Honor Code

Academic misconduct is an offense generally defined as any action or failure to act which is contrary to the integrity and honesty of members of the academic community.

Section 1. 

Academic misconduct is generally defined as any action or inaction which is offensive to the integrity and honesty of the members of the academic community. In addition to the violations enumerated in this code, instructors within Oxford College have reasonable discretion to establish specific standards and policies as related to their courses and assignments. Such additional standards and policies should be clearly articulated in the syllabus, in an assignment, or otherwise conveyed as an expectation by the instructor. It is the responsibility of each student to understand the policies established in the Honor Code, syllabi, and assignments, and act accordingly.  

Section 2. 

Academic misconduct includes, but is not limited to, the following actions:

(a) Seeking, acquiring, receiving, or giving information about the content or conduct of an examination, knowing that the release of such information has not been authorized;

(b) Plagiarizing, whether intentionally or unintentionally, in any assignment;

(c) Duplicate submission, or using the same intellectual material more than once without the express, prior permission from every instructor for whom the original submission was, is, or would be made, at any educational institution or for any publication (electronic, academic, or otherwise);

(d) Seeking, using, giving, or obtaining unauthorized assistance or information in any academic assignment or examination;

(e) Intentionally giving false information to professors, instructors, or university officials for the purpose of gaining academic advantage;

(f) Seeking to gain or to provide an unfair advantage during course registration;

(g) Falsifying, altering, or fabricating academic records, forms, or correspondence, including, but not limited to, transcripts, withdrawal forms, degree applications, or letters of recommendation, whether the documents/information are submitted within Emory University or to a third party;

(h) Intentionally sabotaging the academic work of another student;

(i) Intentionally giving false testimony or evidence in any Honor Council hearing or refusing to give evidence when requested by the Honor Council;

(j) Harassing, threatening, coercing, or bribing witnesses or Honor Council members involved in any Honor Code case;

(k) Violating the Electronic Device Policy as described in Section 3 of this article;

(l) Violating the Testing Policy as described in Section 4 of this article; and

(m) Breaching any duties prescribed by this code.

Section 3. 

Electronic Device Policy: The use of a cell phone, smartphone, tablet, laptop, smart watch, or similar device for any reason during times of examination or evaluation, including quizzes, tests, midterm and final exams, or similar assignments, shall be prohibited. Instructors are entitled to make exceptions to allow the use of an electronic device for any exam. In the absence of explicit permission to use such a device, it is assumed that such devices are not permitted.

If a student is found using an electronic device during an exam or similar assignment, the instructor should inform the student of the issue and may ask the student to store the device until the completion of the exam. The instructor should allow the student to complete the exam before reporting the incident to the Honor Council.

Section 4.

Testing Policy: Instructors are entitled to establish reasonable policies to protect the security and integrity of their examinations, including quizzes, tests, midterm and final exams, and similar assignments. These policies may include, but are not limited, to: prohibitions against large bags, coats, hats, notebooks, electronic devices, or course materials; requirements to place materials unrelated to the examination outside or at the front of the classroom; assigning seats to students; moving students during an examination; requiring a student to stop when time is called; and prohibiting the replication of exam materials or their removal from the testing environment. Any additional policies should be outlined in the syllabus and/or written instructions for the exam.

If a student fails to comply with the stated policies of the exam prior to the start of the exam, the instructor may withhold the exam until the student complies with the testing policies (the instructor shall not be compelled to provide additional time for the completion of the exam). If a student fails to comply with or violates the stated policies of the exam after the exam has begun, the instructor may take reasonable steps to secure the integrity of the exam, but should allow the student to complete the exam before reporting the incident to the Honor Council (the instructor shall not be compelled to permit a student to continue work after time is called).

Section 1.

(a) A student’s submission of any work to be evaluated for course credit constitutes a declaration that he or she has neither given nor received unauthorized information on the work, nor has condoned the giving or receiving of unauthorized information by others, and that he or she has not submitted the same intellectual material for any other instructor or editor.

(b) Each student at Oxford College of Emory University agrees to abide by the honor pledge and takes upon himself or herself the responsibility of upholding the Honor Code. Each student is urged to inquire of the Honor Council about any doubtful case at any time throughout the year.

(c) Each professor shall explain to his or her classes at the beginning of each semester any special aspects of the Honor Code as it pertains to that course.

