Academic Integrity FAQ

• Your instructor is contacting you in order to gather information about your work or activities as a student in their class. They have questions about some element of your work or class-related activities and they are contacting you to seek clarity and to provide you with an opportunity to discuss their concerns.
  
  
• If the instructor has identified that their concerns are related to academic dishonesty, their reference point is the SFU policy that discusses this issue. It is called the “Student Academic Integrity Policy” and is often referred to by its “series” title, S.10.01. (https://www.sfu.ca/policies/gazette/student.html). The policy is divided into three parts: the first provides an overview of the policy, its purpose, scope, definitions; the second, the “Procedures” section, outlines how the policy will actually operate; and the third, “Schedule A”, lists the types of actions that are considered academic dishonesty. Before responding to the instructor, you should try to understand whether any of your actions, intentional or unintentional, violated the Student Academic Integrity Policy.
  
  
• The S.10.01 “Procedures” state that if an instructor suspects that there may have been academic dishonesty, they are required to notify you of their concern and offer you an opportunity to respond.
  
  
• Sometimes an instructor will ask to meet (in-person or online) or they may ask you to respond via email. If you have a preference for a specific mode of communication, it is okay to ask for that option even if it wasn’t offered.
  
  
• Whatever the mode of communication, your instructor should provide you with information about why they think there was a violation of academic dishonesty. This is important because it allows you understand the nature of the alleged violation and provide an informed response. If your instructor has not shared this information, you should request it.
  
  
• If you are responding in writing or meeting for a discussion, your instructor may want to know more about:
  
  • How you went about completing the work that is under scrutiny. If it was a test, how did you prepare for the test? When you were taking the test, what kind of an environment were you in? Did you understand that the test was open or closed book? What does that mean to you? Did you consult any resources during the test?
  • If it was an assignment, they may want to know how you went about completing the assignment. Did you work with anyone else? What resources did you use? What is your understanding of how to properly cite sources?
  • Sometimes an instructor will ask you to explain how you answered a question or ask you to answer a question again without looking at your answer. If you can recall your process that is great, but if you are having trouble remembering, you can say so or explain the limited elements you are still able to recall. Your ability to answer a question correctly during this meeting is not conclusive evidence of a violation of academic integrity.
     
• Remember that at any stage in the academic integrity process, you can have a support person present. They are not an active participant in the meeting or your representative - you are still expected to answer questions and engage in the discussion -  but this person can support you by taking notes and reminding you of points you wanted to make or questions you wanted to ask. They (or you) can also ask for a 5 or 10-minute break from the conversation so you can review your notes or the policy, take some deep breaths, etc. The support person can be anyone you choose – a friend, relative, etc. Please note that the Ombudsperson is not able to act as a support person.
  
  
• Honesty is the best policy. If you made a mistake, it is generally in your interest to accept responsibility. One of the factors that is used to determine the appropriate penalty for academic integrity is whether there are “mitigating and aggravating circumstances” involved. It is considered a “mitigating circumstance” (a factor in favour of a lighter penalty) if a student is truthful with an instructor, and an “aggravating circumstance” (a factor in favour of a more severe penalty) if a student denies responsibility despite compelling evidence to the contrary.

• If, after that discussion, the instructor believes that there was a violation of the Student Academic Integrity Policy they are required to then prepare an Academic Incident Report (AIR) and assign a penalty. You must receive a copy of the AIR. The AIR should contain a summary of the alleged academic integrity violation (which should include the instructor's reasons/evidence for believing there was a violation), a summary of the response you provided to your instructor, and the instructor's recommendation for a penalty.
  
  
  • Instructors can penalize up to an F for the assignment/test. An F or a lesser penalty is considered a standard penalty for a first violation.
  • If an instructor thinks that a more severe penalty is appropriate, they forward the case to the Department Chair for consideration (and the AIR should state that the case has been referred to the Chair).
  • The Chair can assign a penalty of up to an FD (a notation that appears on a transcript and indicates academic dishonesty), and if the Chair thinks that an even more severe penalty is appropriate (for example, suspension), they forward the case to the University Board of Student Discipline (UBSD) for consideration.*
  • Typically, the more severe penalties like an FD or suspension are applied in cases where the violation of academic integrity is considered especially severe or if this is not the first time you have violated the Academic Integrity Policy.

*Note that if your case is referred to the Chair or to the UBSD, you must be given an opportunity to respond to the individual(s) deciding the penalty BEFORE a penalty is assigned. I recommend that you meet with the Ombudsperson if you are in this situation. Please note that if you do not respond, the process will proceed, and a decision will be made without your input.

