UNC Charlotte Academic Integrity: Deciding on Guilt and Punishment

By R.H. Toenjes

Approved by the Faculty Council

April 16, 1987

This discussion is based on information from a study of The UNCC Code of Student Academic Integrity conducted during 1986. It seeks to articulate several kinds of ideas about which consensus exists in dealing with academic dishonesty at UNC Charlotte. The goal is to assist faculty members faced with student dishonesty to reach conclusions that are consistent with the code and common practice across campus.

The first section addresses the matter of how to decide that a student has violated the code. Often this is not a problem. But sometimes it is not clear what the student must intend or know in order to violate the code. In some cases, circumstances that would properly be taken as mitigating factors for determining the penalty are mistaken as proof of innocence.

The second section explains how to decide penalties for code violations. It states the formal penalty, and it makes explicit the reasoning behind the consensus on the normal penalty.

Throughout the reader should bear in mind that the information, analyses, and explanations are offered solely for reflection and clarification. They are in no way binding, and do not define University policy in any way beyond the code (which is policy). The normal penalty appears in the code.

A.  DECIDING GUILT

1. Intent: Students probably never intend to violate the code. What they intend is to receive a higher grade, to prevent loss of scholarship, athletic, or other eligibility, to get a good grade, to avoid consequences of lack of preparation due to a variety of causes.

Furthermore, many students probably do not explicitly form the intention to deceive or defraud the instructor or to engage in dishonesty. Probably what happens is the student intends to copy from another during an exam, or intends to copy from a source without citation. And the student intends to submit the work for credit. But the student never explicitly formulates the intention to deceive or defraud the instructor or to engage in dishonesty. The student just doesn't think of this. The student does not reflect on the fact that when there is unauthorized or unacknowledged copying and then the work is submitted for credit, this necessarily involves dishonesty.

The only intent involved in violating the code is the intent to perform the action itself: e.g., intentionally bringing a crib sheet to an examination, purposely altering or counterfeiting information, intentionally submitting the same work twice, intentionally claiming as one's own the work of another, intentionally destroying resource materials, or intentionally helping another to do such actions.

2. Knowledge: The student violator must know that s/he is doing the action. It is not necessary that the student knows the action violates the code. The code is University policy, and students are responsible for being familiar with it. It has been in force since 1984 and is widely publicized. The Catalog itself states clearly student responsibility with this regard.

3. Authorization: The matter of authorization figures into determinations that cheating, fabrication, and multiple submissions are code violations. Even regarding plagiarism and proper acknowledgement of sources the authorization issue sometimes plays an essential role, because proper acknowledgement relates to rules and expectations within courses and disciplines. And complicity sometimes involves authorization in situations where students collaborate on projects, help one another with course work, receive tutorial assistance, etc.

Knowledge that authorization has been given raises an important issue. Students, like all of us, can have erroneous beliefs. A student might erroneously believe that authorization has been given when this is not the case. Erroneous belief, when the mistake is sincere and not culpable, does not constitute dishonesty and hence cannot constitute code violations. An honest yet mistaken belief that the instructor authorized use of books, calculators, etc. in an exam is not cheating.

Erroneous belief that something is not prohibited when in fact it is raises other issues. First, the code prohibits many things; but even sincere ignorance of the code is no excuse, because it is culpable ignorance. Second, a student could sincerely and reasonably believe that something has not been explicitly prohibited by an instructor when in fact it has. For example, it may be that on previous course exercises open books, use of calculators, collaboration, resubmission of previously graded work, etc. were authorized, but on a given exercise these were explicitly prohibited. A student may not have heard or read the explicit new prohibition and have an honest yet erroneous belief that the materials in question are still authorized. In such a case the student might be guilty of academic failure (to follow directions or instructions) but not of academic dishonesty. Third, it may be that no explicit authorization or prohibition has been made. This is the case for all of the commonly shared understandings that surround all explicit rules. For example, while seldom explicitly authorized, students are expected to use pencils in exams, to consult notes and books and even fellow student in preparing for exercises, and so forth. And students are expected to know where to draw the line between, for example, paraphrasing which must be cited, and using without citation an idea or expression obtained in study, reading, conversation, etc. Similarly, students are expected to know the boundary between prohibited and admissible use of previously credited work (the code prohibits only resubmission of substantive portions).

