Abington College Implementation
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Briefly, what is the University's process for holding a student accountable
for an act of academic dishonesty?
When an instructor suspects a student of an act of academic dishonesty, he or she is required to confront the student in private and to maintain confidentiality. Typically, this will mean a summons to the instructor's office at which time the student is to be presented with the accusation and the evidence of a violation. During the interview, the instructor should also indicate the nature of the sanction he or she intends to impose. University guidelines say that a student be allowed a "cooling off" period of three days during which the student may weigh the accusation and evidence and decide to accept the charge and the sanction, reject the charge and sanction, or accept the charge but reject the sanction as too severe. If the student accepts charge and sanction, instructor and student fill out and sign the appropriate parts of the form, which is then filed with the College Academic Integrity Committee and the College representative for Judicial Affairs and is recorded in a University database of violations.
If the student contests either the fact that an act of dishonesty has been committed or the severity of the sanction, the case goes to committee, as described in the accompanying document.
2. Must I pursue a sanction if I suspect or catch a student violating academic
honesty?
Upholding standards of academic integrity is one of the most important obligations of a Penn State faculty member. The ethical justifications for pursuing a sanction in the case of suspected dishonesty are by themselves compelling, but the University also has an interest in maintaining its reputation and the value of a Penn State degree. However, it is within the instructor's discretion to refrain from pursuing a sanction if he or she believes that, in a particular case, no moral or educational purpose can be served by holding a student formally accountable. Thus, an instructor may choose to pursue, instead, "an educational moment" with the offending student and warn him or her of the consequences of further misconduct. (N.B. An instructor may impose a warning as an official sanction and, despite no consequences to the student's grade, such a sanction would be recorded.) However, the sanction of a student for suspicion of dishonesty by lowering a grade without a formal accusation and record is a serious breach of policy.
3. What happens if I confront a student, allow for the mandatory cooling off period, and then he or she simply disappears?
This has occurred in several cases. After making a reasonable effort to get in touch with the student through email or "snail mail," you may simply impose the sanction. In such a case, where the student fails to accept responsibility for violating academic integrity, the student's signature would not be required, but a countersignature by the Chair of the Committee would suffice.
4. What happens to repeat offenders?
When a student compiles a record of three academic integrity violations, he or she automatically becomes liable for formal disciplinary action.
5. What is the difference between an academic sanction and a disciplinary
action?
An academic sanction is imposed by an instructor for an act of
academic dishonesty in conformity with the University's policy on academic integrity. A disciplinary action is taken by the Office of Judicial Affairs and may result in suspension, expulsion or have otherwise (for the student) unpleasant consequences. Disciplinary action may be taken with a student for reasons other than violations of academic integrity. If a student is recorded to have three academic sanctions, however, his or her file is reviewed by Judicial Affairs to determine if disciplinary action is appropriate. No faculty member may take disciplinary action in the form of academic sanctions without review and concurrence by Judicial Affairs.
6. What is the 'XF' grade and may I impose it?
The 'XF' grade is a formal disciplinary action taken by Judicial Affairs that appears on a student's record and official transcript to signify failure in the course for reasons of egregious or repetitive acts of academic dishonesty. Since it is a disciplinary action, it cannot be imposed unilaterally by an instructor, though an instructor may propose to the Committee and Judicial Affairs that such action is warranted.
7. Yet, what if a student fails a course because of a sanction?
Why wouldn't that warrant an "XF'?
Many, if not most, students caught violating the policy fail those courses because of the sanction imposed by the instructor. However, their failure occurs, typically, as a result of the fact that in failing the assignment on which they cheated, it is impossible for them to achieve a passing grade in the course. Their failure is due to the consequences of academic dishonesty, not a mark imposed by reason of such dishonesty, as in the case of the "XF'. The 'XF' is reserved for violations that are discretely of the most egregious kind, or that cumulatively demonstrate a pattern of abuse of the system.
8. Is the 'XF' grade permanent?
As things stand now, it does not remain permanently on a student's official record, once conditions for its removal are met. Such conditions are determined at the time of the violation on a case by case basis by the Instructor, Dean and Judicial Affairs officer of the College in which the violation occurs.
9. The University policy affirms that grading remains the responsibility of the faculty member, yet it also states that the College Academic Integrity Committee may overturn an instructor's sanction. Isn't this contradictory?
The Committee may theoretically side with a student and reject a proposed sanction as unfounded or unreasonable, in which case the sanction would not be imposed. Since the reason for lowering a student's grade is the student's alleged academic dishonesty, where the preponderance of the evidence does not support the allegation, then the academic penalty cannot be justified. This does not constitute interference with an instructor's grading. In practice the Chair and other members of the Committee are available to advise and review cases with the instructor at any point during the process.
10. Is it the role of the committee to review evidence and/or pursue fact finding with an instructor prior to his or her formally accusing a student?
Unlike an "honor board" at an institution whose academic integrity policy involves an honor code, the College Academic Integrity Committee functions primarily to adjudicate contested sanctions, and not to pursue a case. As stated before, it may informally provide guidance to instructors who seek clarification of the policy and procedures, but ultimately faculty are responsible for determining that an offense has occurred, that a sanction is warranted and what that sanction should be.
11. May a student accuse a peer of academic dishonesty?
A student's accusation of academic dishonesty against another student does not have standing unless or until the instructor accepts the charge as probative, in which case it is the instructor who must follow University procedures for imposing a sanction.
12. Does the new policy exempt an instructor from proctoring a test or an exam, or from finding a proctor?
This is absolutely not the case. The policy clearly specifies that the responsibility for maintaining academic integrity lies squarely on the shoulders of faculty. No one can initiate an academic sanction for dishonesty but the instructor and if the instructor is absent, he or she is not in a position to possess direct evidence of an infraction. Remember, the University's policy is not an "honor code," to which students are bound and which empowers them to formally initiate a sanctions inquiry.