Page Comparison

Policy

In accordance with EMU mission, vision, and life together statements, we expect academic integrity of all members of the community. Responses to violations of academic integrity are detailed below.

Context

Eastern Mennonite University fosters a culture where faculty, staff, and students respect themselves and others. In this culture, faculty, staff, and students gain confidence in their desire and ability to discover their ideascommunicate concepts, construct new knowledge, and think critically about their own ideas and the others’ ideas of others. In doing so, EMU community members grow as competent thinkers and writers.

EMU EMU faculty and staff care about the integrity of their own work and the work of their students. They create assignments that promote interpretative thinking and work intentionally with students during the learning process, creating assignments that promote interpretative thinking. Honesty, integrity, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility are characteristics of a community that is active in loving mercy, doing justice, and walking humbly before God.

...

At EMU, academic integrity means

...

accountability means that community members are accountable to themselves, their colleagues (fellow students or fellow instructors), the university, and the fields of study in which they engage. To be academically accountable means to be able to give a transparent account of the academic work that we do. It means that we “leave tracks” and create trails so that others may learn where we started and how we ended up where we are.

A transparent account for academic work involves producing and submitting one’s own work in papers, essays, projects, quizzes and tests; correctly and consistently acknowledging sources used; factually representing research results, one’s credentials, and facts or opinions

...

; and appropriately documenting use of technology

...

using accurate quotations. When used, quotations are exact, word-for-word as they appear in the original document. Every quotation, including a short phrase or a single word if it is unusual, includes the required citation and quotation marks.
using appropriate paraphrasing with documentation. Paraphrasing is more than rewording the original material. It must be nearly entirely in the writer’s own words, using new phrases and synonyms. The writer may repeat technical terms. Place quotation marks around any exact words that are retained. The sentence structure should not be the same as in the source. In the paraphrase, do not add interpretations, ideas, and assessment that are not in the original source.
documenting and citing work that was created for a previous assignment, whether for the current course or for another one.
using appropriate documentation when using words from a class speaker, including the class instructor, in an assignment, i.e. cite professors’ lectures.
using common knowledge appropriately. Common knowledge is information that is easily observed, commonly reported facts (George Washington was the first president of the United States.), or proverbs. Common knowledge does not need to be cited, but be certain that these words are in the public domain. When in doubt, ask the professor.
using a dictionary to produce original work in a second language. When using software like Google Translate, to translate words, sentences, or paragraphs from one’s native language to the second language, the student is copying and not learning the language or applying skills learned in the classroom. Use a translation dictionary (i.e. English-Spanish, English-Bulgarian) to find the precise word or idiom needed to construct a sentence. Entries in a dictionary are more accurate than software that translates phrases and paragraphs. Professors would like to see your original work, not the work of a machine.

EMU defines plagiarism as occurring when a person presents as one’s own someone else’s language, ideas, or other original (not common-knowledge) material without acknowledging its source (adapted from the Council of Writing Program Administrators, 2005, www.wpacouncil.org).

...

Minimal Violation

A minimal violation of academic integrity codes includes doing the following without appropriate documentation:

using a minimal number of distinguishing words from a source.
rearranging the word order of a sentence.
producing a similar sentence or style from a source.
using an idea or argument from a source.
reproducing one’s own work from a previous work.

(These items are adapted from “Westmont College Plagiarism Policy” (2002), www.westmont.edu.)

Substantial Violation

A substantial violation of academic integrity codes includes (but is not limited to):

...

.

Informed use: as much as possible, students, faculty and staff should be generative AI (gAI) “literate”

know how gAI systems work
gAI is ubiquitous and increasing in options
gAI systems are associated with common applications and tools
gAI can be good for tasks such as outlines, brainstorming, checking grammar, spelling, and/ or style

Ethical and Responsible use: as much as possible, students, faculty and staff should understand limitations, benefits, and risks of gAI

Consider privacy and unequal access to gAI tools
Information should not be submitted to an AI system unless you expect it to be publicly available and you own it
gAI systems may be poorly referenced and/or the content may be unattributed to the original copyright owner
Bias exists in the data and output
gAI can “hallucinate” and may provide untrue information (fact checks are required)
gAI searches have climate impacts (electricity and water usage)

Examples of violations of EMU’s Academic Accountability Policy are below. Additional examples of violations are available in this document.

Not providing appropriate documentation to all information, ideas, and quotations taken from any source, including anything online;
Using resources such as notes, textbooks, online resources when not authorized by the instructor;
Giving or receiving unauthorized assistance to or from another person, face to face or electronically on or during or after a quiz or test;
Falsifying research results, withholding data, misrepresenting facts;

frequently committing minimal

Presenting material as one’s own from a site that sells essays

. Some of the papers-for-sale sites do have disclaimers that state the work must be cited. Remember, if a source can be found, the professor can also find it.

or generates them for you (generative AI);
Frequently committing violations within a single document or repeatedly over time

.