In this category of common background understandings which are assumed but not explicitly stated, the following should guide determinations of code violations: The student is required to get clarification when in doubt. Of course the instructor should provide clarification, even occasionally anticipate situations that might raise doubt. If the student had doubt about authorization or prohibition, but did not get clarification, the student will be presumed to have known the material was not authorized. The burden here is on the student who has a doubt to get the clarification. If the student has no such doubt, the burden shifts. Now it has been shown that a reasonable person in these circumstances would have had the doubt, and hence the student in question should have had the doubt and sought clarification. The burden is on the accusing faculty member or the AIB panel to establish or determine this.

4. Multiple Submission: The same standards of intent, knowledge, and authorization apply here. The student must know that substantial portions of the same work are submitted for credit more than once, and that the instructor has not authorized it. For students, where quantities of academic credit and work determine in part completion of the program, the course instructor must authorize usage of the same material. Whatever student may believe about their rights to use their own work, they are bound by the code.

5. Plagiarism: The student must intend that the work presented be taken as his/her own, and must know that the work is not his/her own. The student need not know whose the work is, only that he or she is not the author. Thus, turning in as my work a paper I found in the trash is plagiarism. And this is why use of common knowledge is not plagiarism. If the knowledge is common, it is all of ours (i.e., members of the community in question) and hence all are entitled to its use.

6. Complicity: Here the student would have to know that s/he is helping another to commit an act of dishonesty. If all the student knows is that s/he is helping another, and is genuinely not aware that the other will use the help to do something which violates the code, there is no complicity.

B.  DECIDING PENALTY

1. Settlement Form: Having decided that the student knowingly and intentionally performed the action that violated the code, the next decision is what penalty to assign. One thing to keep in mind is that the signed Settlement Form that is kept on file in the Dean of Students Office is itself important. While it does no immediate or direct harm to the student, it guarantees that any further violation will be heard by the AIB and the board's decision on penalty will take into account the fact that the student is a repeat offender. Thus, even a formal warning with not further penalty is a genuine and strong deterrent.

2. The Normal Penalty: Having decided guilt and that at least a formal warning will be given, the next determination is whether the circumstances of the case constitute aggravating or mitigating factors. But the first thing to note is that a determination that the violation merits a more or a less sever punishment required some kind of norm or base from which to make adjustments. To decide on a heavier or a lighter punishment, one needs some kind of idea of a NORMAL PENALTY.

The consensus of the UNC Charlotte faculty is that the normal penalty for academic dishonesty is (a) zero credit on the work tainted by dishonesty, (b) further substantial reduction of the course grade beyond the grade that would result from that zero, and (c) in almost all cases the course grade is reduced to an "F".

The reason to assign zero credit on the tainted work is simply that such work does not count toward a grade at all; it is entirely null and void for credit because of the dishonesty. The reasons to further reduce the course grade include: (1) Simply limiting the grade impact to the zero on the tainted work must be different from the result of submitting no work or failing work. (2) Often dishonest students were already in jeopardy of failing the exercise, and possible loss of credit on the assignment is not risk at all. (3) Students who violate the integrity code must experience immediate negative consequences, and this must be understood by all students. Since the tainted work is already disqualified, the negative impact on the course grade must extend beyond the result of that zero. To be experienced as punishment at all, the student must see the course grade reduced substantially beyond the result of the zero.

The reasons to reduce the course grade to an "F" include: (1) This penalty is one which truly accomplishes the negative consequences on the student that a penalty should accomplish. (2) When students and faculty members come to understand that "F" in the course is the normal or presumed penalty, a degree of clarity and uniformity in penalties will be clearly achieved. (3) This clarity and uniformity, together with the severity of being punished with "F" in the course, will have a significant deterrent effect on all students.

