Academic Conduct Procedures

Senate Academic Conduct Policy and Procedures

Academic integrity is fundamental to a university’s intellectual life. The mission of York University is the pursuit, preservation, and dissemination of knowledge. Central to this mission, is the relationship between teaching and learning. Honesty, fairness, and mutual respect must form the basis of this relationship in the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge in the University. York University embraces the International Centre for Academic Integrity’s definition of academic integrity as acting in all academic matters with honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility, and the courage to act in accordance with these values (ICAI, 2021).

Students in the Faculty of Graduate Studies are expected to conform to strict standards of academic honesty as specified in the Academic Conduct Policy and Procedures. A lack of familiarity with relevant university policies on the part of a student does not constitute a defence against its application to them.

Any breach of academic conduct is a serious offence to both the University community and the academic enterprise. Any suspected breach, no matter how small it may appear, and following the guiding principle of presumption of innocence, requires investigation to bring the matter to a close. The Faculty of Graduate Studies has established the following complementary procedures specific to the investigation and resolution of alleged violations of the Academic Conduct Policy and Procedures for students engaged in academic work in the Faculty of Graduate Studies. The procedures conform to and are to be read in conjunction with the Academic Conduct Policy and Procedures.

Jurisdiction

Allegations of a breach of academic conduct against a student engaged in academic work in the Faculty of Graduate Studies, with the exception of master’s students in the Schulich School of Business, shall be dealt with according to these procedures. Master’s students in the Schulich School of Business shall follow the procedures governing academic conduct established in the Schulich School of Business.

Representation

At all stages of an investigation, students have the right to a representative of their choosing. Specifically, the York University Graduate Students' Association (YUGSA) advocates on behalf of individual students regarding allegations of academic misconduct.

Investigating Potential Academic Misconduct

The Person of Primary Responsibility (PPR) refers to the person or panel who coordinates the implementation of the Senate policy and procedures. The PPR in the Faculty of Graduate Studies is the Associate Dean Academic, who is an Ex-Officio Non-voting Member of the Appeals and Academic Honesty Committee (AAHC) – a Standing Committee of the Council of the Faculty of Graduate Studies

Under the Academic Conduct Policy and Procedures, the PPR delegates authority to the relevant Graduate Program Director (GPD), who acts as the Person of Primary Responsibility (PPR) Designate on facilitating academic conduct matters to conclusion. The GPD is encouraged to enlist the support of the Faculty of Graduate Studies’ Graduate Academic Affairs unit who can assist in coordinating all administrative aspects of an investigation.

The GPD must request either a block (if the suspected breach is part of a course) or an alert (if the suspected breach is not part of a course) on the student’s record by contacting the Faculty of Graduate Studies’ Graduate Academic Affairs Unit once notified of potential academic misconduct. A block prohibits withdrawal from the course in question, while an alert prohibits withdrawal from the program. In both cases, limits are placed on the ability to obtain transcripts. The Faculty of Graduate Studies shall also initiate a check for past offences to inform next steps.

When a faculty member directing a course, or having or sharing responsibility for a student’s research or other academic activities, becomes aware of a possible violation of academic conduct, it is the responsibility of the faculty member to consult with the GPD. If the faculty member is not the supervisor of the student, then the supervisor (or advisor), if on file, shall be informed as soon as possible. This responsibility extends to any person involved in/interacting with a student’s academic activities e.g., students participating in a group assignment, exam invigilator, placement supervisor, etc.

If the external examiner, or other oral examination committee member, believes that the thesis/dissertation research involves a possible breach of academic conduct, that individual shall indicate such in writing to the Chair of the Oral Examination, who in turn will notify the GPD.

In instances where the GPD is the faculty member involved in identifying possible academic misconduct, a member of the graduate faculty as designated by the Executive Committee of the program (excluding the Graduate Program Director) may take charge of the matter if the circumstances of the possible violation indicate a real, perceived, or potential conflict of interest that may impact the integrity of the investigation.

In exceptional circumstances, and in collaboration with the GPD, the PPR may designate a representative to facilitate an investigation.

