Academic and Professional Integrity and Procedures for Investigating Allegations of Academic & Professional Misconduct

Approved by the Rackham Executive Board March 7, 2001

Contents

  1. Policy Statement on Academic and Professional Integrity
  2. Forms of Academic and Professional Misconduct
    1. Forms of Academic Misconduct
    2. Forms of Professional Misconduct
      1. State and Federal Laws
      2. Relevant University-Wide Policy Statements
      3. Discipline-Specific Professional Standards of Conduct or Codes of Ethics
      4. Additional Forms of Professional Misconduct
  3. Procedures for Reporting and Investigating Allegations of Academic and Professional Misconduct by Graduate Students
    1. Basic Guidelines for Handling Allegations of Academic and Professional Misconduct
      1. To Whom These Procedures Apply
      2. Timeliness and Confidentiality
      3. Deciding Which Procedures to Use
      4. Reporting Allegations
    2. Procedures for Reporting and Investigating Allegations of Academic or Professional Misconduct in the Academic Units
    3. Procedures for Reporting and Investigating Allegations of Academic or Professional Misconduct in the Rackham Graduate School
      1. Choosing the Appropriate Venue for Review
      2. Rights of Graduate Students Charged with Academic or Professionally Relevant Misconduct
      3. Function of Rackham Integrity Boards
      4. Composition of Rackham Integrity Boards
      5. Guidelines for Rackham Integrity Board Hearings
      6. Reports of Findings and Recommendations
      7. Final Decisions
      8. Appeals
      9. Case File Maintenance
      10. Deadline Extensions

Addendum A. Descriptions of Academic Misconduct

Addendum B. Guidelines for Issuing Sanctions

This policy statement has been written to affirm and clarify the general obligation of all Rackham students to maintain high standards of academic and professional integrity. It defines some of the serious offenses of academic misconduct and outlines, in general terms, the standards to which Rackham students are held relative to professional conduct.

I. Policy Statement on Academic and Professional Integrity

The Roles and Responsibilities of Graduate Students

A clear sense of academic honesty and responsibility is fundamental to our scholarly community. To that end, the University of Michigan expects its students to demonstrate honesty and integrity in all their academic activities. However, students pursuing graduate education are being educated not only in a substantive field of inquiry but also in a profession. Although there are many common values, specific standards required of professionals vary by discipline, and this policy document has been written with respect for those differences.

As professionals in training, graduate students assume various roles, depending on the academic program. These include the roles of scholar/researcher, teacher, supervisor of employees, representative to the public (of the University, the discipline and/or the profession), and professional colleague and even the role of provider of services to clients. Therefore, students are responsible for maintaining high standards of conduct while engaged in course work, research, dissertation or thesis preparation, and other activities related to academics and their profession. Because students take on multiple roles in multiple settings, some types of conduct are both academic and professional in nature—hence, the inclusive nature of this policy.

Graduate training, like future professional life, includes demands that might tempt some students to violate integrity standards. There are pressures on graduate students to achieve high grades, obtain financial support, meet research or publication deadlines, gain recognition from the scholarly community, and secure employment. Although faculty members can help students to maintain academic integrity despite these pressures, each student has final responsibility for maintaining integrity in his or her individual conduct.

Finally, conduct that violates the ethical or legal standards of the University community or of one's program or field of specialization may result in serious consequences, including immediate disciplinary action and future professional disrepute. In support of the Graduate School's commitment to maintain high standards of integrity, this policy makes provisions for bringing forward and hearing cases of academic and professional misconduct.

The Role of the Graduate Faculty and Others in the University Community

The graduate faculty are accountable for maintaining high standards of academic and professional integrity and for serving as models in this regard. Many of the same policies and codes of conduct that apply to students also apply to faculty (see Section II.B.2 below).

Since each of the roles played by a graduate student carries with it some measure of public trust, the awarding of a graduate degree confers on its recipients some assurance of the individual's suitability to bear that trust. Therefore, faculty and administrators associated with students' education, both at the unit and central levels of the University, must hold students accountable according to these standards. Toward this end and taking into account the pressures on students that may lead to misconduct, faculty members are responsible for educating and mentoring students on matters of integrity and for monitoring students' actions in this regard. Attention to matters of integrity should be given in both courses and research settings. Such guidance is particularly important for students as they assume independent roles as course assistants or begin to conduct their own original work. Traits that should be fostered are those that are common to all scholarship and also those that are unique to a particular discipline.

II. Forms of Academic and Professional Misconduct

A. Forms of Academic Misconduct

Offenses against the standards of academic integrity include the following. More detailed information about these offenses is available in Addendum A of this document.

  1. Cheating
  2. Plagiarism and other misappropriation of the work of another
  3. Falsification of data
  4. Improperly obtaining or representing laboratory or field data
  5. Dishonesty in publication
  6. Publication or attempted publication of collaborative work without the permission of the other participants
  7. Abuse of confidentiality
  8. Misuse of computer facilities
  9. Misuse of human subjects
  10. Misuse of vertebrate animals
  11. Illegally or carelessly obtaining or using dangerous substances, or providing such substances to others
  12. Falsification or unauthorized modification of an academic record
  13. Obstruction of the academic activities of another
  14. Other forms of academic misconduct that are commonly accepted within the scientific community
  15. Aiding or abetting academic misconduct
  16. Attempted academic misconduct

B. Forms of Professional Misconduct

Professional misconduct is behavior that is inconsistent with ethical standards in any of the professional roles for which the student is being trained that is not covered by policies governing academic integrity. This may include the student's performance in the role of researcher or scholar, teacher or mentor, supervisor, service-provider or colleague. Of particular note in this regard are behaviors that make the workplace hostile for colleagues, supervisors or subordinates. Graduate students are expected to adhere to ethical standards in a variety of work settings (e.g., offices, classrooms, and laboratories) within the explicit standards set by University policies. Being physically or verbally threatening, disruptive, abusive or hostile can make the workplace so unsafe or unpleasant that others cannot do their work. However, graduate education must take place in an environment in which free expression, free inquiry, intellectual honesty, and respect for the rights and dignity of others can be expected. Ethical standards of conduct should help ensure, not compromise, these features of the University environment.

