University of Pittsburgh | Calendar | Faculty Handbook | Index   


Office of the Provost


Home

Learning

Discovery

Teamwork

Engagement



Who We Are
Administration
Perspectives

Presentation


Presentation before the House Select Committee on Academic Freedom

William Pitt Union, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA

Provost James V. Maher

November 10, 2005


I. Student Academic Freedom

II. “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.”

III. Guidelines on Academic Integrity: Student and Faculty Obligations and Hearing Procedures

A. “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.”

IV. Brief Historical Background

A. 1965: Senate Council approved a policy statement on the subject of academic integrity

B. 1974: The Senate Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom

recommended to the Senate Council a general Statement on academic integrity

C. 1983-86: Original Academic Integrity Policy Guidelines approved

D. 1989: Procedural modifications to the Academic Integrity Policy Guidelines approved by the Chancellor

E. March 2005: Standard review conducted every three years by the Office of the Provost; Guidelines on Academic Integrity revised and reprinted

V. General Implementation

A. University-wide Guidelines issue Model Code Obligations for Students and Model Code Obligations for Faculty

B. Academic Units adopt the model codes

C. Academic Units distribute guidelines to the students

VI. Academic Integrity: Faculty Obligations

A. Section 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).

B. Section I. 7.: Members of the faculty are also expected . . . 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. (Emphasis added.)

VII. Academic Units: Specific Academic Integrity Guidelines

VIII. Complaint Process: Informal Resolution Procedures

A. Student Complaint

B. Conference with Faculty Member

C. Department Chair/Assistant Dean/Associate Dean

1. Issues Decision

D. Appeal (by Student) to Academic Integrity Officer

1. Review by Academic Integrity Board

2. May recommend Corrective Action

E. Student elects to pursue the matter further

1. Formal hearing and the chair of the informal committee reviews the procedures with the student

IX. Complaint Process: Formal Grievance Procedures

A. Formal Hearing before the Academic Integrity Hearing Board

B. Decision Issued by Dean after independent review of the proposed decision issued by the Academic Integrity Hearing Board including any remedial action proposed by the Board

C. Review and Appeal to Provost (by student or faculty member) and/or University Review Board (by student only). Actions taken by the Provost constitutes an exhaustion of all required institutional remedies.

X. University Review Board (URB)

A. Structure

1. Membership: standing body of 15 members of the University Community

a. 5 faculty members elected by the University Senate b. 5 graduate and professional students appointed by the Graduate and Professional Student Association

c. 5 undergraduate students

i. 2 appointed by the General Studies Student Council

ii. 3 appointed by the Undergraduate Student Government Board

2. Terms of appointment are for 2 years and are staggered

3. Composition of Review Boards for properly submitted academic appeals

a. 3 faculty members, and

b. 2 students

B. Role of the Moderator

1. Chancellor appoints a moderator from the Office of General Counsel

2. Duties

a. Conduct administrative and procedural operations;

b. Determine appropriateness and completeness of petitions in consultation with 1 student and 1 faculty member;

c. Advise and assist members of the University community regarding the process of an appeal;

d. Select members from the URB membership to serve on Review Boards;

e. Moderate all proceedings before the URB;

f. Serve as legal advisor to the URB; and

g. Provide legal advice related to URB proceedings and recommendation, if requested, to the Chancellor or other referring authority

C. Basis for Appeal

1. 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

2. When petitioned by a student “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: . . . 3. Grant or denial of a remedy in an academic grievance proceeding. . . .”

D. Scope of Review: limited to

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.”

E. Hearing

1. Parties may have representation but only one representative may take an active part in the hearing

2. Each party will have ample time to make their respective arguments

3. Each party may question the other and members of the URB may question the parties

4. The URB shall render a final adjudication in writing by a majority opinion and the Moderator is responsible for transmitting any formal action to the parties and forwarding the recommendations to the Chancellor and his representatives.

XI. Exhaustion of Institutional Remedies

A. Review by the Provost

B. “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.”




 University of Pittsburgh | About the Photos | Index | Top of Page | Contact Us | Home