/Institutions/Gardner-Webb-University/json/2024-2025/Academic-Catalog-local.json

/Institutions/Gardner-Webb-University/json/2024-2025/Academic-Catalog.json

Honor Code Policy

Policy of Academic Honesty

Preamble

As a community of scholars founded upon the ideals of Christianity, Gardner-Webb University expects its students to develop and display a strong sense of academic integrity. As in any community, this institution must be governed by ethical principles; and like the laws of any community, these principles function best when they are fully understood, accepted and cherished by each and every individual member of the community. Therefore, all students and faculty members are expected to be familiar with and to base their actions upon the principles of academic honesty.

Student Responsibilities

1. Students should recognize that the regulations governing academic integrity exist for the protection of the honest and that dishonesty in an academic setting will not be tolerated.
2. Students are responsible for their own work. Any assignment turned in by a student is assumed to be the work of the student whose name appears on the assignment.
3. Students are ultimately responsible for understanding a faculty member’s instructions for any assignment. If instructions are not clear, students must seek clarification from the instructor.
4. Students must understand the definitions of plagiarism and academic dishonesty.
5. Students should familiarize themselves with the proper use of citations and quotations in order to avoid accidentally passing someone else’s work off as their own.
6. Students are expected to report incidents of academic dishonesty to their instructor.
7. Any student who threatens or coerces another student or faculty member for reporting an actual or suspected instance of academic dishonesty will face disciplinary action, up to and including expulsion.
8. Students are responsible for ensuring that any artificial intelligence (AI) tools they use comply with the academic honesty policy and for not generating work that is plagiarized or otherwise violates the policy.These tools include but are not limited to: ChatGPT, iA Writer,MidJourney, DALL-E, etc.It is the student’s responsibility to consult the instructor for policies regarding the use of AI tools in class. If faculty provide authorization to use AI tools, students must properly cite any AI-generated material used in their work. Any unauthorized use of AI tools, such as an AI Generator, to produce assignments will be considered plagiarism.If AI-generated work is found to be in violation of the academic honesty policy, the student will be held responsible, regardless of whether they intended to plagiarize or not.

Faculty Responsibilities

1. Faculty must explain all assignments as thoroughly as is reasonable and should address any extraordinary limitations on outside assistance.
2. Faculty members should take reasonable precautions in giving tests to ensure that violations do not occur. The fact that a faculty member did not take a specific precaution does not, however, constitute an excuse for any form of academic dishonesty.
3. Faculty members must be willing to investigate suspected instances of academic dishonesty, and, if circumstances warrant, seek sanctions as allowed by this Policy.
4. Faculty members must complete and file an Academic Dishonesty Official Warning Report any time they issue an Official Warning.
5. Faculty members must complete and file an Academic Dishonesty Formal Charge Report when they or University Administration determine that Formal Charges should be brought.
6. Faculty members must seek to be fair in their dealings with students. Students must not receive Official Warnings or be subject to Formal Charges based on suspicion alone.
7. Faculty members may ask students to sign a statement of academic honesty prior to turning in an exam, term paper, or project to their professor stating: “I have neither given nor received unauthorized help on this assignment.”

Definition of Academic Dishonesty

In general, a student has committed an act of academic dishonesty when two circumstances exist: (1) The student could reasonably be expected to know that his/her instructor would disapprove of some aspect or circumstance of the student’s academic work; and (2) the student submits work to the instructor for evaluation while hiding or failing to disclose to the instructor that particular aspect or circumstance. To do so is clearly dishonest because the instructor will evaluate the work as what he/she understands it to be. The student has deceived the instructor by misrepresenting the work, and the evaluation has not been rightly earned.

Furthermore, any student who knowingly gives unauthorized assistance to another student in order to assist that student in commission of an act of academic dishonesty is themselves guilty of academic dishonesty.