• An FD grade is a fail for academic discipline. Its numerical is 0. The FD grade will remain on a student's transcript until two years following graduation at which time it will convert to F.

• It isn’t a good feeling to receive a penalty. If you made a mistake, reflect, learn, and move forward in a positive direction. Actions that produce an unfair advantage for a student are penalized to ensure that there is fair grading for all students. Applying a penalty for academic dishonesty is not a personal attack, but a matter of fairness. Make sure that you understand what types of actions are violations of the Student Academic Integrity Policy and take steps to ensure that you are never in this situation again. If you were facing a lot of academic pressure, figure out if there is a way to change your circumstances – maybe you take one less course each term so that you have more time to get work done. Are you aware of the various supports (academic and others) available at SFU? Connect with an academic advisor and they can help identify relevant resources.
  
  This penalty is not a judgement on your moral character. You are a human being and humans make mistakes. What matters is what you learn from the experience and how that impacts your actions moving forward.

• The SFU Student Academic Integrity Policy states that:
  
  “5.1.1 Students are responsible for ensuring they are familiar with the generally accepted standards and requirements of academic honesty (e.g., as published in the University Calendar).  Ignorance of these standards will not excuse a student from consequences, including penalties, for academic dishonesty”.
   

• So, a lack of intention does not mean that a student will not receive a penalty. It is, however, a factor that should be considered by the decision-maker when determining the appropriate penalty. Intentionality (i.e., was the action deliberate?) is one of several factors considered by the decision-maker, so it is impossible to give you a precise sense of how it will impact the penalty.
  
  
• In addition, an instructor is expected to notify students if they have academic integrity expectations that are more specific than the generally accepted standards:
  
  “5.1.2 Instructors are responsible to inform their students at the beginning of each term if there are additional specific criteria for academic honesty that pertain to a class or course (e.g., the format for acknowledging the thoughts and writings of authors acceptable to the underlying discipline, and the acceptable level of group work, use of an editor or tutoring service, and/or online resources).”
   

• If you think that you are being penalized for not meeting academic integrity expectations that go beyond the generally accepted standard but that were not adequately identified to the class, I recommend that you contact the Ombudsperson.

Maybe. Not everyone has a case to appeal. There are two types of appeal:

1. Appeal to the University Board of Student Discipline (UBSD) - this is the type of appeal you select if you want to argue that the allegations are false - i.e., you did not violate the Student Academic Integrity Policy. It involves a live hearing in front of a panel. The instructor presents their evidence, you respond, and you are both able to ask each other questions and the panel asks you both questions. The Board makes its decision using the balance of probabilities standard, i.e., based on all of the information and evidence provided, what version of events is the most likely scenario?
   
   If your appeal to the UBSD is successful, your work will be graded on its merit and the AIR will be deleted from your file. If your appeal is not successful, the UBSD confirms the findings of the instructor and the penalty is upheld.
   
   
2. Appeal to the Senate Committee on Disciplinary Appeals (SCODA) - this is the type of appeal you select if you acknowledge that you made a mistake and did violate the Student Academic Integrity Policy, but you believe that the penalty is too severe. I don't generally advise this type of appeal if the penalty was a grade of F on the assignment/test (or something less severe) since those penalties are considered to be within the realm of a standard penalty for a first violation. Similar to the UBSD appeal format, an appeal to SCODA means that both you and your instructor will appear before a panel and present your arguments about what an appropriate penalty should be. You will both be asked questions from the panel and the Board will make a decision.
   
   If your appeal is successful, you will still have an AIR on your file, but the penalty assigned to you will be reconsidered. If your appeal is not successful, the SCODA will confirm the findings of the instructor and uphold the penalty.
    

• For both types of appeal, you have 3 weeks to submit the appeal from the date that you receive a penalty decision (typically this is when you receive the AIR, unless it states that the case has been forwarded to the Chair for consideration of a more severe penalty).
  
  
• An appeal is a big commitment – preparing for and then attending the hearing takes significant time and energy not only for the student who is appealing, but also for the staff who organize the hearings and the faculty and students who volunteer to be part of the UBSD and SCODA. Please ensure that if you decide to move forward with an appeal, you have a compelling case for doing so. The Ombuds Office is a good place to go to discuss a possible appeal and receive an impartial assessment about the strength of your case.
  
