1. Senate Policy on Academic Honesty

The Policy on Academic Honesty is an affirmation and clarification for members of the University of the general obligation to maintain the highest standards of academic honesty. As a clear sense of academic honesty and responsibility is fundamental to good scholarship, the policy recognizes the general responsibility of all faculty members to foster acceptable standards of academic conduct and of the student to be mindful of and abide by such standards.

Academic honesty requires that persons do not falsely claim credit for the ideas, writing or other intellectual property of others, either by presenting such works as their own or through impersonation. Similarly, academic honesty requires that persons do not cheat (attempt to gain an improper advantage in an academic evaluation), nor attempt or actually alter, suppress, falsify or fabricate any research data or results, official academic record, application or document.

Suspected breaches of academic honesty will be investigated and charges shall be laid if reasonable and probable grounds exist. A student who is charged with a breach of academic honesty shall be presumed innocent until, based upon clear and compelling evidence, a committee determines the student has violated the academic honesty standards of the university. A finding of academic misconduct will lead to the range of penalties described in the guidelines which accompany this policy. In some cases the University regulations on non-academic discipline may apply. A lack of familiarity with the Senate Policy and Guidelines on Academic Honesty on the part of a student does not constitute a defence against their application. Some academic offences constitute offences under the Criminal Code of Canada; a student charged under University regulations may also be subject to criminal charges. Charges may also be laid against York University students for matters which arise at other educational institutions.

2. Senate Guidelines on Academic Honesty

2.1 Summary of Offences Against the Standards of Academic Honesty

The following summary of offences is not exhaustive, nor are the definitions provided for each offence confined to the examples cited.

2.1.1	Cheating is the attempt to gain an improper advantage in an academic evaluation. Forms of cheating include: Obtaining a copy of an examination before it is officially available or learning an examination question before it is officially available; Copying another person’s answer to an examination question; Consulting an unauthorized source during an examination; Obtaining assistance by means of documentary, electronic or other aids which are not approved by the instructor; Changing a score or a record of an examination result; Submitting the work one has done for one class or project to a second class, or as a second project, without the prior informed consent of the relevant instructors; Submitting work prepared in collaboration with another or other member(s) of a class, when collaborative work on a project has not been authorized by the instructor; Submitting work prepared in whole or in part by another person and representing that work as one’s own; Offering for sale essays or other assignments, in whole or in part, with the expectation that these works will be submitted by a student for appraisal; Preparing work in whole or in part, with the expectation that this work will be submitted by a student for appraisal.
2.1.2	Impersonation is to have someone impersonate one’s self in class, in a test, examination or interview, or in connection with any other type of assignment or placement associated with a course or academic program. Both the impersonator and the individual impersonated may be charged.
2.1.3	Plagiarism is the misappropriation of the work of another by representing another person’s ideas, writing or other intellectual property as one’s own. This includes the presentation of all or part of another person’s work as something one has written, paraphrasing another’s writing without proper acknowledgement, or representing another’s artistic or technical work or creation as one’s own. Any use of the work of others, whether published, unpublished or posted electronically, attributed or anonymous, must include proper acknowledgement.
2.1.4	Improper research practices. Academic research includes the collection, analysis, interpretation and publication of information or data obtained in the scientific laboratory or in the field. Forms of improper research practices include: Dishonest reporting of investigative results, either through fabrication or falsification; Taking or using the research results of others without permission or due acknowledgement; Misrepresentation or selective reporting of research results or the methods used.
2.1.5	Dishonesty in publication. It is a violation of academic honesty to knowingly publish information that will mislead or deceive readers. This includes the falsification or fabrication of data or information, as well as the failure to give credit to collaborators as joint authors or the listing as authors of others who have not contributed to the work. Plagiarism is also considered a form of dishonesty in publication.
2.1.6	Dissemination of information without permission. Information or experimental data that was collected with a member of faculty or another student, and other works that involved the participation of a faculty member or another student, should not be submitted for publication or otherwise disseminated without their permission.
2.1.7	Abuse of confidentiality. Taking or releasing the ideas or data of others that were given with the expectation that they are confidential is inappropriate. This includes the ideas or data obtained via the evaluation of confidential grant proposals, award applications or manuscripts that will be or may have been submitted for possible funding or publication. Unless one is 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 means being granted permission either by the owner or originator of that material, or by an appropriate faculty member or administrator.
2.1.8	Falsification or unauthorized modification of an academic document/record. It is a breach of academic honesty to falsify, fabricate or in any way modify, either through omission or commission, an application to the University or a program, course student examination or test, transcript, grade, letter of recommendation or related document, a degree, a physician’s letter/form or any other document used in support of an academic application, record, petition/appeal or endeavor.
2.1.9	Obstruction of the academic activities of another. It is a violation of academic honesty to interfere with the scholarly activities of another in order to harass or gain unfair academic advantage. This includes interference or tampering with experimental data, with a human or animal subject, with a written or other creation (e.g., a painting, sculpture or film), with a chemical used for scientific study, or with any other object of study.
2.1.10	Aiding and abetting. Encouraging, enabling or causing others to do or attempt any of the above.