(d) It is the responsibility of every member of the faculty, staff, and student body to cooperate in supporting the honor system. In pursuance of this duty, any individual, when he or she suspects that an offense of academic misconduct has occurred, shall report this suspected breach to a student or faculty member of Honor Council, the Honor Council administration, or the associate dean of academic affairs.

Section 2.

(a) The reported student shall have the following rights:

1. To receive a written notice of the suspected violation. In the event that the reported student does not accept the notice of the suspected violation or does not acknowledge receipt, the investigation and any subsequent hearing will nonetheless occur as scheduled.
2. To have his or her rights explained by the associate dean of academic affairs, upon request.
3. To have a hearing supporter who is a faculty or staff member of Oxford College to accompany him or her at a full or administrative hearing. The hearing supporter’s role is to support the reported student during a full or administrative hearing.
4. To request a postponement of a hearing for good cause. The request shall be in writing, addressed to the chair of the Honor Council, and must state the reason for making the request. The disposition of the request is at the discretion of the associate dean of academic affairs.
5. To attend a hearing and present evidence on his or her behalf. If, however, the reported student does not appear at the hearing as scheduled, the hearing will nonetheless proceed in the absence of the reported student.
6. To appeal the finding of responsibility and sanctions, unless the reported student elects to proceed using the Expedited Hearing Option. A student who elects the expedited hearing option waives the right to appeal the finding(s) of responsibility on two bases: procedural error and/or new evidence. A student who elects the expedited hearing option retains the right to appeal the sanction(s).
7. To request that the case proceed using the Expedited Hearing Option.
8. To waive any of the aforementioned student rights or the following procedures by express, written confirmation (such confirmation will not be required if the reported student does not appear at the hearing as scheduled).

Section 1.

(a) On receipt of a report of a suspected violation, the associate dean of academic affairs will determine whether action should be taken in response to a report. The associate dean of academic affairs may refer the report for investigation; or dismiss the allegation without referring it for a further investigation if, upon preliminary review, the conduct does not appear to constitute academic misconduct, if there is insufficient evidence to pursue an investigation, or if the associate dean of academic affairs deems the suspected offense trivial in nature. If the report is referred for investigation, the associate dean shall inform the reported student in writing of the course and work involved in the allegation and shall refer the student to the Oxford College Honor Code website. The Chairperson of the Honor Council shall designate members of the Honor Council investigate the charge. The investigators shall meet with the reporting party and separately with the reported student, may interview other potential witnesses, and shall review any documentary and physical evidence deemed relevant by the Council. The reported student may suggest the names of witnesses who can provide information and additional documentary or physical evidence not previously brought to the attention of the investigators. If the investigators determine that there is no reasonable suspicion that an Honor Code violation occurred, they shall recommend to the associate dean of academic affairs that the case be dismissed. If, instead, the investigators determine there is a reasonable suspicion of an Honor Code violation, they shall refer the case to a hearing

(b) If the investigators recommend the case be dismissed, they shall promptly prepare and submit a report of the investigation to the associate dean of academic affairs. If the associate dean of academic affairs accepts the recommendation, the associate dean of academic affairs shall notify the student in writing of the decision as quickly as possible and normally within seven days. If the associate dean of academic affairs does not accept the recommendation, the student shall be referred to a hearing according to the procedures outlined below.

(c) If a decision is made to refer the case for a full hearing, the associate dean of academic affairs shall schedule the full hearing as promptly as possible and shall notify the reported student of the date and time.

(d) Full hearings shall be fair and impartial. Formal rules of evidence do not apply to Honor Council proceedings. On a case-by-case basis, the Honor Council has broad discretion in considering and weighing information it deems relevant, in the form of documents, witness testimony/accounts, and other forms of information, in its proceedings. Witnesses will testify without oath, but with the understanding of university policies applicable to their participation, and written statements may be submitted from unavailable witnesses. With the exception of testifying witnesses, only the members of the Honor Council, the faculty members to the Honor Council, the reported student, and the student’s hearing supporter, may be present during the hearing. The student members of the Honor Council and the faculty members to the Honor Council may attend the hearing either as deliberating members or as silent observers for the purposes of training. The reported student shall have the right to testify and to make a closing statement. The reported student may be accompanied by a faculty or staff member of the College as a hearing supporter for purposes of consultation, but neither the reported student nor the hearing supporter shall have the right to directly question witnesses. Rather, the reported student may request that the members of the Honor Council ask specific questions of the reporting party and any witness, and the Honor Council has discretion to determine whether the question is relevant and should be asked, to reframe the question as deemed appropriate, or to decline to ask the question based on irrelevance. The Chairperson may suspend the hearing at any point in order to provide additional time to collect evidence, to resolve questions related to the case, to clarify answers to procedural questions, or to provide sufficient additional time for the testimony and deliberation. If the hearing is suspended, the Chairperson shall reconvene the meeting at the earliest possible date, but within seven days, absent extenuating circumstances.

