The Academic Integrity (AI) policy and procedures at SFU are based primarily on the ideas of natural justice and procedural fairness, not civil or criminal law.  The overall intent is to create accountability and maintain the integrity of the effort that all students and instructors put into their teaching and learning. Instructors should make an effort to balance consistency with attention to the uniqueness of individuals and their contexts as they consider cases of academic dishonesty.

The way the AI policy is implemented is often called a decentralized model because the primary points of responsibility lie with each instructor and student. There are some centralized offices and personnel, which are described below. TAs may be involved in maintaining academic integrity standards (e.g., communicating expectations on assignment and examination rules, participating in invigilation to detect and deter cheating during an examination, alerting the instructor to possible plagiarism while grading a paper, etc.) but they are not responsible for carrying out the policy. Steps in the disciplinary process must not be delegated to TAs.

Instructors make determinations on cases of academic dishonesty (plagiarism, cheating in examinations, unauthorized collusion, etc.) based on a balance of probabilities; that is, consideration of the question, is it more likely than not that a case of dishonesty has occurred based on the information available?

Instructors are required to meet with the student, or at least provide the opportunity for a meeting This allows the student to explain their situation and offer relevant details. More on the process follows below, but the idea is that people involved have their voices heard. Students are also afforded opportunity to appeal cases. Timeliness is an important consideration in dealing with cases of potential dishonesty. Faculty should not make up and implement their own procedure for dealing with cases of academic dishonesty

• Instructor – faculty member with main level of responsibility in conducting the procedure and adhering to AI policy
  
• Student(s) – an individual student or group cases may be involved
  
• Academic Integrity Advisor (AIA) – (David Whitehurst) – resource for both students and instructors. Not formally involved in filing reports, determining penalties, making appeals, etc. Each SFU department or faculty has an AIA
  
• Academic Integrity Coordinator – (Arlette Stewart) – resource and liaison for instructors, AIAs, and other administrators such as the Registrar
  
• Chair – (Undergraduate Program Chair, Nienke van Houten; Graduate Program Chair, Lawrence McCandless) – has a role in reviewing repeat or multiple cases and reports filed in HSCI courses. They may also be called upon to add further penalties for a single compelling case of dishonesty
  
• Registrar – (Tom Nault) – has a role in reviewing repeat or multiple cases filed in courses outside of HSCI
  
• Ombudsperson (Laura Reid), SFSS Student Advocate (Trish Everett), GSS Student Advocate (Harjap Grewal) – the Ombudsperson is an impartial resource person who can help people navigate AI policy/procedures (and other SFU policies). The SFSS Student Advocate is a resource person for undergraduate students at SFU and can assist with AI matters for students. The GSS Student Advocate is a resource person for Graduate Students who can assist with AI matters

If there is a possible case of academic dishonesty, faculty should initiate and follow the procedure through the electronic filing system at coursys.sfu.ca. CourSys was updated in Fall 2022 to make it simpler and more streamlined. The AI procedure for SFU is embedded into this system and ensures that faculty follow the procedure correctly, e.g., ensuring that students are contacted to arrange a meeting to discuss the case. Faculty should automatically have their course(s) available in the system with student rosters preloaded. Individual and cluster or group cases can be chosen, as appropriate.

NOTE: instructors must file a report within two weeks of becoming aware of possible academic dishonesty (Section 4.1.1 of the procedures). This is the only timeline made explicit for instructors.

The online step-by-step procedure allows a recording of meeting details, documenting the pertinent evidence (e.g., file uploads), and the findings of the case to be stated. Unless there is reason to dismiss the case, it should be followed through to the very end, including the choice and implementation of a penalty, to ensure that an Academic Integrity Report (AIR) is filed.

Whether in person or online (e.g., via Zoom), a meeting with a student is important (it is not required student decline to attend a meeting). In either situation, the faculty member is still responsible for determining if there is academic dishonesty on the balance of probabilities. Both student and faculty may bring a support person to the meeting. More than one meeting is possible, though it is not a frequent occurrence. If it is a group case, the faculty member can offer to meet with individual students, with the entire group, or both (but note that students have the option for an individual meeting if they request it).

An instructor has only four options for implementing a penalty if they have determined there is a sufficient basis for a case and an AIR is to be filed. According to SFU policy, these four options are:

A.         give the student a warning

B.         require the student to redo the work, or to do supplementary work, which may be related to academic integrity

C.         assign a low grade for the work

D.        assign a grade of “F” for the work

It is possible to give more than one of these: for example, a student can be given a written warning and be asked to redo the work. Deciding on which penalty is appropriate may be influenced by the severity of the dishonesty, whether it was deliberate, and other considerations. Section 6.7 in the policy lists five factors that must be considered when deciding upon the appropriate penalty to be imposed for an act of academic dishonesty or academic misconduct. If the instructor finds that the case of dishonesty is particularly alarming, they can refer the case to the Chair, who may decide to apply a more severe penalty (e.g., assign an F for the course). All of these penalty options, including case referral to the Chair or dropping cases, are provided in the online system for the instructor.

Once the AIR is completed and filed, a copy is distributed to four people: the student, the instructor, the Chair, and the Registrar. The Chair and Registrar are copied on the reports to monitor for multiple AIRs and consider whether additional penalties should be imposed. Multiple AIRs do not automatically result in additional penalties, but they These additional penalties include such actions as a lower course grade or failing the course due to academic dishonesty (an ‘FD’ grade on the transcript). The Chair and the Registrar must also offer the opportunity to meet with the student and discuss the matter before deciding if an additional penalty is warranted.

AIRs are confidential.  They are distributed as described above, and not released to other offices or personnel. They are not seen by other instructors or other administrators. They do not affect enrollment or course registration, application to co-op, eligibility for aid and awards, graduation, etc. They are designed to be private, avoid excessive punishment, prevent possible prejudice, and allow learning from mistakes.

Students have a right to appeal an AIR.  The appeal must be filed within three weeks of receiving an AIR, as determined by the instructor, Chair, or Registrar. The student can appeal the finding as incorrect; i.e., there is no academic dishonesty, and this appeal is reviewed by the University Board on Student Discipline (UBSD). In addition, the student can appeal based on the penalty severity; i.e., there is academic dishonesty but they believe the penalty is too severe. This appeal is reviewed by the Senate Committee on Disciplinary Appeals (SCODA). For either appeal option, refer to this page and its instructions.

MORE @ SFU’s Academic Integrity website, including an FAQ for faculty and a related FAQ from the Ombudsperson office for students,