Sources of the norms or standards to which graduate students can be held accountable (and charged under this policy if they fail to adhere to them) are as follows:

  1. State and Federal Laws: Graduate students, like all members of the University community, are expected to abide by all State and Federal laws.
  2. Relevant University-Wide Policy Statements: Graduate students are responsible for being familiar with and are held accountable to the formal norms or standards that are identified in University-wide policy statements and that apply to them, including the following. Please note that with the exception of the two policies that are specific to students (the final two policies on the list below), these standards apply to faculty as well as to graduate students.
    • the Sexual Harassment Policy for Faculty and Staff (Office of Human Resources and Affirmative Action);
    • the Regents' Bylaw on Nondiscrimination and Affirmative Action;
    • the Policy Statement on the Integrity of Scholarship and Procedures for Investigating Allegations of Misconduct in the Pursuit of Scholarship and Research, which applies to all instructional faculties and others in the institution as specified in the document;
    • the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities; and
    • the Student Policy on Alcohol and Other Drugs

      The text of these policies can be found on the Rackham Website online version of the Guide to Campus and Community for Graduate and Professional Students (see "University Policies Affecting Students"). See also the Office of the Vice President for Research's site on policies and research responsibility.

  3. Discipline-Specific Professional Standards of Conduct or Codes of Ethics: Graduate students are expected to meet professional standards of conduct associated with their own disciplines and/or professions as articulated in formal codes of ethics. Such formal codes can include but are not limited to codes of professional conduct or statements on professional behavior that have been adopted by the student's department, program, school or college, as well as codes of ethics published by professional associations. Departments and graduate students share responsibility in this regard. Departments should make such policies available to their graduate students, and, in turn, students should take the initiative to familiarize themselves with such codes of conduct or ethics.
  4. Additional Forms of Professional Misconduct: In addition, graduate students can be held accountable for the following professionally relevant behaviors, which may or may not be identified as violations in other formal codes of conduct relevant to the student. With respect to the following behaviors, the appropriate academic leadership (e.g., dean or department chair), in consultation with department faculty, serves as the authority for whether a specific student behavior warrants review under this policy.
    1. Misrepresentation of one's credentials or status, or failure to correct others' inaccuracies or misrepresentation of one's credentials. This includes professional experience, paid or unpaid, including positions held; and relevant timeframes and dates (e.g., the timeframe in which a professional position was held, or the date on which a degree was earned).
    2. Unethical consulting activity, including misrepresentation of one's status, credentials, or level of expertise to secure a consulting assignment; and knowingly taking on a consulting assignment without the necessary knowledge or expertise. (Consultation should only be provided by individuals who have demonstrated knowledge, expertise, and competence related to the consultation. To avoid problems in this regard, graduate students are strongly encouraged to seek the advice of their faculty advisors or other appropriate members of the faculty before taking on a consulting assignment.)
    3. Unethical professional practice based on conflict of interest. This includes engaging in unethical professional behaviors to promote, benefit or protect one's self, family, friends, or business colleagues; and exploiting personal knowledge about an individual (e.g., personal life as well as political and religious views).
    4. Deliberate failure to protect confidential records, in accordance with relevant professional standards.
    5. Abuse of the peer review process. This includes the following:
      1. simultaneous submission of a manuscript to more than one journal without approval from the respective editors
      2. submission of previously published material without clarifying the extent of the previously published material to the editor
      3. submitting a manuscript without the permission/agreement of all authors
      4. judging a peer's work on other than professional grounds,
      5. judging a peer's work unfairly or in an uninformed way,
      6. serving as a peer reviewer despite conflict of interest (e.g., having a personal relationship with the author) or otherwise being knowingly unable to judge the merits of scholarly work without prejudice
      7. trying to unduly influence a colleague's review of one's own work
    6. Other fraudulent behavior. This includes actions, taken individually or with other people, that the appropriate dean believes to call into question the student's.75 ability to ethically and competently join the profession. Specific examples include knowingly providing false information in one's professional role, embezzling funds, and misusing department or school resources.
    7. Aiding or abetting professional misconduct. Aiding or abetting any individual in the violation of any of the categories of professional misconduct outlined above shall itself be considered misconduct.
    8. Attempted professional misconduct. An attempt to commit professional misconduct may be treated as seriously as the completed act.

Other violations of State or Federal laws or University policies, brought to the attention of the Graduate School that are not explicitly mentioned in the policies and standards of conduct mentioned above but which appear to merit review under this policy will be evaluated on a case by case basis.