2.2 Summary of Penalties for Academic Misconduct

When verified, violations of academic honesty may lead to the following range of penalties, which may be imposed singularly or in combination for any offence. The following penalties are listed in ascending order of severity.

2.2.1	Written disciplinary warning or reprimand.
2.2.2	Required completion of an academic honesty assignment.
2.2.3	Make-up assignment, examination or rewriting a work, subject to a lowered grade.
2.2.4	Lower grade on the assignment, examination or work.
2.2.5	Lower grade in the course.
2.2.6	Failure in the course.
2.2.7	Permanent grade of record. The grade assigned shall remain as the one grade of record for the course, even if the course is repeated. This penalty can be added to any other penalty, but shall always be attached to the penalty of failure in the course.
2.2.8	Notation on transcript. Notation on transcript can be a separate penalty or it can be added to any other penalty. Transcript notation shall always be included in cases of suspension, withholding or rescinding a York degree, diploma or certificate and expulsion from the University. Transcript notation can be for a limited period, at the end of which the notation will be removed from the student’s transcript. When no period is specified for a transcript notation, a student may petition to the Faculty Petitions Committee to have the notation removed after a period of five years from the date at which the notation was entered, with the exception of notation of expulsion from the University.
2.2.9	Suspension from the University for a definite period, not to exceed 5 years, with transcript notation. Suspension is defined as a penalty of a variable but limited period during which the student may not register in the University, imposed for serious academic offences such as plagiarism and cheating. A student who is otherwise eligible to graduate, but is suspended, may not graduate until the suspension expires or is lifted. This penalty may be awarded only by a Faculty-level committee which is recognized by a Faculty Council as the responsible body to assign this penalty.
2.2.10	Expulsion from the University with transcript notation. Expulsion is defined as permanently terminating a person’s right to continue as a student in the University. This penalty may be awarded only by a Faculty-level committee which is recognized by a Faculty Council as the responsible body to assign this penalty.
2.2.11	Withholding or rescinding a York degree, diploma or certificate with transcript notation. When a Faculty decides to rescind a degree, diploma or certificate, the decision, with supporting documentation, must be forwarded to the Senate Appeals Committee for approval on behalf of Senate.

2.3 Factors Considered When Imposing Academic Penalties

The circumstances surrounding each case of academic misconduct may vary to a significant degree. The penalty imposed should reflect, reasonably, these circumstances. These guidelines are not intended to restrict the authority or flexibility of Faculty committees in imposing the penalties contained in this Policy. In each case, Faculties shall exercise their discretion, taking into consideration the relevant factors, as outlined below. For the benefit of students, however, Faculties shall provide an explanation in their written decision of the major reason(s) the penalty imposed was deemed warranted.

Important factors to be considered by committees in imposing penalties or reviewing penalty recommendations are:

2.3.1	Extent of violation: The actions which constitute specific offences of academic honesty (i.e., plagiarism, cheating) vary in terms of severity. Some instances of academic dishonesty constitute only minor infractions while others represent the most extreme form of violation. Penalties should correspond to the nature of the offence. Penalties may be imposed singularly or in combination for any offence.
2.3.2	Basic considerations include: The level of the student's academic experience; Extenuating circumstances may help explain the action taken by a student, and due weight should be attached to those circumstances; If the student admits guilt, accepts responsibility for their action, and is amenable to educative remedies, committees may find it justified to levy a less severe penalty.
2.3.3	Prior/multiple incidents: If the offence is a second (or subsequent) one for the student and/or is in combination with another offence, then a more severe penalty should be considered.

