Excerpt from the Student Handbook

Students at Carnegie Mellon, because they are members of an academic community dedicated to the achievement of excellence, are expected to meet the highest standards of personal, ethical, and moral conduct possible.

These standards require personal integrity, a commitment to honesty without compromise, as well as truth without equivocation, and a willingness to place the good of the community above the good of the self. Obligations once undertaken must be met, commitments kept.

Rarely can the life of a student in an academic community be so private that it will not affect the community as a whole or that the standards above do not apply.

The discovery, advancement and communication of knowledge are not possible without a commitment to these standards. Creativity cannot exist without acknowledgment of the creativity of others. New knowledge cannot be developed without credit for prior knowledge. Without the ability to trust that these principles will be observed, an academic community cannot exist.

The commitment of its faculty, staff and students to these standards contributes to the high respect in which the Carnegie Mellon degree is held. Students must not destroy that respect by their failure to meet these standards. Students who cannot meet them should voluntarily withdraw from the university.

Because we seek to maintain the highest possible standards at CMU, the urge to get ahead can sometimes tempt students to use questionable or inappropriate methods - especially when the stakes seem to be high. In difficult or ambiguous situations people often rely on a variety of indirect signals to decide what is and isn't an acceptable action:

Do many students seem to think some dishonesty is the norm on campus?

Do some testing and grading procedures seem to allow students to get away with academic dishonesty?

Do some types of courses seem to require a lot from students without a sufficiently supportive teaching environment?

Are we influenced by societal norms which increasingly seem to condone "mild" dishonesty?

Under stress or time pressure people may rationalize that no one is hurt if a student "takes a shortcut." But each person's attitudes and actions contribute to our individual and community standards. Giving in to these urges also means giving up a measure of personal integrity. Bit by bit, what may seem like small ethical compromises sacrifice the integrity of our academic community.

Promoting academic integrity is the responsibility of the entire Carnegie Mellon community. In your ongoing discussions, consider how ethical choices sustain and enhance our views of ourselves and others and how strong support can help students avoid pressure to compromise their personal and academic integrity.

It is a rare individual who actively chooses to be dishonest. But why do a few students make compromising choices? What can lead people to act in ways that they aren't proud of? Below are some underlying beliefs and confusions which students at CMU give as explanations for slipping standards of integrity.

Cheating, A Victimless Crime?

Students generally are familiar with the disciplinary actions and penalties for getting caught. However, they may fail to understand that one of the personal consequences of cheating and/or plagiarism is that they aren't actually learning or performing up to their ability level. They may not realize that they will actually need and be accountable for certain knowledge and skills.

Instructors may not explain the personal consequences and loss of trust that accompany academic dishonesty if they are focused mainly on stating the procedures and punishments related to academic disciplinary actions. They may not tell students how dishonesty damages their trust in a student and his or her work.

It's A "Dog-Eat-Dog" University

Students and their families often have very high expectations about grade achievements because they are accustomed to getting As. More pressure comes from the emphasis on grades in hiring and graduate admissions. Some students may feel pressured to develop unorthodox means to get competitive and marketable credentials.

Instructors sometimes evaluate the performance of one student against the performance of others instead of measuring each student's achievement with respect to specified criteria. If students must compete with other students to get one of a limited number of As, they begin to look for ways to "get ahead."

Just Because Everyone Else Jumped In A Lake . . .

Students sometimes view cheating as a necessary, not totally unacceptable method for academic survival. If they believe that "everyone cheats sometimes," they may not seriously ask themselves, "Why shouldn't I?"

Professors and teaching assistants do not always confront suspected breaches of academic integrity. If they perceive that others do not pursue the formal process or that it is difficult to prove a breach has occurred, instructors may decide not to talk directly with students about potential problems.

Too Much Work, Too Little Time?