  
• You can read more about appeals and see the actual appeal applications here: (https://www.sfu.ca/students/appeals/disciplinary_appeals.html).  

• If an instructor imposes a penalty for academic dishonesty, they are required to create an AIR. They send the student a copy, the Department Chair a copy, and they send a copy to the Registrar’s Office.
• The Registrar’s Office maintains a database of AIRs. The purpose of this database is to track violations. If a student receives more than one AIR, then a more severe penalty will be considered for that subsequent violation.
• Other than for tracking purposes, the database is not widely accessible (i.e., your instructors cannot generally access it, if you apply for a job at SFU your application is not connected to this database, etc.)
  
• The best thing to do if you have an AIR on your file? Take precautions to ensure that you do not receive another one.  

• Quick recap: A student appeals to SCODA if they have received a penalty for academic dishonesty and don’t dispute that there was a violation of the Student Academic Integrity policy but think that the penalty was too severe. A student has three weeks from the date they received notice of their penalty to submit an appeal.
  
  
• Consider why you are appealing. Did the penalty you received fall within the “standard” range of penalties for the violation?
  
  Typically, an instructor will assign a penalty up to an F on the work in question if this is a student’s first violation and it is not considered an egregious violation. The more severe penalties (like an FD or suspension) are generally used in cases where the violation of academic integrity is considered especially egregious (for example if the violation required very deliberate planning, like hiring someone to do the work for you) or if this is not the first violation on your file.
   

• Review the SFU Student Discipline Reports and the SCODA Student Discipline Summary Sheet from the last few years. Look for SCODA cases and assess whether there are any cases that are similar to your own. What was the outcome of the appeal? If an appeal has similar characteristics and was not successful, can you identify what would make your case different?
  
  
• Consider whether you have the ability to commit the time and energy required to the appeal. How important is this to you? Can you pursue an appeal and still maintain the level of commitment needed to be successful in your current classes or other responsibilities?
   

• Do you have compelling arguments to present on appeal? Consider the various factors that the decision-makers are supposed to consider when determining a penalty. Can you present compelling arguments based on these factors? The Student Academic Integrity Policy states that:

“6.7. In deciding upon the appropriate penalty to be imposed for an act of academic dishonesty or academic misconduct, consideration must be given to the following factors:

6.7.1   the extent of the academic dishonesty or academic misconduct;

6.7.2   whether the academic dishonesty or academic misconduct was deliberate;

6.7.3    the importance of the work in question as a component of the course or program;

6.7.4    whether the act in question is an isolated incident or part of repeated acts of academic dishonesty, academic misconduct, and/or non-academic misconduct; and

6.7.5    any other mitigating or aggravating circumstances.*

*What does this mean? It is an opportunity to present any additional information that you think might be relevant to your case. Mitigating circumstances are things that suggest a lighter penalty may be appropriate, aggravating circumstances are things that suggest a more severe penalty may be appropriate.

Examples of mitigating circumstances are recent events that may have contributed to a lack of sound judgement, such as a recent death of a loved one or a serious mental or physical health issue. Documentation of these circumstances will normally be required.

Examples of aggravating circumstances include not being honest when first approached with concerns about academic dishonesty or actively trying to destroy or conceal evidence.

• If, based on the considerations above, you believe you would like to move forward with an appeal, it is strongly recommended that you discuss your appeal with the Ombudsperson prior to submission.

• Quick recap: a student appeals to the UBSD if they dispute the allegations and want to argue that no violation of the Student Academic Integrity Policy took place.
  
  
• Consider why you are appealing. Do you have a clear grasp of the types of actions that are considered violations? Do you understand that your intention does not matter in determining whether a violation took place or not?
  
  
• Consider whether you understand the nature of the violation your instructor suspects took place and what evidence they have to support that finding.  Remember that the UBSD will make a decision based on the “balance of probabilities” standard of proof which is very different from the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof required in courts of law for criminal cases. Essentially, the UBSD will ask – is it more likely than not that a violation happened? Can you explain why the evidence does not suggest what the instructor thinks it suggests?
  
  
• The “burden of proof” (responsibility) is on the instructor to show that the violation did happen, it is not on the student to prove that it did not. A compelling appeal should be able to present a version of events that is more persuasive than what is presented by the instructor. Can you point out errors in the instructor’s understanding of events or identify incorrect assumptions?
  
  
• If, based on the considerations above, you believe you would like to move forward with an appeal, it is strongly recommended that you discuss your appeal with the Ombudsperson prior to submission.