Procedures Governing Breach of Academic Honesty

Note: The Schulich School Petitions and Appeals Officer. The person to whom questions about the academic honesty policy, guidelines and procedures should normally be addressed is the Petitions and Appeals Officer (hereinafter referred to as the PAO), who is part of the Schulich Division of Student Services and International Relations. The PAO provides procedural advice to all parties (students, faculty, staff) and maintains records of meetings and decisions reached for all cases in which the dishonesty charge reaches at least the ‘Exploratory Meeting’ phase ( see Section 3.5 below). The PAO is present at the Exploratory Meeting and also provides administrative support to the Students Affairs Committee, its panels, and subcommittees

3.1 Purpose

The following procedures are provided for the investigation and resolution of cases of alleged violations of the Senate Policy on Academic Honesty involving students in Schulich-based degree program courses at graduate and undergraduate levels (with the exception of the courses in the joint EMBA program, which are governed by separate procedures unique to the joint program). In these procedures, the term “student” includes a York graduate or undergraduate student, a York graduate, a former York student, or a student who is applying to take, is taking or has taken a York course.

3.2 Jurisdiction

3.2.1 Allegations of a breach of academic honesty by a student in a course offered by the Schulich School shall be dealt with by the Schulich School. In cases where the course is in other than the student’s home Faculty, then the student’s home Faculty (or Faculties) shall have observer status at a hearing and may make submission as to penalty. For students in joint programs or where allegations arise in more than one Faculty, the Faculties can agree on which Faculty will have jurisdiction over the proceedings.

3.2.2 All allegations of breaches of academic honesty other than those in course work shall be communicated by the administrator, committee or other person with direct knowledge (faculty, staff, clinical supervisor, etc.,) to the student’s home Faculty.

3.2.3 Should a matter arise for which there appears to be no clear Faculty jurisdiction, the Senate Appeals Committee shall determine which Faculty shall have carriage of the matter.

3.2.4 Appeals of decisions of a Faculty committee are considered by the Senate Appeals Committee.

3.3 Investigating Potential Academic Misconduct

If a person (or persons) suspect(s) a breach of academic honesty:

3.3.1 on assignments, term papers, essays, theses and dissertations, etc., the matter shall be reported to the concerned course instructor¹ or graduate supervisor. For courses, if the evaluator is not the course instructor, the evaluator shall retain possession of the suspect material and provide a written report, together with the confiscated material, to the course instructor;

3.3.2 on non-course work, the person discovering the potential breach of academic honesty, shall retain possession of the suspect material and provide a written report, together with any confiscated material to the Schulich School Associate Dean Academic (hereinafter referred to as the Schulich ADA);

3.3.3 in an examination, the invigilator, who is normally the course instructor, in cases of suspected impersonation, shall ask the student concerned to remain after the examination and shall request appropriate University identification or shall otherwise attempt to identify the student. In other cases of suspected breach of academic honesty the invigilator shall confiscate any suspect material. In all cases, the student will be allowed to complete the examination. The invigilator, if other than the course instructor, shall give a full report, together with any confiscated material, to the course instructor (See the Senate Policy on Invigilation of Examinations for further information);

3.3.4 for research not conducted as part of a course, major research papers/projects, comprehensive examinations, theses and dissertations, person(s) suspecting potential academic dishonesty shall report the matter to the Schulich ADA.

3.4 Initiating an Investigation of Potential Academic Misconduct

3.4.1 When the course instructor having or sharing responsibility for a student's research, examination, or dissertation preparation, becomes aware of a possible violation of academic honesty, it is the responsibility of the course instructor to initiate an investigation of the matter.