On tests and examinations academic dishonesty may occur when a student receives any assistance that the instructor has not expressly permitted. It may take the form of looking on another student’s test answers or bringing into the test site any information or materials not expressly permitted by the instructor. Academic dishonesty also occurs when a student knowingly allows another student to look at the first student’s test answers.

Plagiarism is a form of academic dishonesty. Plagiarism is the use of someone else’s words, ideas, or work, without properly documenting or identifying the source for the instructor. Plagiarism includes the act of rephrasing someone else’s words, ideas, or work and failing to identify them as those of someone else. If used, someone else’s exact words must be properly punctuated as a quotation and the source fully identified. Also, any ideas or work that have been taken from a source other than the student’s own personal knowledge—“book, article, interview, etc.”—must be properly documented, even though the student may be rephrasing the information in his/her own words. A student should consult the instructor about any question or uncertainty regarding proper documentation or research information.

Students are responsible for ensuring that any Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools they use comply with the academic honesty policy and for not generating work that is plagiarized or otherwise violates the policy. These tools include but are not limited to: ChatGPT, iA Writer, MidJourney, DALL-E, etc. It is the student’s responsibility to consult the instructor for policies regarding the use of AI tools in class. If faculty provide authorization to use AI tools, students must properly cite any AI-generated material used in their work. Any unauthorized use of AI tools, such as an AI Generator, to produce assignments will be considered plagiarism. If AI-generated work is found to be in violation of the academic honesty policy, the student will be held responsible, regardless of whether they intended to plagiarize or not

An instructor may often allow and even encourage students to work together on assignments or receive assistance from other students, other faculty members, other university staff members, friends, family or others. However, if the instructor has not expressly authorized such assistance, the student must assume that the instructor expects the assignment to be done entirely by the student; to do otherwise would be dishonest.

When class attendance is taken into account in grading academic dishonesty also includes attempting to gain credit without attending or staying for the entire class. A student assisting another student in such actions is also guilty of academic dishonesty.

The examples above are not intended to be a full list of the types of academic dishonesty. The best advice is this: whenever in any doubt, consult the instructor.

Academic Dishonesty Procedures

When a faculty member suspects a student of academic dishonesty, he or she must investigate the incident as fully as is reasonably possible. Faculty members must have evidence of academic dishonesty to issue an official warning or file formal charges. Such evidence need not be of the type that would hold up in a court of law. The evidence may consist of direct observation, reports from others, results from electronic plagiarism searches, or such other sources of information that the instructor deems to be reasonably reliable.

The academic dishonesty process begins with a conference in person, by phone, or by video conference attended by the instructor and the student involved. The instructor will explain the specific type of violation suspected, the reasons for suspecting an irregularity, and should also emphasize the importance of academic honesty to the student. In this conference, the instructor should also conscientiously listen to the student’s position as well. The instructor should direct the student to this Policy on Academic Dishonesty so the student may understand their rights hereunder.

If, after two requests, and without a reasonable excuse, the student fails to meet with the instructor, or otherwise fails, without reasonable excuse, to participate in any stage of these procedures, then the instructor may sanction the student for failure to cooperate in an investigation into academic misconduct. Such sanctions include the following:
• Requirement to resubmit assignment or retake a test
• Lower grade on the assignment or test
• Failing grade on the assignment or test

Upon completion of the conference, the instructor may: (a) conclude that no irregularity occurred, in which case the process ends; (b) issue an Academic Dishonesty Official Warning Report (“warning” or “report”); or (c) initiate Formal Charges by filing an Academic Dishonesty Formal Charge Report.

The instructor’s right to assign an appropriate grade on any assignment remains in effect.