III. Procedures for Reporting and Investigating Allegations of Academic and Professional Misconduct by Graduate Students

A. Basic Guidelines for Handling Allegations of Academic and Professional Misconduct

  1. To Whom These Procedures Apply
    • These procedures are applicable anytime a person in any of the following categories is accused of misconduct: currently enrolled in a Rackham program, previously enrolled in a Rackham program, currently enrolled in a Rackham course, previously enrolled in a Rackham course, or completed a degree from a Rackham program. In addition, this policy shall remain applicable to formerly enrolled students with respect to incidents that occurred when the person was a student.
    • Rackham is also willing to make these procedures available to academic units in the University that administer graduate programs outside the Rackham Graduate School. Such programs may make standing arrangements for all such charges to be handled through Rackham's procedures, or may request use of the Rackham procedures on a case-by-case basis.
  2. Timeliness and Confidentiality
    • Every effort will be made to proceed through each step of the grievance procedure and the process as a whole in a timely fashion. If the procedure must take place during the spring and/or summer months, this time frame may need to be extended, at the discretion of the Rackham Resolution Officer. Great care will be taken to handle allegations of misconduct confidentially, providing information only to those with a need to know consistent with their official responsibilities.
  3. Deciding Which Procedures to Use
    • For any given case of alleged misconduct, more than one University procedure for handling such allegations may be applicable. Should the question arise as to which set of procedures is most appropriate, the University shall decide, in consultation with the Office of the Vice President and General Counsel and appropriate University faculty and staff. Any academic unit at the University may develop procedures for formally investigating cases of academic misconduct that appear to be serious in nature. To ensure that such procedures incorporate due process and follow certain guidelines, they should be developed with appropriate guidance such as that available from the Rackham Resolution Officer and in consultation with the Office of the Vice President and General Counsel.
  4. Reporting Allegations
    • Members of the University community as well as persons outside the University may report allegations of academic or professional misconduct by graduate students by contacting the Rackham Resolution Officer. Regardless of their source, allegations should be submitted in writing, whether by the source of the allegations or a third party, as soon as possible after the discovery of the alleged misconduct.
    • Likewise, any administrative or judicial body within the University that receives allegations of misconduct covered by this policy should bring them to the attention of the Rackham Resolution Officer. If the alleged misconduct occurred within a laboratory, library, computer facility, or other research unit, the head of the unit should notify the Rackham Resolution Officer, who will consult with the Office of the Vice President and General Counsel to determine which procedures will be used.

B. Procedures for Reporting and Investigating Allegations of Academic or Professional Misconduct in the Academic Units

With respect to maintaining high standards of conduct, it is important for students to feel accountable first and foremost to the faculty members from whom they take classes and under whom they do research. It is equally important for those faculty members to monitor student behavior in this regard and to take action if they observe alleged misconduct. Therefore, the position of the Rackham Graduate School is that misconduct allegations should be handled at the unit level wherever appropriate, particularly in instances of alleged misconduct for which informal intervention is likely to be sufficient.

Any such faculty member, however, may face a conflict of interest between his or her commitment to upholding high standards of integrity and his or her desire to have the student succeed. For this reason, in all cases of alleged misconduct the faculty member must consult with his or her department chair or program director, who may in turn wish to consult with the Dean of the student's school or college. Any of these parties may consult with the Office of the Vice President and General Counsel.

Where there is agreement in the academic unit that the most appropriate course of action is to meet informally with the student to call the alleged misconduct to his or her attention and provide an opportunity to respond, the person in the unit who plans to handle the meeting should consult first with the Rackham Resolution Officer. This should be done to ensure that several important steps are followed to ensure due process.

If the offense is deemed to be minor or unintended, the faculty member should take informal remedial steps with the student to correct the infraction and avoid its recurrence. In such instances, no official response is required and no record need be kept. If, on the other hand, the student admits to having knowingly committed a violation of this policy, the faculty member should do one of the following.

  • Decide on commensurate sanctions, in conjunction with his or her department chair or program director (see Addendum B of this document for guidelines for issuing sanctions). The student should be notified of these sanctions in writing and a copy of this communication should be sent to the Rackham Resolution Officer for record keeping. The letter should also inform the student of his or her right to file an appeal of the decision with the Rackham Resolution Officer.
  • OR Refer the case to Rackham Resolution Officer for a formal hearing or, if formal procedures exist in the department or program, to the appropriate person there.

C. Procedures for Reporting and Investigating Allegations of Academic or Professional Misconduct in the Rackham Graduate School