(e) For cases in which multiple students are suspected of the same violation or a related violation, the associate dean of academic affairs shall decide whether a single collective hearing for all reported students or an individual hearing for each reported student is appropriate. In either case, any of the reported students may be accompanied by a faculty, or staff member of the College as a hearing supporter, so long as that hearing supporter is not involved as witness in the case or otherwise has a conflict of interest. Should the Honor Council hold a single hearing for all students involved, each student shall have the right to hear the testimony of any witness other than those students reported as part of the same case. Should the Honor Council hold individual hearings for each student involved, the Honor Council may require the reported students to appear as witnesses at the individual hearings.

(f) For cases in which one student is suspected of multiple violations in a single class, the Honor Council may hold a single hearing to consider all charges. For cases in which one student is suspected of violations in multiple classes, the Honor Council shall normally hold separate hearings to consider charges in each class; however, the reported student may make a request to the associate dean of academic affairs that all charges be resolved at a single hearing. The associate dean of academic affairs has the discretion to grant or deny the request.

(g) Should there be a suspicion that a reported student has deliberately misrepresented information while testifying or has provided false evidence, the Honor Council may consider additional charges at the hearing provided that the reported student has an opportunity to respond to those charges. In addition, the Honor Council may appropriately refer matters to the student conduct office that has jurisdiction over the student’s actions.

(h) At the conclusion of the evidence, the investigator shall make a brief report about the findings of the investigation and may discuss the strength or weakness of any evidence involved. The Honor Council and faculty members may ask additional questions of any party before retiring to deliberate in private. Only evidence presented at the hearing will be considered in reaching a decision. For a finding of an Honor Code violation, the Honor Council must determine by a unanimous vote of four (4) Honor Council members and two (2) faculty members that there is clear and convincing evidence of a violation. “Clear and convincing” evidence means that a particular fact(s) is substantially more likely to be true than not to be true. If the reported student is found responsible, the Honor Council shall recommend any sanction(s) by majority vote.

(i) The following sanctions may be imposed after a finding of academic misconduct:

Required participation in an educational program;         

1. A verbal reprimand without an entry on the student's Personal Performance Record;
2. A written reprimand with an entry on the student's Personal Performance Record;
3. A zero on the assignment or other penalty to the student’s grade on the assignment or the course, including a cap;
4. A grade cap in the course which will appear on the student’s permanent transcript;
5. A failing grade in the course, which will appear on the student’s permanent transcript;
6. Suspension for one or more entire semesters (specifying the period of suspension);
7. Permanent exclusion from Emory University;
8. Revocation of an Oxford College degree that has been previously awarded;
9. Such combination of sanctions or other sanction as may appear appropriate.
10. After the hearing, the Honor Council shall promptly prepare a summary report of information that was considered in reaching its findings, which shall be transmitted to the associate dean of academic affairs with the accompanying recommendation and all documentary and physical evidence before the Honor Council. The associate dean of academic affairs may impose the recommended sanctions or sanctions of greater or lesser severity. Absent extenuating circumstances, the associate dean of academic affairs shall notify the student in writing of the decision of the associate dean of academic affairs and the sanctions imposed within ten days.

Section 2.

(a) A reported student may, in an appropriate case, request an expedited hearing in writing to the associate dean of academic affairs. Use of the expedited hearing procedure is appropriate in cases where there is evidence that the reported student has committed some violation of the Honor Code, the student admits to violating the Honor Code, and formally requests an expedited hearing before a special three-person panel rather than a full hearing before the Honor Council. Prior to the expedited hearing, the reported student must waive the right to appeal the finding of responsibility on the basis of procedural error and/or new evidence. The student must also acknowledge that use of the expedited hearing procedure does not in any way imply a recommendation for a lesser penalty. The reported student retains the right to appeal the sanction.