Academic Dishonesty Official Warning Report

The purpose of the Academic Dishonesty Official Warning Report is to provide the instructor with a more flexible way of addressing instances of academic dishonesty. In essence, the Official Warning creates a way of responding to relatively less severe infractions to complement the existing system for handling more serious infractions (see Formal Charges section below). Faculty should issue a Warning when, in their professional judgment, they deem it academically appropriate; typically this will be when a student engages in academic dishonesty on a relatively minor assignment, or where the academic dishonesty affects only a small portion of a larger assignment. A Warning would also be suitable in cases where the instructor determines that the student’s actions, while unacceptable, were the result of ignorance rather than a deliberate effort to deceive. A Warning is also acceptable in other cases where faculty members who, in their professional judgment, believe that an act of academic dishonesty occurred, but that Formal Charges would actually be counterproductive under the circumstances.

Faculty intending to give the student an Official Warning must complete the Academic Dishonesty Official Warning Report. The Report should include details of the incident of academic dishonesty as alleged by the instructor (including copies of any documentation available), the student’s position and the faculty member’s rationale for not filing Formal Charges of academic dishonesty.

In the Official Warning Report the Instructor may propose (not impose) one or more of the following sanction(s)
• Grade reduction on assignment, from ___ to ___;
• ”0” on assignment;
• Grade reduction for course, from ___ to ___;
• Course failure for academic dishonesty;
• Other specified sanction which must not be as severe as course failure

Students may plead “responsible” or “not responsible.” If the student pleads “responsible” then the student has admitted the charge of academic dishonesty and accepted the sanction(s) recommended by the instructor. There is no appeal. In such cases the Official Warning Report may be used in future formal proceedings to prove both that the student had previously been warned and that the academic dishonesty alleged by the instructor actually occurred in that past instance.

If the student pleads “not responsible,” then the student has denied the charge of academic dishonesty and refused to accept the proposed sanctions. No sanction shall be imposed. While such denials shall not constitute evidence of an act of academic dishonesty in that particular instance, the Warning Report may be used in future formal academic dishonesty proceedings as evidence that the student had previously been warned about certain conduct on the issue of the appropriate sanction.

No Warning, however, shall count as a student’s First, Second, or Third Incident should a formal charge be filed at some future date. Because the student need not admit that the conduct alleged in a warning occurred, an Academic Dishonesty Official Warning is never appealable.

The Warning Report should be signed by both faculty member and student. The student’s refusal to sign does not invalidate the Report, so long as the student was given the opportunity to sign and refused. The completed Official Warning Report should be filed with the Office of the Provost for Traditional Undergraduate (TUG) students and the Office of the Dean of Adult and Distance Education for Online Degree Completion Program (DCP) students within one week of the faculty member’s conference with the student. It will become part of the student’s confidential academic file. If the student has pled responsible and faculty member has assigned a grade of “FX”, the office of the Provost (TUG) or the Dean of Adult and Distance Education (DCP) will send an additional copy of the Academic Dishonesty Formal Charge Report to Registrar Services.

In cases where a student has already admitted to an earlier incident of academic dishonesty (either in an Official Warning Report or in an Academic Dishonesty Formal Charge Report), or has been found responsible for academic dishonesty based on Formal Charges (First or Second Incident), a Warning alone is not appropriate. In these cases, the Office of the Provost (TUG) or the Dean of Adult and Distance Education (DCP) will contact the instructor issuing the Warning to inform him or her of the student’s prior responsible outcome(s). The instructor must then file an Academic Dishonesty Formal Charges Report against the student and the procedures applicable to Formal Charge Reports (below) shall apply.

Academic Dishonesty Formal Charge Report

Faculty should pursue formal charges when, in their professional judgment, they deem it academically appropriate; typically this will be when a student engages in academic dishonesty on a relatively major assignment, or where the academic dishonesty affects a substantial portion of a larger assignment. Formal charges would also be appropriate in cases where the instructor determines that the student’s actions, no matter how minor, constituted a deliberate effort to deceive.

Faculty will follow the procedures for investigation of the incident and the conference with the student (as described above under PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING CASES OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY FOR UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS). Faculty intending to pursue formal charges must complete the Academic Dishonesty Formal Charge Report. The Formal Charge Report should include details of the incident (including copies of any documentation available), the student’s position and the faculty member’s rationale for filing formal charges of academic dishonesty.