3.4.2 It is the responsibility of the course instructor to collect or assist in the collection of the necessary information, to participate in the exploratory meeting and to be prepared to act as a witness at any committee hearing of the matter. The expectation is that the course instructor will determine whether there is sufficient foundation to ask for an exploratory meeting, (described in Section 3.5). That answer may be ‘yes’ or [as reflected in 3.4.2 – iv, below], ‘no’. During the initial investigation, the course instructor is expected to:

1. gather and retain all documents that are material to the concern. These documents include, but are not limited to, the student paper(s) or exam(s) in question and source documents that are the apparent source of the impropriety;
2. interview teaching assistants, graders, and/or examination invigilators who may have knowledge of what occurred; prepare written summaries of the resulting information where it appears to be relevant to the case;
3. invite the student(s) involved to meet with him/her to respond to the concerns that have been raised. The purpose of such a meeting is to determine whether there is an acceptable explanation for the evidence initially in hand.
4. If a course instructor is satisfied, based on evidence collected and discussion with the student(s), that there is an acceptable explanation for the evidence at hand, no further action need be taken and no records are retained.
5. However, if the course instructor is not satisfied that there is an acceptable explanation for the initial concerns, the course instructor shall notify the PAO of the potential infraction, leading to the steps identified in 3.4.3, below.
6. If the student(s) do not respond to the request for a timely meeting or if the student(s) do not provide what the course instructor judges to be an acceptable explanation, notice of a potential breach of academic honesty shall be sent to the PAO. (Note that no formal ‘joint submission’ from student and course instructor can be struck prior to an Exploratory Meeting being held.)
   
   

3.5 Exploratory Meeting

3.5.1 When a complaint is received by the PAO, an exploratory meeting shall be arranged to determine whether or not there are reasonable and probable grounds to proceed with a charge of breach of academic honesty. The exploratory meeting is provided to allow the course instructor and the student(s) involved to determine, with the PAO present, whether they can agree on whether an infraction has occurred and (in the case where they agree that it has) whether they can agree to jointly recommend a specific penalty. At least seven calendar days' written notice of the meeting and a brief description of the reason for the meeting shall be provided to the student. At this meeting, convened and chaired by the PAO, the student may be accompanied by a representative and the course instructor may have another person present. The meeting is organized by the PAO, who will make reasonable attempts to accommodate the schedules of the concerned parties. Should the student fail to appear at the scheduled exploratory meeting and if, in the judgment of the PAO, the student has been given appropriate notice of this meeting, the meeting may proceed without the student present.

3.5.2 The exploratory meeting will result in one of the following:

1. It is agreed by all parties that no breach of academic honesty occurred. No records of the matter shall be retained and the ‘flag’ on the student file is removed.
2. If the student wishes to admit to a breach of academic honesty, a document signed by the student and the course instructor which includes the admission, a summary of the matter and a joint submission as to penalty shall be forwarded to the Schulich Student Affairs Committee. The agreed-upon penalty shall not exceed failure in the course. A designated subcommittee of the Student Affairs Committee shall review such joint submissions and either confirm them or refer them to a formal hearing It is during the review of the Student Affairs subcommittee that the consideration of past offenses is to be considered to determine whether a more severe penalty is appropriate. Normally, the Student Affairs subcommittee receiving such a joint submission will impose the penalty suggested, but if the subcommittee is of the view that some other penalty would be more appropriate, it shall arrange for a formal hearing of the matter, to which the student will be invited and course instructor may be required to attend. In cases where the subcommittee determines that a formal hearing should be held, it will provide a report including the reasons for its decision to the student[s] accused, the ADA, and the panel hearing the case prior to the formal hearing.
3. If the student wishes to admit to a breach of academic honesty but no agreement is reached on recommended penalty, a document signed by the student and the course instructor, which includes the admission, a summary of the matter and individual submissions by the student and course instructor as to penalty shall be forwarded to the Student Affairs Committee, which shall arrange a formal hearing of the matter, to which the student will be invited and course instructor may be required to attend as specified in Section 3.6.
4. If the student elects not to attend the exploratory meeting, and if those present find sufficient grounds to proceed with a charge of breach of academic honesty, a summary of the matter shall be forwarded to the Student Affairs Committee, which shall arrange a formal hearing of the matter, to which the student will be invited and the course instructor may be required to attend.
5. If it is decided that sufficient grounds exist to proceed with a formal charge of academic misconduct and the student does not admit to this alleged breach of academic honesty, a formal charge shall be prepared and submitted to the Student Affairs Committee. The charge shall contain a full, but concise, statement of the facts as perceived by the complainant and be accompanied by all available supporting evidence. The PAO or person chairing the exploratory meeting will forward the documents contemplated in items iii and iv above and this section to the Schulich ADA.