In some circumstances faculty members using the settlement procedure might decide that "F" in the course is not warranted. In such cases, the faculty member should carefully consider at least some reduction in the course grade, beyond the impact of the zero on the tainted assignment. For again, merely to assign zero on the tainted work is actually no punishment, and it treats the dishonest student no differently than an honest student who did not complete the assignment or failed to pass it despite an honest attempt.

3. Identifying the work tainted by dishonesty: While there is no question about how to assign zero to tainted work, there may be a question regarding what or how much work is actually tainted by dishonesty. Clearly, an entire paper resubmitted for credit more than once is entirely tainted. So, too is a plagiarized paper in which all the substantive content has been copied or paraphrased. Preparing and using a crib sheet in an examination taints the entire exercise with dishonesty.

But occasionally it appears that only a discrete portion of an exercise involves dishonesty. Sometimes students change several answers on exams that have been graded and returned, seeking additional credit. Sometimes they plagiarize a chart or diagram in a report that is otherwise authentically their own. Or the plagiarism may apparently exist only in part of an otherwise authentic paper. Consensus at UNC Charlotte is that any dishonesty in an academic exercise taints the entire exercise. Accordingly, it is proper to assign zero credit to the entire exercise even if a portion of it is authentic. In such cases, it may be appropriate to assign a less severe punishment; but it is not appropriate to give any credit for the work tainted with dishonesty.

To summarize, the normal penalty for academic dishonesty at UNC Charlotte is decided as follows:

a.       Assign zero credit to the exercise tainted by dishonesty.

b.       Reduce the course grade substantially beyond the grade that would result with that zero factored in. In almost all cases the course grade should be reduced to "F".

c.       If "F" on the course in not warranted, at least some reduction in the course grade should be made, beyond the result of the zero on the tainted work.

4. Factors to Consider: With the norm in mind, and the reasoning that leads to it made explicit, one now turns to the actual case and identifies factors relevant to the determination of penalty. Section IV of the code indicates that the following should be considered:

a.       The nature and seriousness of the offense.

b.       The injury or damage resulting from the misconduct.

c.       The student's motivation and state of mind at the time of the incident.

d.       The student's prior disciplinary record.

e.       The student's attitude and demeanor subsequent to the violation.

In some cases the faculty member may be convinced that only a discrete portion of the exercise involved dishonesty. Here the nature and seriousness of the offense, or the injury resulting may be judged mitigating factors. If so, the zero on the exercise with no further grade penalty or only a one letter reduction in the course grade may be appropriate.

Faculty members should also keep in mind that some first violations of the code are so serious that merely to assign "F" in the course, which is the maximum penalty a faculty member may impose, is insufficient (e.g., students have stolen examinations and distributed them to others for pay). Sometimes a student is doing so poorly in the course that receiving zero on an exam and a "F" in the course is absolutely no punishment. In cases where "F" in the course is not sufficient, the faculty member should take the case to the Academic Integrity Board (AIB) that is empowered to assign more severe punishments, including suspension and expulsion. The faculty member initiates such action simply by contacting the Chair of the AIB.

Finally, students typically appeal to their motivation as a reason to be judged innocent of a code violation. Faculty members should recall the discussion in the first section of this document: motive only involves the intent to do the action, nothing more. However, it may be that motive is a mitigating factor suggesting a lighter punishment. Such was the case of a student living at home whose father forged a note from a medical doctor and insisted it be submitted as an excuse for missing a quiz. But motive would not be a mitigating factor; in fact, it would probably be an aggravating factor, if a student-athlete under pressure to maintain academic eligibility were to cheat on a quiz.

Faculty members are encouraged to impose the normal penalty in every case of code violation, and to be quite hesitant to reduce below the norm. Most students believe that most academic dishonesty is not detected or punished. For UNC Charlotte to make a clear and strong statement that academic integrity is a most important matter, firm and appropriate punishment must result from violations of code.