Students often have multiple assignments due on the same day and in some courses may have only a few opportunities to demonstrate what they know. Cheating can be a tempting path when they have difficulty managing their time. Some may have little remorse because they rationalize "doing what it takes" to get all of their work done. One poor performance on a high-stakes assignment or feeling "shafted out of an A" by a curve may increase the perceived pressure to switch from honest work to questionable "shortcuts."

Instructors often underestimate students' need for multiple assignments to get feedback, to receive a fair grade, and to stay motivated to learn. Sometimes in an effort to reduce the workload, they may not think about the intense pressure on students when a course grade is based only on a midterm and a final. Or, in an effort to provide lots of timely practice and feedback, others may lose track of how much pressure students feel to meet deadlines.

What Is Past Is Passed On

Students are accustomed to sharing their work from past semesters with others and using friends' old exams to study, and they are often encouraged to do so. But the limits of a good learning strategy can be stretched too far if students "borrow" from papers, homework sets or lab reports done by other students.

Instructors often do a good job of varying exam questions and assignments from semester to semester. But they may begin to resent the time and suspicion involved in altering effective materials just to take precautions against potential cheating or plagiarism.

Do We Have to Spell Everything Out?

Students recognize the obvious examples of academic dishonesty such as copying during an exam or quoting extensively without a citation. They can be much less clear on how much collaboration is allowed, what kind of paraphrasing is appropriate to summarize a source or whether one assignment can be turned in for two different classes. If students are not accustomed to thinking about the ownership of ideas, they tend to underreport their sources.

Instructors often state their expectations for tests and about quoting, footnoting, and paraphrasing in papers and they outline the consequences of being dishonest. However, they may not state precisely what they consider to be appropriate collaboration (if any) and what they recommend as guidelines for teamwork.

Playing the Odds

Students sometimes feel that receiving a zero for an exam or a paper is a justified penalty for cheating, but they may also convince themselves that they won't get caught. And they can be reinforced in this thinking if grading procedures aren't planned carefully or if instructors don't follow up on suspicious incidents.

Instructors may at times have difficulty discovering that students copied or inappropriately collaborated on assignments when a large number of exams and papers must be graded. Grading procedures which include comparison among students and across multiple sections take extra time so instructors sometimes bet on their ability to spot students' papers which are strikingly similar.

Don't Rock the Boat

Students often feel they need to stick together and watch out for each other; thus, they feel extremely reluctant to report a peer's academic dishonesty, even when they suspect someone they don't like. They think, "Would I want them to report me if they thought I was cheating?" The answer usually is no, so they often let it slide. To avoid confrontation, they may not even talk to a friend.

Instructors sometimes avoid discussions of questionable behaviors with individual students. Some are honestly confused about whether an initial discussion has to lead to a charge of dishonesty and a potentially long procedure (it doesn't). Instructors may also be reluctant to approach a student about questionable work without solid evidence because they don't want to make unwarranted accusations.

Life during college naturally includes students' exploration of their own values. While in the midst of certain internal struggles some students may have difficulty exercising good judgment in matters of academic integrity.

Sometimes It's a Downward Spiral

Fear of failure and low self-esteem can contribute to dishonest behavior. When students see these behaviors as consistent with their negative feelings about themselves, there seems to be little to lose by cheating. When facing a deadline some students choose to plagiarize rather than take a chance on performing poorly. Afterwards, guilt and feelings of disappointment can feed already low self-esteem, further increasing the likelihood of dishonesty in the future.

Sometimes It's an Upward Climb

Students need to rely on a clear sense of ethics to motivate good choices, especially when facing tremendous time pressure or tough competition. A poorly developed sense of integrity and moral standards can lead to trouble. Academic challenges can provide many opportunities for high standards to evolve if students actively reflect on them and if the CMU community supports discussions to help in this process.

While the community needs methods to deal with breaches of integrity when they occur, we also need to examine what we have to gain when we proactively promote academic integrity. Here are some important benefits for individual students and our community.

Open Communications Build Trust

If students develop the habit of showing respect for the work of others, it becomes natural to acknowledge the sources for ideas formally and to do a fair share when involved in a collaborative group effort. Discussing course-related difficulties with peers, faculty and/or teaching assistants when they first arise builds better working relationships among students and between students and faculty.

