactory" grade, so as not to adversely
affect a student's grade average; allowing a student to repeat a
course without penalty, schedule and program permitting.
If some action is contemplated that might be deemed to infringe
upon the academic freedom of the faculty member, the dean will
seek an advisory opinion from the Senate Committee on Tenure and
Academic Freedom (TAF). In such cases, TAF may identify other
acceptable remedies or render such advice as may be appropriate
in the particular situation.
No action detrimental to the faculty member will be taken, except
as in strict accordance with established University procedures.
An adjustment hereunder in the student's behalf shall not be
deemed a determination that the faculty member was in any way
negligent or derelict.
VI. Review and Appeal
A student or faculty member may seek to have a dean's final
decision (or a determination that the charges are not subject to
adjudication) reviewed by the Provost, who may seek the advice of
the University Review Board, or the student may appeal to the
University Review Board, whose recommendation shall be made to
the Provost. The action of the Provost, taken with or without
the advice of the University Review Board, shall constitute an
exhaustion of all required institutional remedies.
If any such determination may be deemed to have a possible
adverse effect upon the faculty member’s professional situation,
the faculty member may seek the assistance of the Tenure and
Academic Freedom Committee of the University Senate.
VII. Timeliness
It is the responsibility of all parties, including administrative
officers, to take prompt action in order that grievances may be
resolved quickly and fairly. While no explicit time limit could
apply to all cases, failure to use diligence in seeking redress
may constitute grounds for denial of a hearing or other relief,
especially if prejudice results. Parties have the right to seek
review of the Provost or to petition the University Review Board
for an appeal from a decision of an Academic Integrity Review
Board or investigatory committee within five (5) working days of
the date of the decision letter.
VIII.Investigatory Committees and Hearing Boards
The informal investigatory committees and the formal hearing
boards shall be composed of both students and faculty and shall
consist of [here state the number of persons on the board; the
manner of criteria of selection; the terms of service; the means
for choosing individuals to serve in particular cases, if a panel
of the entire board is to have this responsibility; and other
related organizational matters].
Grievance Procedures Against Senior Administrators
A student complaint of arbitrary or unfair treatment against the
principal officer of an academic unit (e.g., the dean) should be made
to the Provost or appropriate Senior Vice Chancellor. There must be a
prompt review and decision on the grievance. Members of the faculty
who may be called upon to review and advise on the grievance should be
drawn from outside the jurisdiction of the administrator against whom
the charge is made.
Footnotes
1 There may be instances where the charging party may more
appropriately invoke the University of Pittsburgh Student Code of
Conduct and Judicial Procedures. This may occur where the alleged
wrong mainly involves factual determinations and not academic issues.
2 If the faculty member elects not to pursue a complaint submitted by
a member of the University community, the complaint can be submitted
to an individual appointed by the dean who can pursue the matter in
place of the faculty member.
3 The University Review Board and its jurisdiction are described at
the end of this document.
4 In implementation, the decision of the Provost shall be binding also
on matters of interpretation of codes and procedures, determination of
serious injury, and determination that an allegation is subject to
adjudication by the procedures provided herein.
5 As each academic unit develops its code, it should recognize that
what is expected of faculty hereunder is intended to provide students
with a notion of what is required in the course, and how they will be
evaluated; a general statement of broadly defined parameters would
therefore suffice. If a course is deemed experimental in content,
evaluation techniques, or grading practices, the students should be so
advised. By academic evaluation is meant a measurement or grading of
a student's academic performance, such as in written or oral
examinations or papers, research reports, or class or laboratory
participation.
6 If the student charges such discrimination, the [designated
administrative officer] will consult with the unit affirmative action
officer to ensure compliance with civil rights legislation and
regulations. In such cases, the University Senate Tenure and Academic
Freedom Committee may be consulted at any time.
7 References or recommendations may be given in good faith by a
faculty member on his or her own behalf, without documentation of a
student's consent if it may be reasonably perceived that the student
initiated the request for a recommendation, in response to apparent
bona fide inquiries, such as those from institutions which state that
the student has applied for employment, for admission to graduate
academic unit, or for a professional license. See fuller statements
concerning University records in the "Student Code of Conduct and
Judicial Procedures."
8 Students are advised that other University policies may more
appropriately apply to a given grievance or avenue of redress,
including, but not necessarily limited to, the University of
Pittsburgh Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures.