  1. Choosing the Appropriate Venue for Review:
    • When an allegation of misconduct is forwarded to the Rackham Resolution Officer, the following guidelines will be followed:
      1. If the charge involves behavior covered under the University's Policy Statement on the Integrity of Scholarship and Procedures for Investigating Allegations of Misconduct in the Pursuit of Scholarship and Research, the Resolution Officer shall refer it to the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR). (This document is available from the Office of the Vice President for Research.). If OVPR determines that its own policy is most appropriate, the allegation will be reviewed under OVPR procedures. Once the inquiry has been completed, the Rackham Resolution Officer will review it to determine whether additional charges, if any, should be filed under the Rackham procedures. If, on the other hand, OVPR determines that the Rackham Policy and Procedures for Academic and Professional Integrity are most appropriate, the case will be referred to Rackham's Resolution Officer for handling.
      2. If the complaint involves behavior that is most appropriately handled under the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities and/or by the police, the Resolution Officer will make the appropriate referral.
      3. If neither the OVPR-administered policy nor the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities are relevant, the Rackham Resolution Officer will consult with appropriate persons in the academic unit in which the student is enrolled to decide on the best course of action.
      4. If it is determined that the allegations should be handled by Rackham, the Rackham Resolution Officer shall undertake an initial inquiry to evaluate the seriousness of the allegation and to determine whether a formal hearing is warranted. If the allegation involves the use of data, the Resolution Officer shall consult with the General Counsel's Office, as appropriate, to determine if suspect data should be sequestered. An inquiry consists of information gathering and initial fact-finding, based on contacts with appropriate University officials and others in the University. It is intended to separate serious allegations from frivolous, unjustified, or clearly mistaken allegations, and allegations that are based on insufficient evidence/information. Every effort will be made throughout to protect the confidentiality of the accused and the reporting witness. The Resolution Officer will prepare a written report that describes the evidence reviewed, summaries of the relevant interviews, and the conclusions of the inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a formal hearing or take any further action. The Dean of the Graduate School, in consultation with the Office of the Vice President and General Counsel and others, will decide whether, based on the report, the student should be formally charged under this policy. If the inquiry concludes that a hearing is warranted, the student shall be given an opportunity to comment on the report in writing, which will become part of the report. In addition, the reporting witness may review and comment in writing on any portion of the report directly related to the testimony or other evidence brought forward by the reporting witness. If the Dean finds the evidence to be insufficient to warrant a formal hearing, the Dean or his or her designee will inform all persons who were involved in the initial inquiry to whom the name of the student was disclosed.
      5. If a hearing by a Rackham Integrity Board is decided to be most appropriate, the Resolution Officer shall formally charge the respondent with misconduct and refer the case to a Rackham Integrity Board. Guidelines and procedures for formal charges of misconduct are outlined in sections 2 through 8 below.
  2. Rights of Graduate Students Charged with Academic or Professional Misconduct Under the Rackham Policy Statement on Academic and Professional Integrity
    • A student who has been charged with academic or professional misconduct, hereafter referred to as the respondent: shall be presumed innocent until the allegations are found to be accurate based upon a preponderance of evidence; shall be provided with the following items:
      • written notification of the charges against them;
      • an opportunity to provide a written response to the charges, which will be due; within two weeks of the date on which the student receives the notification (if the student does not file a written reply to the charges, this shall not be construed as an acknowledgment of the alleged misconduct);
      • a copy of the Rackham Resolution Officer's written report based on the initial inquiry, where applicable (see item 1.c. above), or a summary of the evidence on which the charges are based;
      • any written evidence that has been submitted; and
      • a copy of this policy;
    • has a right to meet with the Resolution Officer;
    • shall be given notice of the date and location of the hearing(s) and a statement of the general format within which the hearing shall be conducted;
    • may bring an advisor to the hearing, who may be an attorney (the advisor may advise the student but may not participate directly in the hearing);
    • shall have an opportunity, within the parameters of the hearing guidelines, to respond fully to the charges by doing any or all of the following:
      1. presenting testimony and evidence,
      2. bringing witnesses,
      3. questioning any or all witnesses, including the reporting witness
      4. reviewing additional evidence provided during the hearing
      5. responding to statements made during the hearing;
    • may choose to acknowledge the accuracy of charges against them. (In such instances, a Rackham Integrity Board will be convened in accordance with the procedures outlined below to evaluate the seriousness of the misconduct and recommend relevant corrective actions and/or sanctions. In this case the deliberation of the Board will focus not on whether the conduct occurred but on its degree of seriousness and therefore which sanction(s) the Integrity Board deems to be most appropriate.)

The Rackham Resolution Officer will ensure that the file includes written evidence that the materials mentioned above were delivered to the student.