Persevering Builds Integrity

If students experience academic or personal difficulties and continue their academic work - either by talking with faculty or other CMU staff who can help or by "toughing it out"- they gain a better sense of self. Because they learn to cope with difficult circumstances, students know their own limits. Because they haven't compromised themselves, they don't feel that they have let down their family, their instructors or themselves.

Rewards Are Meaningful

If all students invest time and effort effectively in their academic work and faculty plan their courses well, both students and faculty can feel confident that the resulting achievements represent valuable learning. No one will have to worry about whether a cutthroat or desperate student found shortcuts to "beat the system."

A Wide Community Reaps Benefits

If the Carnegie Mellon community communicates and supports clear standards of integrity, undergraduate and graduate students internalize those standards and carry them forward in their personal and professional lives. Alumni can then be extremely proud of their professionalism and many professions will gain outstanding leaders.

Both instructors and students can consider steps to enhance academic integrity in the CMU community. This section offers suggestions drawn from ongoing conversations with CMU students and faculty over the years and from the literature on academic integrity. The steps below include ways students can more effectively manage their own learning with the help of university resources and ways individual instructors can enhance support for student learning and integrity.

Steps Students Might Take:

• Ask about policies regarding collaboration and citations at the beginning of each course. Instructors' policies may differ substantially from one another.
• Ask questions - in class, immediately after class, in e-mail or in office hours - about course content or course procedures. If you are confused, you might ask for more clarification, different examples, or specific applications to help you understand. Other students often have the same questions you do so your questions can enhance the overall effectiveness of the course.
• Find out whether the instructor will provide suggestions for preparing for exams and consider preparing your own review sheet. The process of making a review sheet is actually a good method of improving your understanding of and memory for complex information.
• Refine your note-taking skills. Many students form the habit of transcribing whatever the professor writes, no more and no less. To facilitate better review and study sessions, ask yourself frequent questions as you read or listen to a lecture: What is the key new idea here? How can I use this information? Can I anticipate what is coming next?
• Improve your time management, especially during the day and early evening. Procrastination more often leads to ineffective cramming and loss of sleep than to good performance under pressure. If you begin to work well before due dates and examinations, you are much more likely to learn the material, to be able to get help if you need it, to feel less stressed, to perform better, and to avoid poor decisions on very late nights.
• Speak with the professors about their grading and homework policies if you feel that the policies seem unfair - feedback is essential to improving the quality of a class. If you feel uncomfortable talking with an instructor directly, you might express your views in early course evaluations or to a teaching assistant.
• Make more use of the help that is available to you to master course material and to be efficient in your work:
  • Faculty and teaching assistants can talk with you during office hours or in e-mail.
  • Librarians can help you become more skilled in research.
  • Walk-in tutoring and course centers provide convenient hours to get help for several introductory courses.
  • Course bboards often include announcements and advice to aid students with particular assignments.
  • People in the class can form study groups whenever your instructor considers it appropriate so that you can practice using and explaining course concepts in a setting where peers can give you feedback.
• Recognize the options you have, other than cheating, for dealing with academic pressure:
  • Set priorities and adjust your expectations to reduce the pressure you put on yourself.
  • Talk with one of the many people on campus who may be able to offer you good suggestions: a professor, a TA, your academic advisor, your RA, or a counselor.
  • Consider participating in a workshop on time management, study skills or stress management offered by Learning Services to improve your academic success.
• If you feel tempted to cheat or plagiarize, try to identify the underlying reasons (e.g. family pressure, self-expectations, external stresses, fear of failure) and address them by talking with a friend, your parents, a counselor, your academic advisor, your TA, or someone else with whom you feel comfortable discussing the difficulties you are having.