(b) In each expedited hearing the special three-person hearing panel shall normally consist of:

1. The associate dean of academic affairs;
2. The Chairperson (or another voting student member of the Honor Council); and
3. A faculty member of the Honor Council.

(c) The panel will hear an admission of violating the Honor Code directly from the reported student, receive all evidence previously gathered by the investigating team, and may receive any additional statements from the reported student and ask questions as the panel deems useful. After the reported student and the student's hearing supporter leave the hearing room, the members of the panel shall review the evidence and the reported student's admission of violating the Honor Code to decide if an independent finding of the alleged Honor Code violation is warranted. If the panel unanimously determines that the admission of violating the Honor Code is acceptable in light of all the evidence, then the panel members upon reviewing all relevant factors shall determine by majority vote an appropriate sanction. Absent extenuating circumstances, the associate dean of academic affairs shall notify the student in writing of the outcome of the hearing within seven days.

Section 3.

(a) For cases reported in the same term that a student is scheduled to graduate or cases in which the student will not be enrolled in classes on Oxford’s campus during the next regular term, the associate dean of academic affairs has discretion to offer the student an administrative hearing, which will be held before a special three-person panel. The student in question holds the right to accept the administrative hearing or have his or her case heard in the next regular term according to the procedures outlined in this code. Unlike an expedited hearing, the use of an administrative hearing does not require the student to admit to a violation, and the reported student retains the right to appeal. In pursuing an administrative hearing, the student waives the right to a full investigation of the case and will appear before a small panel, which will render a decision about the case.

(b) Should the reported student accept the opportunity for an administrative hearing, the associate dean of academic affairs shall collect any evidence and a written statement from the reporting party and present these to the reported student at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the hearing.

(c) The administrative hearing panel shall consist of:

1. The associate dean of academic affairs;
2. The Chairperson (or another voting student member of the Honor Council); and
3. A faculty member of the Honor Council.

(d) Administrative hearings shall be fair and impartial. Formal rules of evidence do not apply to Honor Council proceedings. On a case-by-case basis, the Honor Council has broad discretion in considering and weighing information it deems relevant, in the form of documents, witness testimony/accounts, and other forms of information, in its proceedings. Witnesses will testify without oath, but with the understanding of university policies applicable to their participation, and written statements may be submitted from unavailable witnesses. With the exception of testifying witnesses, only the members of the administrative hearing panel, the reported student, and the student’s hearing supporter, may be present during the hearing. The reported student shall have the right to testify and to make a closing statement. The reported student may be accompanied by a faculty or staff member of the College as a hearing supporter for purposes of consultation, but neither the reported student nor the hearing supporter shall have the right to directly question witnesses. Rather, the reported student may request that the members of the administrative hearing panel ask specific questions of the reporting party and any witness, and the administrative hearing panel has discretion to determine whether the question is relevant and should be asked, to reframe the question as deemed appropriate, or to decline to ask the question based on irrelevance. The associate dean of academic affairs may suspend the hearing at any point in order to provide additional time to collect evidence, to resolve questions related to the case, to clarify answers to procedural questions, or to provide sufficient additional time for the testimony and deliberation. If the hearing is suspended, the associate dean of academic affairs shall reconvene the meeting at the earliest possible date, but within seven days, absent extenuating circumstances.

(e) For a finding of an Honor Code violation, the panel must determine by a unanimous vote that there is clear and convincing evidence of a violation. “Clear and convincing” evidence means that a particular fact(s) is substantially more likely to be true than not to be true. An appropriate sanction will be sanctioned by majority vote. Absent extenuating circumstances, the associate dean of academic affairs shall notify the student in writing of the decision of the associate dean of academic affairs and the sanctions imposed within seven days. The student will have the right to appeal the decision according to the procedures set forth in this code.

Section 4.

(a) If a reported student fails to respond to messages of the Honor Council in a timely manner or is absent from any investigative meetings or hearings without good cause, the Honor Council may investigate and/or hear the case in the student’s absence.

(b) A student may not withdraw from a course in which an Honor Council investigation is pending. Should a student withdraw from a course, and it is later determined that the student’s work was in violation of the Honor Code, the associate dean of academic affairs may impose a grade of F or WF upon the recommendation of the Honor Council.