Conducting Exploratory Outreach

Based on the evidence collected in partnership with the faculty member, once it is determined that there are reasonable grounds to discuss the potential academic misconduct with the student, the GPD will notify them in writing at the first available opportunity. The GPD should communicate the following:

1. the allegation and a summary of the evidence available and the possibility that a sanction will be imposed;
2. that they will not be permitted to withdraw from the course in question (if applicable) and that a block or alert will be placed on their record;
3. their right to provide a response to the allegations in writing or in person, or to discuss the allegations with the GPD (in person, by phone or videoconference), and if a response is not received within 10 business days, the GPD may continue and conclude the investigation without the student;
4. their right to be assisted by a Support Person (if they choose), who may provide support and advice and speak on behalf of the student; and
5. that they will be provided any additional evidence that becomes available over the course of the investigation and afforded the opportunity to respond.

Normally, the faculty member involved will participate in the exploratory outreach led by the GPD except in exceptional circumstances precluding their participation.

Issuing a Recommendation

Following the conclusion of the investigation, the GPD will determine, on a balance of probabilities, whether a breach occurred. If it is determined that misconduct did not occur, the allegation will be dismissed and all records of the allegation will be destroyed.

If it is determined that a breach occurred, the GPD will take into account the circumstances of the case in deciding appropriate sanction(s), in consultation with the faculty member involved, and in accordance with the Academic Conduct Policy and Procedures.

Barring exceptional circumstances, sanctions for academic misconduct in course work shall not exceed the level of failure in the course.

Where the GPD believes the evidence gathered points to academic conduct grave enough to warrant a suspension, expulsion, or other penalties that are negatively transformational, or it is a second or subsequent incident by the student, they shall refer the matter in the first instance to the Appeals and Academic Honesty Committee (AAHC) through the Faculty of Graduate Studies’ Graduate Academic Affairs unit. In cases where there is disagreement on appropriate sanction(s) between the GPD and faculty member involved, the GPD will contact the Associate Dean Academic in the Faculty of Graduate Studies who will assist in reaching a resolution.

Reporting Outcome of Recommendation to the Faculty of Graduate Studies

The recommendation will be provided to the student in writing and include:

1. a summary of the investigation;
2. a summary of evidence gathered;
3. the response of the student to the allegation;
4. the sanction(s) being imposed and rationale for the sanction(s), in accordance with the Academic Conduct Policy and Procedures;
5. notice of the forthcoming review by the Appeals and Academic Honesty Committee (AAHC) who will ultimately issue a decision on the matter;
6. and a request that the student acknowledge receipt of the decision via email contact information provided in the decision letter or email sent to the student.

Absent the receipt of student acknowledgement within 10 business days either 1) accepting the recommendation, 2) accepting the findings but suggesting an alternate sanction(s), or 3) disputing that a breach of academic conduct occurred, the recommendation will stand and be communicated to AAHC through the Faculty of Graduate Studies’ Graduate Academic Affairs unit.

Appeals and Academic Honesty Committee (AAHC) Review and Decision

AAHC shall consider the facts and circumstances of the case and determine, on a balance of probabilities, whether a breach has occurred and/or whether the sanction(s) imposed by the GPD is appropriate.

AAHC receiving a recommendation accepted by the student, or not acknowledged by the student, will normally impose the sanction(s) suggested; however, if it is of the opinion that an alternate sanction(s) would be more appropriate, the committee will issue a revised decision.

AAHC receiving a recommendation whereby the student accepts the findings but puts forward an alternate sanction(s) suggestion will determine appropriate sanction and issue a decision.

AAHC receiving a recommendation being disputed by the student that a breach of academic conduct occurred shall hold a formal hearing on the matter to reach a conclusion.

In all cases, the committee may conduct outreach for further information from relevant parties prior to issuing a decision. Normally, the AAHC will only call for a formal hearing in cases of a dispute that a breach of academic conduct has occurred.

When a sanction is issued for activities related to course work, the student cannot retroactively withdraw from the course.

The Faculty of Graduate Studies will maintain a record of each finding of academic misconduct. The purpose of this record is to allow access to information on previous offence(s) and to aid in determining sanctions in the event a new case is opened. This record of offence(s) shall not be used for any other purpose.

Formal Hearing at the Faculty Level, when Required

The Appeals and Academic Honesty Committee (AAHC) through the Faculty of Graduate Studies’ Graduate Academic Affairs unit shall produce a case file summarizing the matter and, with the support of the GPD and faculty member involved, include all available evidence where possible.

AAHC through the Faculty of Graduate Studies’ Graduate Academic Affairs unit shall endeavour with the GPD to secure the participation of two faculty members (minimum one) and one graduate student from the graduate program of the student in question to become voting members of a now augmented committee for the purposes of the hearing to add discipline-specific expertise to the deliberations. All committee members are expected to act with impartiality, meaning freedom from bias or prejudice, ensuring fairness and neutrality in the application of the Academic Conduct Policy and Procedures. The Chair of this augmented committee shall be non-voting, except in the case of a tie.