UNIVERSITY REVIEW BOARD
The University Review Board (URB) is the duly authorized appellate
body which serves as an advisor to the Provost and Senior Vice
Chancellor and the Chancellor. (Regional Campuses may establish
similar appellate bodies which serve as an advisor to their President
and whose appellate jurisdiction shall be limited to non-academic
matters).
The URB may exercise appellate jurisdiction for academic and non-
academic matters and shall have sole appellate jurisdiction for
matters originating from judicial bodies within the University Student
Judicial System.
The URB shall also exercise limited jurisdiction for matters referred
directly from the Chancellor and the Provost, the Senior Vice
Chancellor for the Health Sciences, or the Vice Provost and Dean of
Students.
The University Review Board may meet from time to time for the purpose
of orienting new members and reviewing prior decisions and shall meet
at such other times as are necessary to conduct appellate hearings.
URB STRUCTURE
The URB shall be a standing body of fifteen members of the University
community appointed for staggered terms of two years. Appointment
shall be made in the following manner:
1. Five faculty members elected by the University Senate.
2. Five graduate and professional students appointed by the
Graduate and Professional Student Association.
3. Five undergraduate students:
a. two appointed by the General Studies Student Council;
and
b. three appointed by the Undergraduate Student Government
Board.
A matter properly submitted for review shall be heard by a Review
Board of five members of the URB. Review Boards shall be composed as
follows:
1. In academic cases, three faculty members and two students.
2. In non-academic cases, two faculty members and three
students.
URB MODERATOR
An attorney appointed by the Chancellor who shall serve as URB
Moderator is authorized to:
1. Conduct the administrative and procedural operations of the
URB.
2. Determine the appropriateness and completeness of Petitions
to the URB in consultation with one student and one faculty
member of the URB.
3. Provide advice and assistance to members of the University
community regarding the processing of an appeal.
4. Select members from the URB membership to serve on Review
Boards.
5. Moderate all proceedings before the URB.
6. Serve as legal advisor to the URB.
7. Provide legal advice related to URB proceedings and
recommendation, if requested, to the Chancellor or other
referring authority.
BASIS FOR APPEAL
The URB shall hear an appeal whenever requested by the Chancellor,
Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor, Senior Vice Chancellor for the
Health Sciences, or the Vice Provost and Dean of Students.
The URB shall also hear appeals on the petition of a faculty member,
student, or student organization when either petition, together with
supporting documentation, presents a substantial question within the
scope of review of the URB and either the prior adjudication or action
resulted in:
1. Suspension or dismissal from the University for violation of
the Student Code of Conduct.
2. Suspension or dismissal from the University or the
imposition of a serious academic sanction for violation of
academic integrity standards.
3. Grant or denial of a remedy in an academic grievance
proceeding.
4. Suspension or dismissal from the University residence halls.
5. Procedural rulings or substantive interpretations which have
an important continuing impact upon the University Student
Judicial System or the University community.
SCOPE OF REVIEW
The scope of review of the URB shall be limited to consideration of
the following questions:
1. Whether rights affirmed by the Board of Trustees have been
denied.
2. Whether the adjudicatory process of an initial hearing was
conducted fairly and in conformity with properly prescribed
procedures.
3. Whether the adjudication was supported by substantial
evidence.
4. Whether the regulations involved were lawful and proper and
whether they were properly applied in the particular case.
5. Whether the sanction or remedy imposed was in due proportion
to the gravity and nature of the conduct.
URB PROCEDURES
Any faculty member or student adversely affected by the decision of a
judicial body within the University Student Judicial System may
institute an appeal before the URB by filing a petition in the Office
of the URB Moderator.
A petition must set forth the following:
1. The name and address of the petitioner adversely affected by
the prior adjudication.
2. The name and address of the respondent.
3. The result of the prior adjudication.
4. One or more of the questions within the scope of review of
the URB.
5. A statement supporting, through factual narrative and
argument, the petitioner's position.
The Moderator, in consultation with one student and one faculty member
of the URB, shall review petitions and determine whether all
requirements set forth for the filing of an appeal are satisfied and
whether the petition sets forth the basis for an appeal and raises a
question within the scope of review.