Steps Instructors Might Take:

• Maintain clear guidelines in each course about what is permitted. You might include in course syllabi information about ground rules and specific examples of what you consider to be cheating and plagiarism, as well as what is or isn't appropriate collaboration.
• Include in course syllabi options students can try if things get tough for them. For example, you might explicitly tell them, "Please talk with me and your TA if you are having difficulties" or "If you need some extra time to complete the assignment, the late penalty is 10% per day." Let students know that you are open to discussing extensions in exceptional circumstances and will accommodate the special needs of students with learning disabilities.
• Emphasize to students, as much as you can, that you are approachable and will try to be responsive to their concerns as individuals. Consider ways in which the course requirements could be more flexible to help students deal more effectively with academic pressure.
• Increase opportunities to discuss the course workload and get feedback on homework sets by administering early course evaluations in the first 3-5 weeks, using quality circles, and/or getting input from students via TAs throughout the semester.
• Promote more interaction in classes, especially large lectures, to increase learning. Students can avoid falling behind and will be less tempted to cheat if they have more chances to ask questions and receive help.
• Increase opportunities for one-on-one faculty-student interaction by scheduling staggered office hours, encouraging use of e-mail, and/or participating in out side-the-classroom activities. Students are much more likely to talk with you about their difficulties if they have a comfortable, ongoing relationship with you.
• Provide varied opportunities for practice and application of the course material so that the students receive frequent feedback on their performance, are aware of their standing and receive grades determined by more than just midterm and final exams. Consult the University Teaching Center if you are interested in mechanisms for increasing feedback without significantly increasing your grading load.
• Revise exams, problem sets, and paper assignments frequently. If you want to "recycle" particularly good questions, consider providing them as in-class examples, expanding a complex exam question to an out-of-class assignment, or changing elements of a question based on things like previous students' performance.
• Consider how well any graded work corresponds to the stated course objectives, how it draws on material presented in class and/or assigned reading, and whether it takes time roughly proportional to its importance in the course. Inappropriate "shortcuts" are especially tempting if students view assignments as unnecessarily long or believe exams don't test what was taught.
• Break large assignments into manageable stages to encourage effective time management, monitor and give feedback on progress, and intervene if there are potential problems. The additional structure can help students avoid last-minute acts of desperation if they fall behind.
• Clarify with your TA what responsibilities he or she has in promoting academic integrity and evaluating students' work. Discuss any specific procedures you want TAs to follow in grading and in handling a suspected violation.
• Proctor exams carefully to show your concern that all students do their work under controlled circumstances. With several monitors around the room for large classes, students also benefit by being able to ask questions more easily.
• If you suspect a student of cheating, take him or her aside and share your perceptions and concerns. Your intervention can help the student to clear up an honest misunderstanding, avoid future problems and emphasize the importance of academic integrity.

Students, TAs or faculty members may witness someone cheating or become aware that a violation of academic integrity has occurred. Confronting this kind of problem is not an easy thing to do, but if we ignore incidents which occur, we cannot maintain CMU's high standards. Below are some suggestions to help you begin the process. It is also wise to consult the current Student Handbook for details. The University's Policy on Academic Integrity is reproduced in this booklet from the 1995-1996 edition of the Student Handbook.

Students Can Respond in a Variety of Ways

• Make some decisions about how far you want to pursue the matter. You should always be aware that you can go to faculty members, advisors, an assistant dean, your RA, or the Office of Student Affairs for advice if you witness a violation and don't know how to proceed. Asking for advice doesn't mean that you've initiated any formal judicial process.
• Ideally, confront the individual(s) you suspect may have cheated in some way at the time you are aware of the violation, or as soon as you can (e.g. after the exam). It is best to speak from your own point of view (sometimes called using "I" statements) to avoid escalating tension and to give the individual(s) a chance to offer an explanation of what you perceived.

"I heard some people talking before class about how you got help to do your assignment."

"It looked to me like you looked at Julie's paper several times during the exam."

• Next, if their response reinforces your concerns, continue using "I" statements to: a) tell them how you feel about their actions, and b) try to stop the behavior from occurring again. This is the goal - to make your peer aware of the fact that what they've done is not fair to the rest of the class, and that it should stop.