All parties will receive not less than 10 business days notice of the time and location of the hearing, which may be held in person or by videoconference. All parties must inform AAHC of their intention to call witnesses – individuals who may offer information pertinent to the possible academic misconduct – and names of these witnesses at least five business days prior to the hearing. If the student wishes to produce a written response to the case file, it must be provided at least five business days prior to the hearing, and will be shared with the committee and GPD. At the discretion of the committee, the case file, or portions therein, may be shared with witnesses.

Prior to the hearing, if the student acknowledges the accuracy of, or agrees with, the original recommendation of the GPD, the student may waive the right to a hearing by submitting a written statement to AAHC indicating such. The committee will then issue a decision at its earliest opportunity to reach a conclusion on the matter.

Role of the GPD:

• Summarize the case and offer viewpoints on behalf of the graduate program
• Be able to speak to programmatic and disciplinary norms in relation to the matter
• Be prepared to offer introductory and closing remarks
• Be prepared to answer questions from all participants to the best of their ability
• Be prepared to reaffirm the initial recommendation or provide an alternate recommendation in light of new information presented at or leading up to the hearing
• Are non-voting for the purposes of the hearing
• Maintain confidentiality on the matter

Role of the Student:

• Summarize the case and offer their point of view
• Be able to speak to relevant circumstances that led to the allegation
• Be prepared to offer introductory and closing remarks
• Be prepared to answer questions from all participants to the best of their ability
• Be prepared to reaffirm the initial response to the recommendation or provide an alternate suggestion in light of new information presented at or leading up to the hearing
• Are non-voting for the purposes of the hearing
• Maintain confidentiality on the matter

Role of Witnesses:

• Provide a short summary of their involvement in the case (normally as part of the GPD or student’s summary of the case, where appropriate)
• Offer information pertinent to the matter
• Be prepared to answer questions from all participants to the best of their ability
• Are non-voting for the purposes of the hearing
• Maintain confidentiality on the matter

Role of Augmented Committee Members:

• Consider the facts and circumstances of the case and make informed decisions based on the evidence and other relevant information presented
• Be prepared to ask questions to learn new information or seek clarification
• For program members of the student in question, add discipline-specific expertise to the deliberations
• Consider the inherent power imbalance and associated unconscious biases involved in situations of academic dishonesty to inform decision making
• Are voting members for the purposes of the hearing
• Maintain confidentiality on the matter

It is expected that, should a formal hearing be required, formal hearings are held within 6 months of a file arriving at the Faculty of Graduate Studies. Formal and documented leaves by students are excepted from this timeline.

Order of Events of a Formal Hearing

The GPD and student will provide summaries of the case and other relevant information on the matter. Both parties will be allowed a full and fair opportunity to present their evidence and to respond to the evidence presented to them. Parties are permitted to cross-examine each other, or each other’s witnesses, in matters related to the possible academic misconduct. The timing and extent of witness participation will be made at the discretion of the committee.

Question periods will allow for all participants to learn new information or to seek clarification. When the parties have presented relevant evidence and information, and committee members have concluded their questions, each party may present closing remarks.

Following this the parties shall be temporarily excused, and the committee will discuss in a closed session to determine whether a breach of academic conduct has occurred. A finding of academic misconduct supported by a majority of committee members shall be binding. Parties will re-join the hearing to receive the decision. If it is determined that a breach of academic conduct has occurred, the GPD and the student will be given the opportunity to recommend an appropriate sanction(s). Parties will then depart the hearing, and the committee will discuss in a closed session to determine an appropriate sanction(s). The decision will be communicated in writing to the necessary parties following the hearing.

Exceptions to these procedures may be made at the discretion of the committee. The Chair of the committee has full authority to assure an orderly and expeditious hearing. Any person who disrupts a hearing, or who fails to adhere to the rulings of the committee may be required to leave. The committee has the discretion to make rulings as to admissibility of evidence or the suitability of cross-examination. The committee is not bound by formal rules of evidence applicable in courts of law.

Electronic recordings of the hearing are not permitted.

Appeals

Students may appeal a decision of academic misconduct to the Senate Appeals Committee (SAC) in accordance with their timelines, procedures and grounds (reasons) for the appeal to be considered.