Conduct Procedures for Academic Integrity Cases

Elon faculty members who believe a student or students may have violated academic integrity policies will schedule an appointment with the student(s) (either individually or as a group, to be determined by the professor). During the initial meeting with the student, the instructor explains the basis of the academic integrity policy concerns and shares any supporting information. The purpose of this meeting is to identify the specific potential policy violated, make sure the student understands the reason for believing the student may have violated the academic integrity policy, the student’s rights and responsibilities in the process, and the possible sanctions for responsibility. This initial meeting is not for the student to challenge the potential policy violations or attempt to negotiate sanctions. The student signs a form (or indicates in writing) indicating that they do or do not accept responsibility for the violation.

If the student accepts responsibility, the instructor assigns any course related outcomes and forwards the paperwork to the associate provost for academic excellence and operations (or designee) who assigns institutional sanctions. In cases involving graduate students, the associate provost for academic excellence and operations may consult with the graduate school dean or designee to determine appropriate institutional sanctions. If the student denies any misconduct, the case is referred to the Elon Honor Board and the associate provost or designee convenes an Honor Board hearing (See referral and procedures for an Honor Board)

Referral to and Procedures for Honor Board Hearing

The Honor Board hears all academic policy violation cases for which the student denies responsibility. An Honor Board hearing is conducted with the appropriate board members, the responding student, reporting party (if applicable), advisors, and any witnesses. The director of student conduct (or designee) will ensure that the hearing information and any other available written documentation is available for the parties to review at least two (2) business days before any scheduled hearing.

The names of the potential hearing board members will be shared with the parties. Should any party object to any board member, that party must raise all objections within the timeline specified in the notice, in writing, to the convener. Board members will only be replaced if the assistant dean of students or associate provost for academic excellence and operations (or designees) concludes that their bias precludes an impartial hearing of the complaint. Additionally, any board member who feels they cannot make an objective determination must recuse themselves from the proceedings.

The convener (or designee) reserves the right to exclude or limit a witness if it is determined the person does not have information that is relevant to the facts of the incident. Character witnesses and statements are not permitted if they have no relevant factual information about the incident.

The convener will be present and available as a resource during all hearing procedures (including deliberations). All procedural questions are subject to the decision of the convener.

A typical Honor Board hearing procedure follows this basic outline:

• The responding student, reporting party, witnesses, advisor(s), and the board members meet.
• The convener provides a brief overview of the hearing process to all hearing participants.
• Witnesses leave the room and the charge(s) are read to the student(s). The student responds to the charges and states “responsible” or “not responsible” to each charge.
• When appropriate, the professor, reporting party, or University investigator presents a written and/or oral statement to provide a context for the charges, the student(s) are given an opportunity to address the board, and board members pose questions to either party.
• Witnesses are requested to make statements and respond to questions. Unduly repetitive witnesses may also be limited.
• Both the respondent and reporting party respond to questions and offer any further information or statement(s).
• The respondent, reporting party, and advisor(s) leave the hearing room. The board members deliberate and determine, by majority vote, whether it is more likely than not that the responding student has violated the Code of Conduct policies. If the hearing panel consists of four members, a tie vote would result in a finding of not responsible.
• If the Hearing Board determines the student is responsible, the associate provost for academic excellence and operations (or designee) will solicit the faculty member of record for course related sanctions and will determine institutional level sanctions.
• The associate provost for academic excellence and operations (or designee) will communicate the decision of the hearing to the respondent and the faculty member within two business days. This decision will include the finding, rationale, any sanctions, as well as information on the conduct appeal process.