"I think you should know that I stayed up all night writing this paper, and it makes me angry that you didn't have to work as hard as the rest of us. I only overheard that you plagiarized this time, but if I knew for sure about this happening again, I would definitely report you to the professor."

• Decide if you have enough cause to notify your professor. He or she will have to weigh the evidence that's available and decide how to act on it in an initial review. Especially if the violation is a serious one, you should have enough confidence in what you witnessed to see the process through to a second-level review. See pages 27-30 for more information about initial and second-level review procedures.

Instructors Should Choose a Response

• When you observe or learn of an incident which causes you concern, gather all information that you can to help you respond appropriately. You can deal with your concerns directly with student(s), within your department or at the university level, depending on the situation. Gathering evidence from the beginning is important in the event that you or the student asks for second-level review.
• If you are a TA, present this information immediately to the course instructor. If you are a faculty member, you may want to consult your department head to decide how to proceed. Also, members of the Office of Student Affairs would be happy to discuss the situation with any faculty member or TA to determine an appropriate plan of action or to consult with you throughout the process.
• Talk with the student(s) involved. Prepare carefully for the conversation(s) so that you state your observations objectively and, as much as possible, avoid blaming anyone immediately. One purpose of this initial conversation is to help you determine exactly what occurred and what penalty, if any, may be appropriate in an initial review. Another purpose can be to warn students that a particular piece of work gave an appearance of dishonesty and that you are concerned enough to try to prevent a problem in the future.

"I have received a report that you were looking at someone else's paper during the exam."

"I've been looking at your assignment, and I noticed that your work and Joe's work are strikingly similar. I'm wondering how you can account for that."

"I observed you copying from another student's lab notebook. You have missed lab twice recently so I don't think you have collected data for the current lab. Can you explain to me what I saw?"

• If you believe after your conversation(s) that a violation has occurred, let the student know the severity of the situation in your view and explain what happens from here. As outlined in the student handbook, within one week of the discovery of the suspected violation, impose a penalty, and put that decision in writing to the student, copied to your department head and to the Dean of Student Affairs. You may wish to consult your department head and/or the Dean of Student Affairs as you compose this letter. Refer to page 27 of this booklet under "Initial Review, Decision and Actions(s)" for more information about possible penalties.
• Expect that the student(s) will try to contact you to discuss your decision when he or she receives your letter. Even though these conversations may be uncomfortable, feel free to discuss the matter with the student. You may be able to help the student(s) understand your response and to see the rationale for their penalty. You may want to have another member of your department present if you are concerned about the dynamics of the conversations.
• Students can appeal your decision to a second-level review by an Academic Review Board. You may also ask for such a review if you believe the penalty should be more severe than failure in the course. To prepare adequately for a possible second-level review, document every conversation with the student(s) involved and send a copy of that letter to the student, to your department head, and to the Dean of Student Affairs. Even if the formal process goes no further than an initial review, documenting the events can be very helpful in the event that other questions or problems arise with that student in the future. Having such records on file allows an Academic Review Board to penalize a student more heavily if additional violations occur.

Note that penalties imposed by Academic Review Boards since 1991 have included, among others: a zero for an exam, submission of a second paper, adjusted course grades, dropping the student from a class, failure in the course, expulsion, and diploma revocation.