Subject to the student’s right to appeal (see below) the Instructor may impose one or more of the following sanctions:
• Grade reduction on assignment, from ___ to ___;
• ”0” on assignment;
• Grade reduction for course, from ___ to ___;
• Course failure for academic dishonesty;
• Other specified sanction which must not be as severe as course failure

Students may plead “responsible” or “not responsible.” If the student pleads “responsible” then the student has admitted the formal charge of academic dishonesty and accepted the sanction(s) imposed by the instructor. The student has no right of appeal. In such cases the Formal Charge Report may be used in future formal proceedings to prove that the academic dishonesty alleged by the instructor actually occurred in this past instance.

If the student pleads “not responsible,” then the student may file a notice of appeal (see below Hearing based on Student Appeal). If, however, the notice or appeal is late or fails to contain all the specified information, then the right of appeal is lost and the Academic Formal Charge Report is final and may not be further appealed. That is, the charges set forth on the Formal Charge Report will be imposed.

The Formal Charge Report should be signed by both faculty member and student. The student’s refusal to sign does not invalidate the Report, so long as the student was given the opportunity to sign and refused. The completed Academic Dishonesty Formal Charge Report should be filed with the office of the Provost (TUG) or the Dean of Adult and Distance Education (DCP). The filing should occur within one week of the faculty member’s conference with the student. If the student has pled responsible, or fails to submit a valid notice of appeal, and the faculty member had assigned a grade of “FX”, the office of the Provost (TUG) or the Dean of Adult and Distance Education (DCP) will send an additional copy of the Academic Dishonesty Formal Charge Report to Registrar Services.

Hearing based on Second or Third Incident
Absent a student appeal (see below) the student’s plea of responsible and assignment of a penalty by the instructor constitute a final disposition of the Formal Charge unless the Provost (TUG) or the Dean of Adult and Distance Education (DCP) determine that the student has previously plead responsible to a formal charge or has been found responsible of a formal charge (“Second or Third Incident”). In that case, the Office of the Provost (TUG), or the Dean of Adult and Distance Education (DCP) will notify the Chair of the Academic Honor Court, who is the faculty representative to the Court appointed by the Chair of the Faculty for a three-year term. The Chair of the Academic Honor Court will convene a meeting of the Honor Court to determine whether additional sanctions should be imposed.

Hearing based on Student Appeal of Formal Charge
The Academic Honor Court will also be convened if:
a. the student pled “not responsible” in response to a Formal Charge; and
b. no later than 7 business days after receipt of the completed Formal Charge, the student files a written notice of appeal with the Office of the Provost (TUG), or the Dean of Adult and Distance Education (DCP); and
c. the written notice (which may be supported with documentation) describes the student’s view of the incident and requested outcome; and
d. from the face of the notice it appears that the student is pursuing one or more of the allowable grounds for appealing the charge (which are: inadequate or inaccurate evidence, material procedural irregularity, or excessive sanction(s)).

If a-d are satisfied the matter proceeds to hearing.

If a student who pled “not responsible” files a notice of appeal that fails to meet requirements b, c, and d above, then the Honor Court dismisses the appeal without proceeding with a hearing (which is a final decision), or, in the case of extenuating circumstances, the Honor Court may allow the student no more than 7 business days to correct their written notice. If the student then fails to timely fully correct the written notice, the Honor Court shall dismiss the appeal (which is a final decision). If the student timely corrects the notice of appeal, then the matter proceeds to hearing.

