VIII. Associate Diploma Regulations and Procedures
The word "dean" in any of the following procedures means "dean or Director at the College".
Detection and Documentation
The responsibility for preventing and detecting academic misconduct in an examination lies with the invigilators, although they may make use of reports from others to assist them in detection. In cases of suspected impersonation, the chief invigilator shall require the student concerned to remain after the examination until the student is satisfactorily identified. In other cases of suspected academic misconduct, the chief invigilator shall allow the student to complete the examination, but may take action by either:
In any case, the chief invigilator shall give a full report, together with any confiscated material, to the instructor-in-charge of the course if the instructor is not the chief invigilator. In instances of open learning courses, the material will be submitted to the Director of Open Learning. This documentation is used in consultation with the chair/director when preparing a formal complaint.
Term assignments, including research and thesis work.
The responsibility for detecting academic misconduct on term assignments, etc., lies with the person responsible for evaluation and discussion of the student's work (marker), although that person may make use of reports from others to assist in detection. Where academic misconduct is suspected, the marker:
In any case, the marker shall give a full report in writing together with any confiscated material to the instructor-in-charge of the course, or to the advisor of the student's work, if the instructor/advisor is not the marker. This documentation is used in consultation with the chair/director when preparing a formal complaint.
Cases outside the domain of examinations or assignments.
The responsibility for detecting academic misconduct in the context of an academic environment that is not part of the formal examination or assignment process must rest with the entire university community. Where academic misconduct is suspected, but where it is unclear whether it is directly related to a specific course, or where the specific course is unknown, those with knowledge of an offence should attempt to contact either the chair of the student's department, the student's program counsellor, or the student's college dean. If the suspected offence appears to be related to a specific course, then the instructor of the course should be contacted
Response to Academic Misconduct
Suspected Academic Misconduct.
Where there is evidence of suspected academic misconduct associated with a specific course, the instructor-in-charge of the course should consult with the chair/director (Associate Director at the College) to help determine whether the offence and the associated evidence/documentation merit a formal complaint. At this stage, the student is likely to be interviewed, but there is no obligation to do so.
When it is determined that a formal complaint is appropriate, the chair/director (Associate Director at the College) shall make the complaint in writing to the dean of the college offering the course. The complaint shall include copies of all relevant material including a description of the method of evaluation as described in the course outline. A copy of the complaint shall be forwarded to Undergraduate Program Services. The dean of the college offering the course will take the initiative in determining whether to proceed with a complaint.
The complaint shall refer to how the offence is or is not directly related to the assessment format (for example, "plagiarism on the 50 percent term assignment"). If the formal complaint involves a final examination or final assignment, the grade submission for the student shall be delayed. In those cases where the suspected misconduct is not directly related to a specific course, the complaint may be made directly to the dean of the student's college.
Formal Complaint Procedures for Academic Misconduct.
The responsibility in all cases for deciding whether to process the formal complaint, deem a student guilty or not, and for determining any penalty, lies jointly with the dean (or Director at the College) of the college offering the course and with the dean (or Director at the College) of the student's college (or the Director of Open Learning, where appropriate), acting in consultation with the Provost and Vice-President (Academic), and where appropriate, the Dean of Graduate Studies. Either dean concerned may seek further information concerning any reported incident from the instructor or from any other person involved.
Should the dean(s) (or Director at the College) decide that the evidence/documentation or the offence does not merit any further action on behalf of the formal complaint, the dean(s) (or Director at the College) will return the formal complaint to its source and indicate the reasons for the return. A formal complaint not processed as an accusation of academic misconduct by the dean(s) (or Director at the College) has no official status as an accusation and no record of the complaint shall be maintained.
Once the decision is made to process the formal complaint as an accusation of academic misconduct, the dean of the college offering the course shall interview the student, unless the student is unavailable or unwilling.
The dean(s) (or Director at the College) may, after the appropriate inquiry and a guilty verdict, impose one or more of the penalties previously listed. The dean of the college offering the course shall contact Undergraduate Program Services, or the Dean of Graduate Studies, to ascertain if any record of previous academic offences exist.
The penalty is assessed by the dean(s) concerned (acting jointly) in consultation with the Provost and Vice-President (Academic), and where appropriate, the Dean of Graduate Studies.
If the student is deemed not guilty by the dean(s) (or Director at the College), no penalties will be assessed, no record of the suspected offence or formal complaint will be kept, and all parties will be informed of the final decision by the dean(s).
A student charged with academic misconduct in a particular course or courses will not be allowed to drop the course(s) in question during the period of the investigation. If the student is found to be innocent of the charge, or in the event the student is found guilty of academic misconduct and the penalty selected is an official warning, the student may drop the course(s) (subject to normal deadlines for dropping courses). If the student is found guilty of academic misconduct and is assessed a penalty other than an official warning, the student will not be allowed to drop the course(s).
Penalty Assessment for Academic Misconduct.
If a student is charged with academic misconduct resulting in the dean's (or Director at the College) assignment of a penalty that consists of the loss of marks only, the student has the right to appeal first to the dean or director of his or her college. This right need not be exercised, and the student may appeal such a penalty directly to the Senate Committee on Student Petitions.
If a mark only appeal is not submitted to the dean or director within 15 calendar days of receipt of the notification, the mark penalty as assessed shall stand unless it is appealed directly to the Senate Committee on Student Petitions and changed as a result of such an appeal.
If the student is charged with academic misconduct, the student may submit a petition to the Senate Committee on Student Petitions. When there is no appeal of a mark penalty made to the dean or director, or when the penalties go beyond mark penalties, then the submission of a petition is to be made within 15 calendar days of the receipt of the initial penalty assessment. In the case of a mark only penalty, this petition may be made within 15 calendar days of receipt of an appeal decision by the dean or director. At the time of submitting the petition, the student may request a hearing for the next scheduled meeting of the Senate Committee on Student Petitions.
A review by the Senate Committee on Student Petitions involves an examination of all relevant documents to determine the appropriateness of a dean's or director's finding of guilt or of the assessed penalty. In the case where a petition is received after the 15 day limit and a mark penalty is the only penalty assigned, the committee will seek to determine whether the penalty was first appealed to the dean. The procedures for conducting a review and for holding a hearing are set out in the Regulations of the Senate Committee on Student Petitions.
Following a review or hearing, the Senate Committee on Student Petitions may take one or more of the following courses of action:
Record of Academic Misconduct
Undergraduate Program Services, or the Dean of Graduate Studies (or the Director of Open Learning in the case of Open Learning Program Students) shall place in the student's file a record of all academic misconduct for which the student is penalized. Students in the Associate Diploma Program who are found guilty of academic misconduct in an Independent Study course taken through OAC Access towards their Associate Diploma will have the record of the finding of guilt placed against the appropriate term. This record shall be expunged from the student's file upon graduation, or completion of a certificate or diploma for open learners. Students who do not graduate from the University of Guelph or another university may submit an appeal to the Senate Committee on Student Petitions to have the record expunged no sooner than 5 years after the date of last registration. Students who have graduated at another accredited university may submit verification of graduation to Undergraduate Program Services, Office of Registrarial Services and have their record expunged. The record for expulsion is permanent, unless removed by petition to the President.
Access to the record of academic misconduct will be limited to those involved in processing appeals and those involved in processing additional complaints against the student. It is normally assumed that the penalties for repeat offenders will be more severe than those assigned for first offences.