Students, TAs and Faculty can often turn to one another as resources to:

• discuss academic pressures within a course and brainstorm options which are helpful to everyone involved
• look for fair and constructive interventions if academic dishonesty is suspected

Academic advisors and Assistant Deans in your college are available to:

• discuss ways students can deal with course work and personal circumstances which may affect their academic success
• help faculty to better understand individual students who appear to be under unusual stress

Department heads and Associate Deans are available to:

• discuss with faculty any academic integrity issues and procedures as they relate to the department or college
• consult with faculty on academic integrity issues involving graduate students

The Associate Provost for Academic Projects (x86995) are available to:

• consult with faculty and graduate students on academic integrity issues involving graduate or undergraduate students

Student Affairs staff members (x82075) and
Student Life staff members (x82142) are available to:

• counsel students having trouble with academic or personal stress
• help students to find peer tutoring
• discuss with students or faculty ways to respond to incidents where academic dishonesty may have occurred
• provide periodic summaries describing to the community the number and nature of reported incidents of academic dishonesty and cases heard by the Academic Review Board
• conduct "Take 30" programs on time management, study skills or other academic success programs for any group of students (e.g. a residence hall floor, a student organization, or simply a group of friends)

Learning Services staff members (x86878) are available to:

• conduct workshops and tutoring on study skills, time management, and reading skills
• provide written "Fast Facts" on study skills
• identify academic difficulties which may be due to learning disabilities and act as an advocate for students with learning disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act

University Teaching Center staff members (x82896) are available to:

• consult with faculty and graduate student instructors on planning and teaching courses which provide structure and a variety of types of support to facilitate student learning
• conduct workshops and discussions on grading, providing feedback, creating assignments and exams and other teaching-learning topics
• provide examples of statements on academic integrity which faculty have included in their syllabi
• discuss with instructors methods of preventing and responding to problems with academic dishonesty

Excerpts from the 1995-96 Student Handbook

Students at Carnegie Mellon are engaged in preparation for professional activity of the highest standards. Each profession constrains its members with both ethical responsibilities and disciplinary limits. To assure the validity of the learning experience a university establishes clear standards for student work.

In any presentation, creative, artistic or research, it is the ethical responsibility of each student to identify the conceptual sources of the work submitted. Failure to do so is dishonest and is the basis for a charge of cheating or plagiarism which is subject to disciplinary action.

Cheating includes but is not necessarily limited to:

1. Plagiarism, explained below.
2. Submission of work that is not the student's own for papers, assignments or exams.
3. Submission or use of falsified data.
4. Theft of or unauthorized access to an exam.
5. Use of an alternate, stand-in, or proxy during an examination.
6. Use of unauthorized material including textbooks, notes or computer programs in the preparation of an assignment or during an examination.
7. Supplying or communicating in any way unauthorized information to another student for the preparation of an assignment or during an examination.
8. Collaboration in the preparation of an assignment. Unless specifically permitted or required by the instructor, collaboration will usually be viewed by the university as cheating. Each student, therefore, is responsible for understanding the policies of the department offering any course as they refer to the amount of help and collaboration permitted in preparation of assignments.
9. Submission of the same work for credit in two courses without obtaining the permission of the instructors beforehand.

Plagiarism includes but is not limited to failure to indicate the source with quotation marks or footnotes where appropriate if any of the following are reproduced in the work submitted by a student:

1. A phrase, written or musical.
2. A graphic element.
3. A proof.
4. Specific language.
5. An idea derived from the work, published or unpublished, of another person.

Academic Regulations

Undergraduate Academic Disciplinary Actions Overview

"Academic Disciplinary Actions" are penalties or sanctions imposed for violation of academic regulations against cheating or plagiarism as defined in the Student Handbook.

Statute of Limitations

There shall be no "statute of limitations" that precludes faculty from acting on the discovery of alleged violations, either during the semester or term when the course in question is being offered or after the course has ended (and after a student has graduated).

Confidentiality

Cases involving violation of academic regulations against cheating or plagiarism shall be regarded as "confidential" in the manner outlined below:

1. No discussion or disclosure of the specifics of any case with any individual within or outside of the university community will occur unless such discussion or disclosure is deemed necessary in the determination of guilt or appropriate sanction by parties reviewing the case at the initial or second-level of review or unless such an action is specifically imposed as part or the penalty for a violation.
2. The existence of a case, the general nature of a case and the sanctions imposed, if any, may be discussed and available to the university community provided that such availability is unlikely to lead to the clear identification of the student(s) or faculty involved.
3. If the student is exonerated, all relevant records under the control of the university will be destroyed (unless the student specifically requests that a record of exoneration be maintained).