(c) The procedures for investigations and hearings may be modified at the discretion of the associate dean of academic affairs in response to any exigencies. These changes shall normally be limited to modifications of the size or composition of investigation teams and hearing panels. The reported student shall have the right to accept any modifications or to reject the modifications and resolve the case according to the procedures outlined in this code.

(d) The findings and recommendations of the Honor Council shall be transmitted to the associate dean of academic affairs promptly in a concise report. After receipt of the report, the student shall be promptly notified of the dean’s decision and any sanctions recommended. The associate dean of academic affairs may accept or modify the recommended sanctions. The associate dean of academic affairs may also remand the case for a new hearing.

Section 1.

(a) To receive a written statement of the charges at least five (5) days in advance of the hearing. This written statement shall contain a brief statement of the nature of the alleged offense. This statement shall be drawn by the Chair and Secretary in consultation with the Faculty Coordinator if, after a preliminary investigation by them, they determine that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Honor Code may have been violated. In the event that the accused does not accept the written statement of charges or does not sign acknowledging receipt, the hearing will nonetheless occur as scheduled.

(b) The Honor Appeals Committee shall be composed of three (3) faculty members appointed by the associate dean of academic affairs. The committee shall recommend to the appellate officer that the appeal be denied and the original finding(s) and sanction(s) affirmed; that the sanction be modified; or that a new hearing be held.

(c) The appellate officer shall promptly notify the reported student in writing of the recommendation and of any action he or she is taking based thereon.

(d) The appellate officer shall be the associate dean of academic affairs. In the event that the associate dean of academic affairs serves on a hearing panel, the appellate officer shall be the dean of academic affairs, or his or her designee.

Section 2.

(a) Appeals are limited to the following grounds:

1. Procedural error that significantly affected the outcome of the hearing;
2. Excessive or inappropriate sanction;
3. Specific new evidence, which could not have been reasonably discovered prior to the hearing and which would likely have changed the outcome of the hearing

1. To promote a clear understanding throughout the college community of the issues involved in the Honor Code.
2. To hear all cases referred to it alleging honor violations by students. The duty of the council shall be to determine whether the reported student has violated the Honor Code and to make recommendations of sanctions to the associate dean of academic affairs.

(b) The Honor Council shall consist of up to twenty-two (22) persons—a student chairperson, up to eleven (11) additional student members, and up to ten (10) faculty members. Only students enrolled in Oxford College whose primary program of study is offered by the College shall be eligible for membership. Each member of the Honor Council shall normally be eligible to serve until graduation from Oxford College. In the case of a member or eligible student who does not register for any semester (exclusive of any summer enrollment period), the associate dean of academic affairs shall name a replacement until the next regular selection of members.

(c) The executive head of the Honor Council shall be a Chairperson who shall be nominated by the associate dean of academic affairs. The associate dean of academic affairs may create other officer positions to assist the Chairperson. The associate dean of academic affairs shall nominate members to fulfill these roles, and their appointment shall be approved by a majority of the members of the Honor Council. The Chairperson and any other officers shall be privileged to vote on all questions.

(d) A selection committee drawn from student members and faculty members of the Honor Council shall be appointed by the associate dean of academic affairs and the Chairperson of the Honor Council. The Honor Council shall then make the final selection of members and of the pool of students eligible to serve on the Appeal Panel.

(e) A quorum of the Honor Council shall be four (4) of the student members. No member of the Honor Council may hear a case when he or she is a reporting party or witness or otherwise has a conflict of interest. If a quorum cannot be assembled for a hearing, the associate dean of academic affairs may appoint temporary members in order to reach a quorum. If a quorum is still not achieved, the associate dean of academic affairs may appoint sufficient temporary members from the pool of students who would be eligible to serve on the Honor Council as defined in this code. The associate dean of academic affairs shall train any temporary members before they may hear a case.

(f) The associate dean of academic affairs shall annually appoint no fewer than ten (10) faculty members to the Honor Council. These advisors shall assist the Honor Council members in investigations and participate as voting members in hearings of the Honor Council. A quorum of the Honor Council shall be two (2) of the faculty members. No member of the Honor Council may hear a case when he or she is a reporting party or witness or otherwise has a conflict of interest. If a quorum cannot be assembled for a hearing, the associate dean of academic affairs may appoint faculty members as temporary members in order to reach a quorum. The associate dean of academic affairs shall train any temporary members before they may hear a case. 