  1. Function of Rackham Integrity Boards
    • When a case is referred to a Rackham Integrity Board, the Board's task is to gather information about the case and, after considering all the facts and circumstances, to decide whether misconduct occurred and submit their findings to the Dean of the Graduate School. If the Board finds the allegations to be accurate, they will also recommend sanctions. Following the hearing, the Board will deliberate in closed session to reach their findings. The Board will make every effort to reach consensus in regard to their recommendations. Otherwise, a majority vote is sufficient.
    • The Chair of the Board is responsible for assuring an orderly and expeditious proceeding. In that capacity, he or she has the right to discourage and exclude unduly repetitious or irrelevant evidence and testimony, to exclude any person who disrupts a hearing or fails to adhere to hearing guidelines, and to discontinue until a later time a hearing that has become disorderly.
  2. Composition of Rackham Integrity Boards
    • Rackham Integrity Boards shall consist of two faculty members and one graduate student.
      • Faculty Members
        • Depending on the nature of the allegations, one of the two faculty members may be selected who has expertise relevant to the nature of the allegations. The Dean of the Rackham Graduate School will make this selection in consultation with leadership of the appropriate academic unit. However, the following people should generally not serve in such a capacity: the student's employer or advisor, any member of the student's doctoral dissertation committee, or any faculty member involved closely with the student's training. The Resolution Officer will select a second faculty member at random from the Rackham Appeals Panel. Otherwise, the Resolution Officer will select two faculty members at random from the Rackham Appeals Panel. If enough members to complete the Board cannot be appointed from the Appeals Panel, the Dean of the Graduate School may appoint additional members to the Panel.
      • Graduate Student
        • The Resolution Officer will select a graduate student from the Rackham Appeals Panel at random. A student who is enrolled in the same program as the student who has been charged with a policy violation may not serve in this capacity. Therefore, if such a student is selected, the Rackham Resolution Officer will randomly select an alternate. Any member may ask to be excused due to conflict of interest. In addition, a member may disqualify himself or herself, or be challenged for cause by the reporting witness or the respondent. Grounds for disqualification include involvement in the case (as a party or witness) or any other substantial reason that would prevent the member from being impartial. A member shall be disqualified upon motion of either party unless the Board votes to retain the member. A member is not permitted to vote in connection with his or her own disqualification, but may make a statement. A vote to retain shall require a simple majority to pass. In the event of disqualification, the Rackham Resolution Officer shall randomly select another member from the Rackham Appeals Panel.
        • If the need to substitute a Committee member arises (e.g., due to scheduling conflicts), the Resolution Officer shall oversee the selection of a substitute, following the same procedures. After the members of the Board have been selected, the Dean shall select one of them to serve as Chair. The Resolution Officer will instruct all members in this policy and its implementation. Advice may also be provided by the Office of the Vice President and General Counsel.
  3. Guidelines for Rackham Integrity Board Hearings
    1. Department, Program, or School/College Participation
      • The primary department or program in which the student is enrolled, in conjunction with the Dean of the School or College or his or her designee, has the option of selecting a faculty member to attend the hearing but is not required to do so. This individual could be the reporting witness, if he or she chooses to participate in this way; a department Chair or program Director; a School or College faculty administrator, or any other member of the faculty deemed appropriate. In this document, this person shall hereafter be referred to as the department representative. This individual may bring an advisor to the hearing, who may be an attorney but who may not participate directly in the hearing. He or she will also be given the opportunity to
        1. introduce evidence
        2. make an opening statement
        3. give a response to the respondent's opening statement
        4. call witnesses
        5. question the respondent and all witnesses
        6. make a final statement when there is no further testimony or evidence to be presented
    2. Attendance
      • The only persons allowed to attend hearings in their entirety are as follows: the Board members; the respondent (and one advisor); the program representative, where applicable (and one advisor); the Resolution Officer, and other individuals whose presence has been requested by the Board. Witnesses shall be present at the hearing only during their testimony or when being questioned.
    3. Failure of Accused Student to Appear
      • If an accused student fails to appear at a hearing after proper notice, the hearing may proceed without the student's participation. The Chair may make exceptions if the student can establish, in advance of the hearing and to the satisfaction of the Resolution Officer, that there are circumstances beyond his or her control that make an appearance impossible or unusually burdensome. If the student withdraws from the University while the allegations are under review, the University reserves the right to go forward with the hearing without the student's participation. If the University decides to suspend the hearing process, the student must resolve the case before returning to the University.
    4. Introduction of Evidence
      • Prior to the hearing, each party should provide any additional documents he or she wishes to present as evidence by a deadline to be determined by the Board. This information will be provided to the opposing party, the Board, and the Resolution Officer. At the discretion of the Board, documents may be provided for the first time at the hearing. No evidence will be heard or shared in the absence of any of the following: the respondent (except in cases where the student has failed to appear—see above); the department representative, where applicable; and the full membership of the Board.
    5. Role of the Rackham Resolution Officer
      • The Rackham Resolution Officer will be asked to report on his or her initial inquiry, if one was undertaken, and will serve as a resource to the Board and to all involved parties.
    6. Witnesses
      • The respondent; the department representative, where applicable; and the members of the Board will have an opportunity to present information and to call individuals before the Board to provide relevant testimony or evidence, hereafter referred to as witnesses. Witnesses can be asked to provide information that is relevant to the particular case itself as well as information that is relevant to the context of the allegations (e.g., information from individuals who are knowledgeable about standards for professionally relevant conduct within the field of the student's training). Prior to the hearing, each party must provide a list of witnesses they wish to appear. The Board retains the right to decide which witnesses to call and the order of witnesses. The Board may, in its discretion, permit or call witnesses not on the witness lists.
      • In cases of alleged professional misconduct that took place while the student was carrying out his or her duties as an employee of the University, the Board may call as witnesses appropriate staff members in the Office of Human Resources and Affirmative Action. The respondent; the department representative, where applicable; and the members of the Board will be given the opportunity to question all witnesses. Since the purpose of the hearing is for the Board to gather information, the function of a witness at the hearing is to testify about the facts of the situation as she or he perceives them. Agreeing to appear on a party's witness list does not, by itself, denote advocacy for that party. Witnesses may wish to make an opening statement but need not do so and will otherwise be asked to answer questions. No participant in a hearing is required to make a self-incriminating statement, including witnesses.