Procedures

Incidents of suspected academic disciplinary violations shall be handled initially at the course (or equivalent academic level: e.g., creative/research projects) and department level, reported immediately to designated parties and (where appropriate as answered below) shall receive second-level review(s) in the following manner:

Initial Review, Decision, and Action(s)

Initial review, decision and action(s) shall remain local, to involve the course instructor(s)¹ and, if desired, a third party from the department's faculty (including the department/program head or associate head). Instructors are free to discuss alleged violations informally with the student(s) thought to be involved. However, suspected violations that would result in a penalty should be handled by the instructor(s), in direct communication with the student(s) involved, within one week of the discovery of the suspected infraction and before the imposition of a penalty.

After discussion with the student(s) involved and their response, the instructor(s) shall conclude, within a reasonable period of time and based on the available evidence, whether the suspected violation(s) occurred. Instructors are encouraged to consult at this stage with their department/program head, their Dean's Office and the dean of student affairs about the nature of the suspected violations, the nature of the evidence of these violations and the range of penalties under consideration. If the conclusion is that the suspected violation(s) did occur, the instructor(s) shall also choose an appropriate penalty.² The most severe penalty at this level of review and action shall be failure in the course, although instructors and their departments may also recommend a more severe penalty (or additional penalties) as outlined below under "Second-Level Review and Action(s)."

1. For the purpose of simplification, the term "instructor" will be used to refer to academic supervisors in courses, research projects, etc.
2. If the invitation to confer with the instructor(s) is not accepted by the student(s) involved, a final decision about the incident and, if appropriate, a penalty, will be determined in their absence.

The instructor(s) shall immediately and in writing, notify the student(s) involved of this decision, the basis for this decision and (when applicable) the penalty imposed. Students whose penalty is failure in the course in question will not be allowed to drop the course and should be so informed. Students should also be informed at this time of their right (and attendant procedures) for appeal (see Student Appeals).

Reporting of Initial Action(s)
A copy of the letter outlining the initial decision and action to the student(s) involved in cases of academic disciplinary violations should also be directed to the following parties:

• Department/program head of the course involved
• Dean's Office of the student's college
• Dean's Office of the college housing the course in which the violation(s) occurred (if different from the student's college)
• The student's major department
• The dean of student affairs.

The dean of student affairs will be responsible for coordinating all second- level action detailed below and will maintain the central record of academic disciplinary violations and actions.

Second-Level Review and Action(s)

Normally, a second-level review of an initial decision and action follows from one or more of three sources: (1) recommendation by the instructor, department or college for a more severe penalty; (2) recommendation by the dean of student affairs (e.g., in cases in which there are one or more prior incidents of academic disciplinary violations in the student(s)' record); and (3) appeal by the student(s) involved.

Student Appeals

In general, students who want to appeal an academic disciplinary action must state in writing to the dean of student affairs their intention to do so within one week of the penalty date in question and then must present their appeal to the dean of student affairs no later than two weeks after said penalty date. Appeals must be in writing, with appropriate documentation.

When a second-level review is warranted, the dean of student affairs shall immediately convene an Academic Review Board to consist of at least five members drawn from the Associate Deans' Council (including the associate provost for academic projects), Faculty Senate and the Student Senate. If a student appeal and a review of a recommendation for second-level action occur simultaneously, both shall be considered by this Review Board simultaneously. Where appropriate, it is expected that the instructor(s) from the course/project involved (or appropriate representatives designated by the department) will be available for participation or at least for consultation. The board shall be chaired by the dean of student affairs who will not have a vote on the board.

As chair of the board, the dean of student affairs shall inform the student(s) involved, in writing, of this step. Copies of this letter should go to:

• The instructor(s) in the course in question
• Department/program head of the course involved
• Dean's Office of the student's college
• Dean's Office of the college housing the course in which the violation(s) occurred (if different than the student's college)
• The student's major department.