Assisting another student to cheat or to copy one’s own or someone else’s work without appropriate documentation.
;
Using Google Translator, generative AI (gAI) or other software to translate work from one’s native language to the language of instruction and submitting the work as one’s own work

.

Undergraduate academic departments and graduate units are responsible for establishing right-of-use parameters for non-print materials (e.g. presentations).

...

When a student violates academic integrity values, the student and professor/advisor will work together to restore the student to community.

Procedures for Minimal Violations

When a first-time minimal violation is noted, the professor will use this as an opportunity to teach the student/s explicitly about academic integrity. A minimal violation should be reported to the respective dean’s office using the Academic Integrity Violation form. When a second minimal violation occurs, either within the same class or in multiple classes with the same instructor, faculty will document this as a substantial offense using the Academic Integrity Violation form.

Procedures for Substantial Violations¹

At EMU, when academic integrity codes are violated to this level, the following procedure will be followed.

The professor will:

notify the student of the violation.
determine whether the student is guilty of the violation.
contact the respective chair or program director’s office to check on previous student violations in order to determine first, second or third offense.
document the finding and the action either taken (First-time offense) or repeated (Second and Third-time offenses) on the Violation of Academic Integrity Record.
meet with the student to obtain the student’s signature, either acknowledging her/his violation or acknowledging discussion in which the professor explained the charges to the student. In the event that a student refuses to sign, the professor will document that the violation was discussed with the student and the student refused to sign. (Under some circumstances, the professor may want to request another professor present as witness. Students have the option to include a faculty or staff member, e.g. academic advisor, student life personnel, coach.)
submit the Violation of Academic Integrity Record to the respective chair or program director. Copies are forwarded to the dean.

The dean will:

for undergraduate students, inform the Vice President for Student Life of violations and actions taken.
for all students, follow steps described below for Second and Third-time offenses.

The student will either:

accept the decision or
submit an appeal to the respective dean in writing within five (5) working days following notification of the Academic Integrity Violation report. Reasons for the appeal must be clearly stated and based on one of the following:

Significant and relevant new evidence,
Alleged procedural error that may have affected the decision, or
Unduly harsh and arbitrary consequences of the academic integrity violation.

On the basis of these factors, the dean will review the appeal and, in consultation with the course professor, make a decision to uphold or modify the academic integrity violation record. This decision will be communicated to the student in writing within five (5) days after the receipt of the appeal. The decision is final.

Each dean will maintain a database recording all violation of academic integrity reports. Reports of substantial violations will be kept as part of the student’s permanent record, unless a report is withdrawn following appeal.

Consequences for Undergraduate Students

...

; or
Recycling one’s own previous work without proper citation and securing the instructor’s approval.

Faculty should clearly describe allowances for generative AI usage on specific assignments on the spectrum of
- Free usage (no acknowledgment, documentation, or citation needed to use generative AI on this assignment)
- Fully prohibited (The assignment must be completed without assistance from others, including generative AI tools)
- Middle positions

Academic Accountability Procedures

The following procedure is appropriate for use in undergraduate and graduate settings.

When an instructor observes or suspects that an episode of academic misconduct has occurred, the process below should be followed. NOTE: The Academic Accountability Representative (AAR) is the director of the Academic Success Center and acts as a process facilitator. Instructors are mandated to contact the AAR about possible academic misconduct to the AAR.

The instructor contacts the AAR to discuss their observations and to share further details of the episode and any documentation of alleged violation. They decide whether or not to initiate a formal process.
Together, they (AAR & Instructor) explore possible reasons for the incident, plan for the instructor to converse with the student to understand each others’ perspectives, and explore possible avenues for accountability. If the AAR and instructor conclude that no violation has occurred, the instructor will inform the student and copy the AAR;
Otherwise, the instructor meets with the student. (Sometimes, when the instructor meets with the student, this is the moment when the student and instructor resolve the issue without further involvement with the AAR.)
If the instructor and AAR have decided that a formal process is needed, the instructor informs the student about the concern (the paper submitted, the test taken) and that they will be consulting with the university AAR to initiate a formal process and will inform the student of the consultation results.
The instructor completes a form reporting their concerns, which goes automatically to the AAR.
The AAR checks on any prior episodes for this student. (AAR has access to all previous reports.)
The AAR arranges a meeting with the student to occur within 2 business days. During this meeting, the student is in a safe place where privacy is ensured. The student is encouraged to share what happened. The AAR listens, asking prompting questions as appropriate. Ultimately, the AAR is seeking moments of learning, of redemption for the student, of restoration of the relationship between student and instructor.

The AAR reports to the instructor the pertinent details of the meeting with the student. The AAR will record notes of the meetings with instructor and student(s);
The AAR will set up a planning meeting with the AAR, instructor, and student within 7 business days and inform the parties. The student will be informed that they may invite a trusted support person to this meeting if they choose;
In the case that an accountability process extends beyond the last day of the course, the instructor will record an “Incomplete” grade for the course.