      • Generally, witnesses will appear in the presence of all in attendance at the hearing. However, there may be instances when the Board believes that an important witness should be heard outside the presence of the respondent and also, in some cases, his or her advisor, because a confrontation between the parties may be painful or dangerous for one or more of the parties. The Board may exercise this option at its discretion. If possible, a link shall be established, via video or audio hook-up, to allow the respondent to view and hear the testimony. At the very least, the substance of the information received from that witness must be disclosed to the respondent when the hearing is reconvened.
    7. Record of the Hearing
      • All formal proceedings that are part of the hearing will be tape-recorded except the Board's deliberations. The recording will be kept on file as part of the student's educational record until six years after the respondent graduates from the School or College or until six years after his or her last registration. Failure to produce or preserve an audible tape will not be grounds for setting aside any determinations of the Board.
      • The Resolution Officer will keep a written record of the hearings with regard to attendance, date(s), location(s), and other basic information. The Board's report to the Dean (see below) will serve as the written record of the Board's recommendations to the Dean.
  4. Reports of Findings and Recommendations
    • The Board will submit a report that includes the following:
      1. the group's decision as to whether the student engaged in misconduct
      2. a summary of the findings of fact and how those facts contributed to the group's decision
      3. the recommended sanctions, if any
      4. the rationale for the selection of those sanctions with respect to their being appropriate to the case
    • The following list of sanctions or types of sanctions can be used as a resource by the Board when allegations against a student are found to be accurate. It is not intended to be all-inclusive. Multiple sanctions can be applied in a single case of misconduct. Sanctions l, m, n, and o may be recommended by an academic unit but can only be imposed by Rackham in consultation with the appropriate School or College. For more detail, see Addendum B of this document, "Guidelines for Issuing Sanctions."
      1. Restitution
      2. Educational project
      3. Service
      4. Corrective action appropriate to the domain
      5. Oral warning or reprimand
      6. Formal reprimand
      7. Grade change
      8. Course repeat
      9. Disciplinary probation
      10. Restriction from employment at the University by way of recommendation to or in consultation with the Office of Human Resources and Affirmative Action
      11. Restriction from particular activities, services, or locations
      12. Withholding a degree
      13. Suspension
      14. Expulsion
      15. Rescinding a degree
    • The Board also has the option of including minority opinions in the report, but they should be identified clearly as such. At the time the report is provided to the Dean of the Graduate School, copies of the report, either in its entirety or only the portions of it that are relevant to them, will also be sent to the reporting witness, the respondent, and the Rackham Resolution Officer. As noted previously, the report and recommendations are advisory in nature.
  5. Final Decisions
    • After receiving the report, the Dean of the Graduate School will transmit the recommendations to the Dean of the School or College in which the student is enrolled. At the discretion of either Dean, the recommendations will also be provided to the head of the student's department or program.
    • In a timely manner, the two deans involved in any particular case will decide jointly on corrective and/or educational sanctions, and/or actions. They will prepare a joint letter to the respondent outlining their decision and sanctions, if any. Based on their legitimate need to know consistent with their official responsibilities, copies of the letter or parts thereof will be provided to the department representative, where applicable; the Office of the Vice President and General Counsel; the Resolution Officer; and to other offices and parties at the University.
    • The Dean of the Graduate School may excuse himself or herself from the process due to involvement in the case (as a party or witness) or any other substantial reason that would prevent the Dean from being impartial. In this event, the Senior Associate Dean will serve in his or her stead.
  6. Appeals
    • Grounds for an Appeal
      • The respondent may appeal the case on one or more of the following grounds:
        1. there were violations of procedure that seriously compromised the proceeding
        2. the evidence clearly does not support the findings
        3. the sanctions are excessive relative to the violation
        4. there is significant new evidence not reasonably available at the time of the hearing
    • Filing an Appeal
      • The respondent must file the appeal in writing with the Resolution Officer within fifteen business days following receipt of the decision by the Deans. Requests for exceptions to this deadline must be made within fifteen business days and will be considered by the Dean on a case-by-case basis. The appeal should include a statement of the grounds for appeal and the supporting facts.
      • After an appeal has been filed, the Dean of the Graduate School will forward it to the Senior Associate Dean or another of the Associate Deans in the Graduate School to review the content of the appeal and to determine, in consultation with others, whether there are sufficient grounds for the appeal. If the Associate Dean determines that the content of the appeal does not provide sufficient grounds for the case to be revisited, all decisions will stand and there shall be no further opportunity for appeal within the University. If the Associate Dean determines that there are sufficient grounds for the appeal, the Resolution Officer will select an Appeals Committee to review the case and make recommendations to the Dean.
    • Composition and Function of the Appeals Committee
      • The Appeals Committee shall be composed of two faculty members and one graduate student drawn at random from the Rackham Appeals Panel but not to include the members of the Rackham Integrity Board that heard the case previously. In addition, the same rules for disqualification from serving on the Appeals Committee will be followed as those provided in Section III.C.4.
      • The Appeals Committee shall evaluate the allegations outlined in the appeal and be given access to the case file. The Appeals Committee shall communicate in writing to the Dean of the Graduate School both its recommendations and its rationale for having reached those recommendations. The Appeals Committee can recommend
        1. that the decision and the sanctions should stand
        2. that the sanctions be revised and in what ways
        3. that the case should be re-heard
    • Decision and Communication
      • Thereafter, the Dean of the Graduate School, in conjunction with the Dean of the school or college in which the student is enrolled, may decide to
        1. let all aspects of the original decision stand
        2. alter the earlier decision and/or sanctions
        3. conclude that the grounds for appeal warrant a re-hearing of the case
      • The Deans will prepare a joint letter to the respondent outlining their decision and revisions to the sanctions, if any. Based on their need to know consistent with their official responsibilities, copies of the letter or parts thereof will be provided to the department representative, where applicable; the Office of the Vice President and General Counsel; the Resolution Officer; and to other offices and parties at the University.
  7. Case File Maintenance
    • Rackham shall maintain the case file for at least six years after the student's final term of enrollment, as part of the student's educational record.
  8. Deadline Extensions
    • In exceptional circumstances, time deadlines in the policy and procedure may be extended at the discretion of the Dean or the Resolution Officer.