The Academic Review Board shall (a) review the facts of incidents involved, and (b) make a recommendation about second-level action to the dean of student affairs. The dean of student affairs shall then render a decision subject only to appeal to the president of the university.

Academic Disciplinary Actions: for Graduate Students³

Graduate Student Academic Standards and Actions
Academic standards, actions and grading information for graduate students can be obtainable through the particular department or college. Graduate students are advised to familiarize themselves with the applicable rules and regulations. Graduate students may also refer to the Graduate Student Guidebook from Student Affairs for additional resource information about academic questions and concerns.

3 This section is not an excerpt from the Student Handbook

Ambrose, S.A. & Sorcinelli, M.D. (1993). "Academic Honesty in the College Classroom: Teaching Strategies." National Conference of the Professional

and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education. Rochester, MN.

Fenton, E. "On Cheating and Plagiarism." (1985). UTC Report on

University Teaching.

Fenton, E. & Ambrose, S. A. (1989, November). "Cheating at CMU: Why It Happens, What To Do About It." Report on UTC Faculty Luncheon Seminar.

Kibler, W.L. (1992, November 11). "Cheating: Institutions need a comprehensive plan for promoting academic integrity." The Chronicle of Higher Education. pp. B1-B2.

Lipson, A. & MacGavern, N. (1993, November). "Undergraduate Academic Dishonesty at MIT: Results of A Study of Undergraduates, Faculty and Graduate Teaching Assistants." Report by MIT Colloquium Committee, Undergraduate Academic Affairs, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Meade, J. (1992, March). "Cheating: Is Academic Dishonesty Par for the Course?" ASEE Prism, pp. 30-32.

Meltzer, A. (1990). "Academic Integrity and The Learning Process." Report by

The Learning Center, Office of the Dean of the Undergraduate College, Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute.

On-Line Version: Yung Tse, Division of Student Affairs

For print version of brochure:

We would like to thank the faculty and students who contributed ideas to this booklet in comments on an earlier draft: Stephanie Behrens, Christa Bower, Samantha Ciotti, Maria Ebling, Jennifer Goetz, Assistant Dean Eric Grotzinger, Audrey Grube, Dr. Chris Hendrickson, Miriam Huang, Karen Jenni, Dr. Jay Kadane, Roman Kapuscinski, Dr. Ed Ko, Associate Provost Barbara Lazarus, Edmund Lopresti, Chris Okasaki , Bala Ramalingam, Omar Sharief, Dr. Kathryn Shaw, Vice Provost Erwin Steinberg, Assistant Dean Mark Stehlik, Dr. Karen Stump, Jeff Willey, and Dr. Hugh Young.

Dr. Susan Ambrose, Director, University Teaching Center Dr. Rea Freeland, Associate Director, University Teaching Center Patricia Harned, Assistant Dean, Office of Student Affairs Aron Ralston '95

Design by Catherine Gooley; initial layout by Salvatore Oliva Photography by Catherine Gooley

Carnegie Mellon does not discriminate and Carnegie Mellon is required not to discriminate in admission, employment, or administration of its programs or activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex or handicap in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or other federal, state, or local laws or executive orders.
In addition, Carnegie Mellon does not discriminate in admission, employment or administration of its programs on the basis of religion, creed, ancestry, belief, age, veteran status, sexual orientation or in violation of federal, state, or local laws or executive orders. However, in the judgment of the Carnegie Mellon Human Relations Commission, the Department of Defense policy of, "Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue," excludes openly gay, lesbian and bisexual students from receiving ROTC scholarships or serving in the military. Nevertheless, all ROTC classes at Carnegie Mellon are available to all students.
Inquiries concerning application of these statements should be directed to the Provost, Carnegie Mellon, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, telephone (412) 268-6684 or the Vice President for Enrollment, Carnegie Mellon, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, telephone (412) 268-2056.
Obtain general information about Carnegie Mellon by calling (412) 268-2000.