(g) In accordance with the Emory College Honor Code, the associate dean of academic affairs may request that a case be heard by the Emory College Honor Council.

(h) The associate dean of academic affairs may temporarily or permanently remove from the Honor Council any member who compromises the integrity of the Honor Code process, fails to meet the duties of the position, is unable to participate objectively and without bias, or is reported for an Honor Code violation. Should the Honor Council member wish to contest this temporary or permanent removal, a written appeal of the decision may be submitted to the Appeal Panel within seven days of receiving the decision. The Appeal Panel shall review the circumstances that led to the removal and make a final, nonappealable recommendation that the decision be upheld, modified, or overturned.

(a) All students enrolled in any course or program at Oxford College are expected to abide by the Oxford College Honor Code. The Oxford College Honor Council shall have jurisdiction over cases of academic misconduct that occur in any course within Oxford College, regardless of the degree program in which the student is enrolled. The Oxford College Honor Council will report all decisions, including findings and recommended sanctions, to the dean of the school in which the reported student is enrolled. The dean of the respective school may accept or modify the recommended sanction before reporting it to the student. The student may appeal the decision, according to the procedures listed below.

(b) An Oxford College student who enrolls in a course or program in another school of Emory University must abide by the Honor Code of that school. Cases of alleged academic misconduct will be decided by the Honor Council of the school where the violation occurred. Upon the conclusion of any such case, the verdict and recommended sanction will be reported to the associate dean of academic affairs of Oxford College, who may accept or modify the recommended sanction. The student may appeal the decision, according to the procedures set forth in the Honor Code of the school where the violation occurred.

(c) In cases when the Honor Council has appropriate jurisdiction that may overlap with another school, the associate dean of academic affairs has discretion to recommend that a case be remanded to the school in which the student is enrolled.

(d) In cases when an Honor Code violation is reported after a student has graduated and the violation relates to a course that was required for the conferral of the degree, the associate dean of academic affairs has discretion to refer the allegation to the Honor Council for adjudication. The Honor Council may recommend and the associate dean of academic affairs may enforce any outcome enumerated in the Honor Code, including revocation of the degree.

(e) Faculty members may not impose penalties on the basis of honor code contrary to the decision of the associate dean of academic affairs based on findings and recommendations of the Honor Council.

(a) All proceedings under the Honor Code are confidential and those participating in the proceedings have a duty to keep information related to it confidential. Breaches of the requirement for confidentiality are addressed through this Code, any applicable conduct codes, or employee action for breaches of university policy. Nothing in this paragraph shall restrict communication to officials of the University where knowledge is necessary in the performance of the officials' duties, nor shall it restrict disclosure required by law.

(b) Wherever "Dean" or "associate dean of academic affairs" appears in this Code, each shall include any person designated by the Dean of Oxford College or associate dean of academic affairs to act for the Dean or associate dean of academic affairs.

(c) Wherever "Chair, Chairperson, or Chairperson of the Honor Council" appears in this Code, each shall include any member of the Honor Council designated by the Chairperson of the Honor Council to act in the Chair’s stead.

(d) This Honor Code shall be subject to amendment and revision with the consent of the associate dean of academic affairs and a majority of the faculty.

THE USE OF SOURCES IN WRITING PAPERS IN OXFORD COLLEGE

A writer's facts, ideas, and phraseology should be regarded as his or her property. Any person who uses a writer's ideas or phraseology without giving due credit is responsible for plagiarism. This includes duplicate submission—use of your own work for another class or publication without the express permission of all involved instructors or editors.

Information may be put into a paper without a footnote or some kind of documentation only if it meets all of the following conditions:

It may be found in several books on the subject. It is written entirely in the words of the student. It is not paraphrased from any particular source. It therefore belongs to common knowledge.

Generally, if a student writes while looking at a source or while looking at notes taken from a source, a footnote should be given.

Whenever any idea is taken from a specific work, even when the student writes the idea entirely in his or her own words, there must be a footnote giving credit to the author responsible for the idea. Of course methods of documentation vary, and it is possible to cite in the text itself rather than a footnote. The point is that the student should give credit when credit is due and that he or she should give the credit in a manner specified by the instructor of the course or the department.