Hearing Procedures

The Online Degree Completion Program Academic Honor Court is composed of the following members or their alternate in case of a conflict of interest or unavailability:

DCP Program Member	Alternate
Faculty Representative (Chair)	Faculty Member appointed by Chair
Member of Alpha Sigma Lambda	Member of Alpha Sigma Lambda appointed by Chair
Student Representative to Degree Completion Council	Member of SGA appointed by SGA
Dean, not of college where incident arose, appointed by the Provost	Dean, not of college where incident arose, appointed by the Provost
Director of Academic Innovation and Digital Learning	Dean, not of college where incident arose, appointed by the Provost

The hearing is informal and the rules applicable to courts of law do not apply. At the hearing, both the student and the faculty member may present evidence regarding the current charges. Students may have one person from within the University community appear on their behalf at the hearing. Members of the Academic Honor Court shall hear and decide the case objectively and based upon the presentation of evidence.

Note that for purposes of both the hearing and appeal a procedural irregularity is grounds for overturning the instructor’s Formal Charge only if it was “material.” This means that the irregularity was in fact the cause of an incorrect outcome. A procedural irregularity that did not negatively impact the outcome is not “material” and is insufficient to overturn the instructor’s Formal Charge.

The Academic Honor Court may either uphold or dismiss the faculty member’s charges. The Honor Court will provide a written decision to the parties involved.

Should the upholding of the faculty member’s charges constitute a Second or Third Incident, the Court shall levy additional sanctions accordingly (see below).

Should it uphold the faculty member’s charges in the absence of a Second or Third Incident, the Court may, in addition to the faculty member’s sanctions, impose one or more of the sanctions set forth below under the heading “First Incident”

Absent a timely appeal, the Honor Court’s decision is final.

Sanctions Available to Honor Court

First Incident
The sanction for a first incident may range from penalizing the student’s grade on a specific assignment to assigning the student a failing grade for a course. Whenever a failing grade for Academic Dishonesty has been assigned, an FX will be recorded as a permanent indication of the incident on the student’s transcript.

Second Incident
In addition to the Second Incident, the Academic Honor Court should consider the severity of the First Incident. Any student convicted of a Second Incident will receive no less than a failing grade for the course and placement of an FX on their transcript. Students responsible for any Second Incident will also be ineligible for academic honors. When the First and/or Second Incidents have been particularly serious, such as dishonesty on important exams, or major assignments, the Honor Court may suspend or expel the student.

Third Incident
Any student found responsible for a Third Incident of any kind will be expelled from the University with the action so noted on the student’s transcript.

Appeal of Honor Court Decision

The student or the faculty member may appeal the Honor Court’s decision to the Provost, in writing, within 7 business days of receipt of the decision. The student’s grounds for appeal are additional evidence unavailable at the time of the hearing, inadequate or inaccurate evidence, material procedural irregularity by the faculty member or Honor Court, or excessive sanction(s). A faculty member may appeal an Honor Court decision only on the grounds of material procedural violation by the Honor Court, or inadequate sanction(s). The Provost may meet with one or more of the persons involved, or decide the appeal based on the available written information, in the Provost’s discretion. The Provost’s decision is final.

The results of the Online Degree Completion Program Honor Court proceedings and any appeals will be filed with the Office of the and the Office of the Provost.

Academic Dishonesty Outcome Reporting

In accordance with The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (“FERPA”) it is University Policy to inform in writing the following people and/or offices of the outcome of an academic dishonesty hearing, and any appeal thereof:

The accused student
The accused student’s appeal advisor
The instructor bringing the charges
Members of the Academic Honor Court
The accused student’s academic advisor
Registrar Services
Provost and Executive Vice President of the University (TUG)
Dean of Adult and Distance Education (DCP)
The accused student’s academic file

The University reserves the right to notify any other University employee or office with a legitimate academic interest in the outcome.

Repeating Courses in which Academic Dishonesty Occurred

Students are allowed to retake courses that they fail due to academic dishonesty; however, the course hours attempted will continue to be calculated in figuring the student’s grade point average. For more information on the Academic Honesty Policy and Procedures, see the current Online Undergraduate Degree Completion Program Student Handbook.