Addendum A: Descriptions of Academic Misconduct

The following offenses are listed in the Rackham Graduate School's Policy Statement on Academic and Professional Integrity. This document provides detailed information in this regard.

Forms of Academic Misconduct

Offenses against the standards of academic integrity include the following:

  1. Cheating
    • Cheating is the attempt to gain an improper advantage in an academic evaluation. Among the forms this kind of dishonesty can take are: obtaining a copy of an examination before it is officially available or learning an examination question before it is officially available; having a substitute take an examination; copying another person's answer to an examination question; consulting an unauthorized source during an examination; or changing a score or a record of an examination result.
    • It is also improper to submit the work one has done for one class or project to a second class or as a second project without getting the informed permission of the second instructor. Acceptance of one piece of work that is submitted for two classes must be arranged beforehand.
  2. Plagiarism and other misappropriation of the work of another
    • Plagiarism is the representation of another person's ideas or writing as one's own. The most obvious form of this kind of dishonesty is the presentation of all or part of another person's published work as something one has written. Perhaps less obvious but no less dishonest are, without proper acknowledgment of the source, the adoption of a part of another's writing into one's own discussion, the paraphrasing of another's writing, or the presentation of another's ideas as one's own. In different forms, these all constitute a theft of someone else's work. This is not to say that students should not use the work of others; scholarship and research are, after all, communal activities. To avoid plagiarism all one has to do is fully and properly acknowledge the source of the work presented. To reduce the likelihood of being accused of plagiarism, students must follow the citation styles relevant to the discipline or the journals in which they will publish.
    • It is also a violation of integrity to represent another's artistic or technical work or creation as one's own. Just as there are standards to which one must adhere in the preparation and publication of written works, there are standards to which one must adhere in the creation and presentation of music, drawings, designs, and other artistic and technical works. Students who work in these areas must become thoroughly familiar with the relevant standards.
  3. Falsification of data
    • This is the dishonest reporting of investigative results. The most obvious form is the outright fabrication of data, but other examples include improper revision of data, deceptive selective reporting of data to support a particular notion, or the deceptive omission of conflicting data.
  4. Improperly obtaining or representing laboratory or field data
    • Many activities in graduate school involve the collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and publishing of data obtained in the scientific laboratory or in the field. The opportunities to deviate from accepted behavior might be more numerous in research, and the temptation greater than in the classroom environment, because often research activities are supervised less closely. Forms of improper research practices include fabrication or falsification of data, taking or using the experimental data of others without either permission or due acknowledgment (misappropriation of data), misrepresentation of data or the methods used to collect or analyze them, the deceptive selective reporting of data to support a particular notion or hypothesis, or the deceptive omission of conflicting data. Furthermore, all researchers have a responsibility to refrain from practices that may unfairly inhibit the research of others now or later.
  5. Dishonesty in publication
    • In most instances the objective of scholarly research is the dissemination of information, usually in the form of a written and published work. Indeed, in many disciplines career advancement is often based largely on the number and quality of an individual's publications. It is a violation of academic integrity to publish knowingly information that will mislead or deceive readers. This includes falsification or fabrication of data; failure to give full and proper credit to collaborators, including, when appropriate, joint authorship; and the act of listing as authors persons who have not contributed to the work. Plagiarism is also considered a form of dishonesty in publication.
  6. Publication or attempted publication of collaborative work without the permission of the other participants
    • Written work that is the result of efforts undertaken under the supervision of or collaboratively with one or more faculty members or students should not be presented orally in a formal setting (e.g., at a conference) or submitted for publication without the permission of the other participant(s). If one or more of the collaborators cannot be reached or fails to respond within a reasonable amount of time to requests for permission, written evidence of such attempts should be kept.
  7. Abuse of confidentiality
    • During graduate training a student may be asked to assist in the evaluation of confidential grant proposals, awarded applications, or manuscripts that will be or may have been submitted for review and possible funding or publication. Likewise, a graduate student may work on projects for which a public or private sponsor expects or requires confidentiality. It's inappropriate to release the ideas or data of others that were given with the expectation that they would be confidential.
  8. Misuse of computer facilities
    • Access to information belonging to someone else can sometimes be obtained through a central computing facility despite the fact that much of the information stored in such facilities is usually confidential. Unless one is explicitly authorized to do so, it is improper to obtain a password assigned to another or to copy or modify a data file or program belonging to someone else. Proper authorization to conduct these activities means being granted permission either by the owner or originator of that material or by a member of the faculty, a unit head, a project director, or a member of the computing center staff. Similarly, one should not violate the integrity of a computer system, whether of general or limited access, in order to harass another user or operator or to damage software or hardware. It is also improper to engage in any activity that evades the appropriate monetary charges for access to or use of the computer. (See the Proper Use Policy, Standard Practice Guide 601.7, and the Guidelines for Implementing the Proper Use Policy, located at www.umich.edu/~policies.)
  9. Misuse of human subjects
    • Human beings are used as research subjects in many ways. They may be respondents to questionnaires or interviews, participants in behavioral studies, or the subjects of medical research. In any of these instances, when a human subject is a participant in a graduate project, approval for such a project must be obtained in advance from the Human Subjects Review Committee and maintained in good standing through periodic mandatory review. Once approval has been granted, it is unacceptable to deviate significantly from the approved protocol without again obtaining Committee approval. It is also improper to violate the confidentiality of a human subject without his or her approval. (See "Use of Human Subjects in Doctoral Research.")
  10. Misuse of vertebrate animals
    • Controlled and humane use of vertebrate animals is often an essential part of research and training. Government and University guidelines apply to the procurement of vertebrate animals, their care and housing before and after actual experimentation, and the humane treatment procedures that shall be followed during any experiment. As in the case with human subjects, if a study involves the use of vertebrate animals on campus, the project must have prior review and approval. The University of Michigan's Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine (ULAM) conducts these reviews, and its approval must be granted before animal procurement begins. Usually a request for such review is initiated by the faculty project director, but a student participating in actual animal procurement or in instructional or experimental use should be familiar with and comply with the ULAM guidelines.
  11. Illegally or carelessly obtaining or using dangerous substances, or providing such substances to others
    • Graduate students in chemical or biomedical disciplines frequently work with drugs, solvents, or other biologically active substances (radioisotopes, pathogens, or other biohazards). The possession, use, or distribution of some of.83 these is regulated by State or Federal law and monitored by the Vice President for Research or Occupational Safety and Environmental Health, whereas the proper and safe use of others may be guided only by acquired knowledge and common sense. Intentional disregard of guidelines that apply to these substances can be justification for levying a charge of ethical misconduct.
  12. Falsification or unauthorized modification of an academic record
    • It is a violation of academic integrity to falsify, fabricate, or in any other way modify a student transcript, grade, letter of recommendation, or related document, whether it pertains to you or another individual. Falsification or unauthorized modification of any other official document, including an examination, is also a violation.
  13. Obstruction of the academic activities of another
    • It is a violation of academic integrity to interfere with the scholarly research of another individual. Such interference includes harassment and unauthorized tampering with experimental data, with a human or animal subject, with a written document or other creation (e.g., a sculpture or an architectural model), with a chemical used for scientific study, or with any other object of study.
  14. Other forms of academic misconduct
    • Other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community, and material failure to comply with legal requirements governing research may also constitute actionable misconduct.
  15. Aiding or abetting academic misconduct
    • Aiding or abetting any individual in the violation of any of the categories of misconduct outlined above shall itself be considered misconduct.
  16. Attempted academic misconduct
    • An attempt to commit academic misconduct may be treated as seriously as the completed act.