In cases where an allegation of academic dishonesty or the penalty for acknowledged academic dishonesty in the context of a course is to be resolved by a formal hearing, the responsible body is the Schulich Student Affairs Committee. (One program is exempted from these procedures; the EMBA program will be subject to a different, parallel set of procedural regulations, reflecting the joint nature of that program between two universities) The PAO shall give the student[s] and the ADA (or designate) a written copy of the charge, a copy of the materials submitted by the course instructor which includes a summary of the evidence, a copy of the procedures to be followed by confirmed delivery and not less than twenty-one calendar days' written notice of the time and location of the hearing. If the student wishes to file a written response to the charge, it must be received by the PAO within fourteen calendar days of the date on which the charge was sent to the student. The PAO will send a copy of the student’s response to the charge to the course instructor and the ADA. Both the accused student[s] and the ADA (or designate) must inform the PAO of their intention to call witnesses and file names of these witnesses with the PAO at least seven calendar days prior to the hearing.

In cases where an allegation of academic dishonesty or the penalty for acknowledged academic dishonesty outside the context of a course or any case for which the ADA has assumed carriage (allowed for in 3.4.6) is to be resolved by a formal hearing, the responsible body is also the Schulich Student Affairs Committee. However, when the ADA has taken carriage of a case, it is the ADA’s responsibility to supply the formal charge and summary of evidence to the student[s] involved and to the Student Affairs Committee, through the PAO. The PAO retains the responsibility for supporting the Student Affairs Committee panel during the process leading up to the formal hearing.

Prior to the hearing, if a student acknowledges the accuracy of the charges, the student may waive the right to a hearing by submitting a written statement that both admits guilt and waives the right to a hearing. Such a written statement shall be provided at least seven days before the scheduled hearing to allow the course instructor to review the matter and provide input to the Schulich Student Affairs Sub-Committee

1. In this statement, the student may make submissions as to appropriate penalty and give reasons. If the course instructor submitting the charge concurs with the penalty recommendation of the student, a jointly signed submission will be forwarded to the Student Affairs Sub-Committee. In such cases, the agreed-upon penalty shall not exceed failure in the course. Should the Student Affairs Sub-Committee find that some other penalty would be more appropriate, it shall arrange for a formal hearing of the matter, to which the student will be invited and the course instructor may be required to attend.
2. If the faculty member and student do not agree on a recommended penalty, individual submissions as to penalty shall be made by the student and course instructor to the Student Affairs Committee, which shall arrange a formal hearing of the matter, to which the student will be invited and the course instructor may be required to attend.

4. Order of Faculty or Senate Hearings on Academic Honesty

The following indicates the order in which a Faculty or Senate committee should proceed when hearing a charge of breach of academic honesty. The committee may alter the order in the interests of fairness or in cases where multiple students are charged with related offences.

4.1 The Chair shall:

• introduce the parties and members of the committee;
• identify the nature of the case and evidence before the committee.

• briefly describe the case to be presented, in an opening statement;
• present support for the charge through oral testimony of complainant and witnesses, and through documentary evidence;
• the student (or his/her representative) may ask questions of each of the presenter’s witnesses at the close of that person's testimony;
• committee members normally ask questions at the end of each person's testimony but may interrupt if clarity is required.

• the student (or his/her representative) shall briefly reply and indicate main arguments in an opening statement;
• present support for his/her case through oral testimony provided by him/herself and witnesses as well as documentary evidence.;
• the presenter may ask questions of each of the student’s witnesses at the close of that person's testimony;
• committee members normally ask questions at the end of each person's testimony but may interrupt if clarity is required.

• the names of committee members and all who appeared;
• a summary of the cases of the parties;
• the committee's findings of fact, decision and reasons;
• the route of appeal.