The student is entirely responsible for knowing and following the principles of paraphrasing. "In paraphrasing you are expressing the ideas of another writer in your own words. A good paraphrase preserves the sense of the original, but not the form. It does not retain the sentence patterns and merely substitute synonyms for the original words, nor does it retain the original words and merely alter the sentence patterns. It is a genuine restatement. Invariably it should be briefer than the source."*

• Floyd (c) Watkins, William (b) Dillingham, and Edwin T. Martin, Practical English Handbook, 3rd ed.(Boston, 1970), p. 245.

Any direct quotation should be footnoted (or documented in any acceptable fashion). Even when a student uses only one unusual or key word from a passage, that word should be quoted. If a brief phrase that is common is used as it occurs in a source, the words should be in quotation marks. The source of every quotation should be given in a footnote or in the prescribed manner.

It is of course the prerogative of the instructor to prescribe that no secondary sources may be used for particular papers.

A student who uses a secondary source must remember that the very act of looking up a book or an article should be considered as a pledge that the student will use the material according to the principles stated above.

Common Forms of Academic Misconduct

The Honor Code gives some of the general types of violations. This appendix clarifies the Honor Code by
providing typical examples of academic dishonesty. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. If you are in doubt about any action, contact your professor for clarification.

Exams

• Attempting to look at or copy another student's exam
• Attempting to provide answers to another student
• Programming a calculator with answers or other information
• Accessing information on a smart device
• Using notes or other unauthorized information during an exam
• Looking at an older version of the exam without the professor's permission
• Using a test bank or fraternity tub file without the professor's permission
• Taking an exam for someone else or having someone take an exam for you
• Submitting someone else's name on an exam

Because study partners often have similar answers on an exam, the Honor Council recommends that students not sit near their study partners during a quiz or test.

The use of an electronic device for any reason during an exam or testing situation is strictly prohibited and violates the Honor Code.

Written Assignments

Plagiarism is the use of someone else's words, ideas, or work without providing proper credit. Whether the act is intentional or not, the Honor Council considers any form of plagiarism to be a violation of the Honor Code. Some examples of plagiarism and other academic misconduct in written work include:

• Using someone else's words without quotation marks and proper attribution
• Using information or ideas without acknowledging the source
• Paraphrasing a text without acknowledging the source
• Improperly paraphrasing a passage by using language or structure that is too similar to the original source
• Purchasing a paper or using an online paper assistance website
• Having any one than yourself write any part of your paper
• Using false page numbers or creating false citations

Duplicate submission is using the same intellectual material more than once without the express, prior permission from every instructor or editor for whom the original submission was, is, or would be made, at any educational institution or for any publication, electronic, academic, or otherwise. When in doubt, talk with your instructors about any possible plans you have to re-use material. If permission is granted, make sure you get it in writing from all involved instructors. Some examples of duplicate submission include:

• Submitting an assignment for a college class that you wrote in high school or earlier in college, even with some revisions and/or additions
• Reusing parts of an assignment for two or more classes

Group Work and Collaboration

Collaboration on a paper, test, lab, homework, or any other assignment is only allowed with the express permission of the professor. Do not assume that because you are allowed to collaborate on one type of assignment or in one class that you are allowed to do the same with other assignments or other classes. When in doubt, always ask your professor. Violations involving multiple students and group work include:

• Copying any part of an assignment, including answers, graphs, figures, and data
• Sharing your paper or assignment with another student without the professor's permission
• Including someone's name on a project for credit when s/he didn't contribute to the work

The Honor Council advises students to refrain from sending or providing copies of their work to other students to prevent this work from being stolen or copied.

Other Issues

There are a number of others actions that constitute academic misconduct. These include, but are not limited to:

• Providing false information to a professor (e.g. falsely claiming sickness or a family death)
• Creating false data for an assignment
• Signing someone else into class
• Using a clicker other than your own during class
• Forging a signature on an academic document
• Falsifying a transcript or other university document
• Seeking to gain or provide an unfair advantage during registration
• Resubmitting altered work for a higher grade
• Intentionally sabotaging the academic work of another student
• Intentionally disrupting the conduct of an exam to gain or provide an academic advantage
• Intentionally preventing other students from accessing resources for an assignment
• Offering a professor a bribe for a higher grade
• Lying or creating false evidence at any point during an Honor Code investigation
• Violating confidentiality in an Honor Code case
• Refusing to submit evidence in an Honor Code case