Upon receipt of a properly filed petition, the Moderator shall notify
the parties that an appeal has been instituted. Notice shall include:
1. A copy of the petition.
2. A copy of the relevant regulations and procedures.
After determining the appropriateness and completeness of a petition
and allowing a reasonable amount of time for preparation and review of
any documents and recordings, the Moderator shall schedule an appeal.
All parties shall receive written notification of the time, date, and
place.
The Moderator shall convene a Review Board at the time, date, and
place scheduled, and the appeal shall be conducted under the
procedural guidance of the Moderator.
* The URB, at its discretion, may elect to decide an appeal based on
the submission of briefs by the parties without oral argument. In
such cases, the Moderator will provide written instruction to the
parties.
POSTPONEMENT OF SANCTION PENDING APPEALS
A sanction or remedy which has been recommended by a judicial board
and approved by the appropriate administrative officer may be
postponed upon petition by the affected party or parties upon a
determination that pending the final examination of an appeal it would
be unfair not to postpone imposition of the sanction or remedy.
Persons wishing to postpone a sanction or remedy may petition the URB
by separate petition setting forth reasons why the imposition of a
sanction or remedy would unfairly prejudice a party. Petition for
postponement shall be reviewed by the Moderator, one student, and one
faculty member of the URB. The criteria to be applied in determining
whether to postpone a sanction or remedy are as follows:
1. Whether the issues raised in the appeal may be resolved in
favor of the petitioning party.
2. Whether the petitioning party will be unfairly prejudiced
pending a final determination of the appeal by the immediate
imposition of the sanction or remedy.
3. Whether the responding party will be unfairly prejudiced by
the postponement of the sanction or remedy.
All decisions regarding the postponement of sanctions shall be made
within five (5) days of the receipt of such a petition and shall be
communicated to all parties in writing through the office of the
Moderator.
REPRESENTATION
A party may be represented or assisted by whomever he or she wishes,
but only one representative may take an active part.
ARGUMENT FORMAT
Each party in interest shall be given ample time to present his or her
position. In support of a position, a party may refer to any records,
documents, or recordings from a prior proceeding and may present an
oral or written argument.
Each party may question the other about his or her argument. Members
of the URB may question the parties.
The URB shall make factual findings and shall render a final
adjudication in the form of a written opinion. A majority shall
control all decisions, but there may be an accompanying minority
opinion.
URB ACTION
The URB may remand a matter to the initial adjudicatory authorities
for further proceedings if it determines there are insufficient
written findings or prejudicial procedural error. In other cases, the
URB shall render a written opinion and recommend action to the
Chancellor, Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor, Senior Vice Chancellor
for the Health Sciences, or the Vice Provost and Dean of Students,
accompanied by the complete record.
The Moderator shall be responsible for promptly communicating any
formal action of the URB to the parties, transmitting remanded cases
to the initial adjudicatory authorities, and forwarding the
recommendations to the Chancellor and his or her representatives.
ACTION BY THE CHANCELLOR OR OTHER REFERRING AUTHORITY
The Chancellor and/or his or her representatives shall consider the
opinions and recommendations of the URB, the record, and such other
advice as they may deem necessary and proper. He, she, or they may
remand the matter to the initial adjudicatory authority or to the URB
for further proceedings or may enter a final decision, accepting or
rejecting the recommendations in part or in their entirety. (A
sanction imposed by an initial adjudicatory authority may not be
increased.)
[Back Cover Text]
The University of Pittsburgh, as an educational institution and as an
employer, values equality of opportunity, human dignity, and
racial/ethnic and cultural diversity. Accordingly, the University
prohibits and will not engage in discrimination or harassment on the
basis or race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age,
marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, disability, or
status as a disabled veteran or a veteran of the Vietnam era.
Further, the University will continue to take affirmative steps to
support and advance these values consistent with the University’s
mission. This policy applies to admissions, employment, access to and
treatment in University programs and activities. This is a commitment
made by the University and is in accordance with federal, state,
and/or local laws and regulations.
For information on University equal opportunity and affirmative action
programs and complaint/grievance procedures, please contact: William
A. Savage, Assistant to the Chancellor and Director of Affirmative
Action (and Title IX and 504, ADA Coordinator), Office of Affirmative
Action, 901 William Pitt Union, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,
PA 15260. (412) 648-7860.