Addendum B: Guidelines for Issuing Sanctions

Some cases of alleged academic or professionally relevant misconduct are handled at the unit level. Other cases are referred to a Rackham Integrity Board. The decision about where allegations should be heard depends in part on the severity of the allegations and therefore on the sanctions that are likely to be selected if the allegations are found to be accurate. In addition, the following list of sanctions may serve as a resource during unit reviews of misconduct allegations.

The following sanctions can be selected to achieve one or more aims: correct or compensate for the student's actions, educate the student, and/or discipline the student. Corrective actions, educational activities and/or sanctions against a student should be proportionate and relevant to the misconduct. They should also be fair not only to the person who has filed the allegation, but also to the student who has been charged with misconduct, to the other members of the University community, and to the professional community to which the student aspires to belong. Consistent with the educational mission of the Graduate School, educational activities that might remedy a student's faulty understanding or knowledge should be recommended, wherever they are appropriate. These might include formal or informal course work, tutorials, counseling, preparation of written products, public service or other activities. Wherever appropriate, sanctions should also be recommended that might correct the specific negative outcomes of misconduct. These might include actions such as restoration or replacement of property or belongings, or corrections of fact or impression.

The following list of sanctions or types of sanctions can be used as a resource when allegations against a student are found to be accurate. It is not intended to be all-inclusive. In addition, multiple sanctions can be applied in a single case of misconduct. Sanctions l, m, n, and o may be recommended by an academic unit but can only be imposed by Rackham in consultation with the appropriate School or College.

  1. Restitution
    • Compensation for loss, damage, or injury paid to the appropriate party in the form of service, money, or material replacement.
  2. Educational project
    • This could include the completion of a class, workshop, or project to help the student understand why his or her behavior was inappropriate.
  3. Service
    • Performance of one or more tasks designed to benefit the community and help the student understand why her or his behavior was inappropriate.
  4. Corrective action
    • This could include such things as requiring retraction of research or writing, or notification to publishers of improper research or authorship credit.
  5. Oral warning or reprimand
    • An oral reprimand to the student that he/she has violated the policy and that future violations will be dealt with more severely.
  6. Formal reprimand
    • A written reprimand to the student that he/she has violated the policy and any future violations will be dealt with more severely. This sanction may or may not include placement of the written reprimand in the student's file(s) at Rackham and/or in the administrative offices of the student's department, program, school, or college.
  7. Grade change
    • This could include assigning a grade record of No Report or Incomplete for a course or project, or assigning a lower or failing grade. Such a sanction could only be issued with the support of the course instructor, who would assign the grade or request the grade change.
  8. Course repeat
    • Requiring that a course be repeated. In cases of more serious violations, more punitive sanctions such as the following may be recommended. Because they are more severe in nature than the sanctions listed above, the following sanctions can be imposed only after a Rackham Integrity Board has formally reviewed a case (see Section F). Such a Board can select from the entire list of sanctions, not just those that follow. However, only the Dean of the Graduate School has the authority under this policy to impose sanctions 12, 13, 14, and 15.
  9. Disciplinary probation
    • Designating a period of time during which the student will not be in good standing with the University. The terms of the probation may involve restrictions of student privileges and/or set behavioral expectations. Consequences may also be spelled out if the student fails to meet the terms. Only the Dean of a school or college can request disciplinary probation. Such requests must be submitted to the University Registrar, who alone has authority to assign disciplinary probation.
  10. Restriction from employment at the University
    • Prohibition or limitation on University employment.
  11. Restriction from particular activities, services, or locations
  12. Withholding a degree
    • Withholding a Rackham Graduate School degree (e.g., until the student has met all the sanctions).
  13. Suspension
    • Temporary removal of a student from the program for a specified or unspecified period, which will be noted on the transcript. This normally includes placing an academic hold on the student's record for the duration of the suspension. It can also include stipulated conditions for re-admission to graduate work.
  14. Expulsion
    • Permanent dismissal from the program, which will be so noted on the transcript.
  15. Rescinding a degree
    • Rescinding a Rackham Graduate School degree.