The AAR/Instructor/Student meeting will include the following:

The AAR will briefly explain the purpose of the meeting and facilitate decisions about ground rules;
The student will explain their actions and what led up to those actions (What happened? What were you thinking at the time?);
The instructor will explain their observations and concerns (What happened? What were you thinking at the time?);
The instructor and student will discuss possible actions to remedy the situation and prevent its recurrence (What have you thought about since? What could make it right? What could keep it from happening again in the same way?);
As appropriate on a case-by-case basis, the instructor and student will write and sign a detailed action plan to include dates and responsibilities of all parties. The plan should include due dates and the responsibilities of both parties.

The AAR will record all meetings with student and instructor, including the Action Plan in the Maxient case file and arrange further instruction if necessary.
Shortly before the Action Plan is due, AAR will check in with the student and instructor to monitor progress.
Once the Action Plan has been carried out and/or the situation has been resolved, the AAR will update the case notes to reflect this completion, and close the case in Maxient.
The instructor will replace any Incomplete grades with final grades.

Complications

If the instructor and student cannot agree on an Action Plan
1. The AAR will meet with the student and the instructor separately to evaluate points of disagreement and to develop potential solutions. The AAR will facilitate a meeting where both parties discuss the issues and proposed solutions.
2. If the student and instructor cannot agree on an Action Plan after these individual meetings, the dean of the instructor’s school in collaboration with the Dean of Students will identify an Action Plan or grade consequence.
If the Action Plan is not satisfactorily completed by the student

The instructor may assign a failing grade to the assignment or test in question.
Failure to complete the Action Plan will be recorded in the case notes in Maxient.

Repeated violations with accompanying failure to complete Action Plans

If the student fails to complete multiple action plans, a Letter of Probation, or Letter of Indefinite Suspension/Disciplinary Withdrawal may be issued. The AAR and school dean will determine these responses and the dean will carry out the response.
If the instructor assigns a student an F for the course, the student will not be allowed to withdraw from the course. The student is prohibited from attending class after the professor assigns the F grade. The course continues to apply towards the number of credits the student is pursuing that semester.

Consequences for Graduate Students

...

Faculty and staff who violate academic integrity codes are subject to review by the provost’s office.

The graduate, seminary, and undergraduate units use this policy for processing academic integrity violations with the exception of student appeal. (See above.) This policy appears in yearly course catalogs; the Student Handbook; on graduate, seminary, and undergraduate websites; and at z://provost/policies. The Academic Integrity Policy flow chart is also available at z://provost/policies.

...

Student Appeal

The student will submit an appeal form to the Provost in writing within five (5) working days following notification of the Academic Accountability report. The student may wish to work with their academic advisor or a Student Life staff member to complete the Appeal form. The student will send the completed form to the Provost.

Reasons for the appeal must be clearly stated and based on at least one of the following:

Significant and relevant new evidence;
Alleged procedural error that may have affected the decision; or
Unduly harsh and arbitrary consequences of the academic accountability violation
The Instructor, AAR, or other institutional representative did not follow through on the agreed upon plan.

On the basis of these factors, the provost will review the appeal and, in consultation with the AAR, make a decision to uphold or modify the academic accountability violation record. The Provost will communicate the decision to the student in writing within five (5) days after the receipt of the appeal. The decision is final.

Documentation

- Students who receive any type of academic accountability violation will have it documented in an internal record keeping system at EMU. This system is confidential with limited access.
- Academic accountability violations/probation/suspensions are never part of a student’s official EMU transcript.
- Academic accountability violations will not prevent admission into any academic major at EMU.
- Academic accountability violations are not part of any student life recommendation for students transferring to another university.
- A review of academic accountability violations - in particular, reports marked “incomplete” - may be included when students are considered for student leadership positions, academic honors, participation in cross-cultural opportunities and recommendation for students transferring to another university.
- Academic accountability violations that are egregious and broad in scope may have more serious consequences, including a letter of academic conduct probation and/or a letter of indefinite academic conduct suspension/withdrawal.
- Students who have repeat academic accountability violations may receive a letter of academic conduct probation. This letter serves as official notification that additional academic conduct violations may warrant a letter of indefinite academic conduct suspension.

Responsible Party

The provost is responsible for this policy.

Policy Review

This policy is to be reviewed annually.

Policy Distribution

Undergraduate, Graduate and Seminary Catalogs, Undergraduate, Graduate, Seminary and Lancaster Student Handbooks.

Reviewed by Undergraduate Council, Graduate Council, and Faculty Senate
Approved by Academic Cabinet, March 25, 2009 and revised October 6, 2010
Revised by Academic Cabinet, February 26, 2013
Revised by Academic Cabinet, November 19, 2014
Revised by Provost’s Council, December 16, 2015
Revised by Graduate Council, April 1, 2019 and approved by Provost’s Council, April 10, 2019
Revised by task force and approved by Provost’s Council, May 4, 2021
Revised by Provost’s Council, January 19, 2023 and December 12, 2023

Versions Compared

Old Version 19

New Version Current

Key