Academic Integrity

In addition to cultivating in each student the academic skills that are required for a university degree, Azusa Pacific’s mission includes imparting to each student the characteristics of academic integrity that are integral to a Christian education. Therefore, a breach of academic integrity is not merely a private matter between the student and an instructor but an act that is fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose and mission of the entire university. It is the policy of the university that academic work should represent the independent thought and activity of the individual student, and work that is borrowed from another source without attribution or used in an unauthorized way in an academic exercise is considered to be academic dishonesty that defrauds the work of others and the education system. Engaging in any academic integrity violation is a serious offense for which a student may be disciplined or dismissed. It is each student’s responsibility to review the policy and follow APU’s academic integrity standards.

I. Introduction

The mission of Azusa Pacific University includes cultivating in each student not only the academic skills that are required for a university degree, but also the characteristics of academic integrity that are integral to a sound Christian education. It is therefore part of the mission of the university to nurture in each student a sense of moral responsibility consistent with the biblical teachings of honesty and accountability. Furthermore, a breach of academic integrity is viewed not merely as a private matter between the student and a professor, but rather as an act fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose and mission of the entire university.

This Academic Integrity Policy represents a valuable educational tool for guiding faculty, staff, and students in their efforts to create a sense of community and for expressing the values that are at the core of a Christian university. As members of an academic and spiritual community, we work together to answer difficult questions, often collaborating to answer these questions, to solve problems, and to communicate effectively the knowledge we acquire through inquiry. This document calls attention to the responsibilities we have to one another in being faithful in our attempts to represent others’ views, and it helps us to understand the responsibilities we have toward one another, students and faculty alike, and toward academic scholarship, as we endeavor to uphold the moral standards of our community.

II. Academic Integrity Pledge

A. Knowledge and Education of Responsibilities

A student has the responsibility to become familiar with the Academic Integrity Policy as well as the philosophy behind it. The university is a place where moral integrity is learned and emphasized as a critical component of an academic education. Personal integrity and community responsibility are a core part of university life.

1. As a precondition for admission to the university, students must sign a pledge to the community to uphold the Academic Integrity Policy in all academic affairs at Azusa Pacific University. The pledge is as follows:

“As a student at this Christ-centered university, I will uphold the highest standards of academic integrity. I will not lie, cheat, or steal in my academic endeavors, nor will I accept the actions of those who do. I will conduct myself responsibly and honorably in all my academic activities as an Azusa Pacific University student.”

2. Students should familiarize themselves with the directives given by the professor, whether verbally or in writing, in each class concerning what is and is not permitted, especially in matters of group projects, lab reports, and the attribution of research to sources (in-text citing, footnoting, a complete bibliography), including the Internet and its applications.

III. Academic Integrity Responsibilities: Student

A. Academic Behavior: Personal

1. All work submitted for credit, including exams, is accepted as a student’s own work, unless otherwise understood and approved by the professor.

2. Students may not, without proper citation and approval of the professor, submit work that has been copied, wholly or partially, from another student’s paper, notebook, or exam. Nor may students without proper citation submit work which has been copied, wholly or partially, from a book, article, essay, newspaper, the internet or any other written, printed, or media source, whether or not the material in question is copyrighted.

3. Work that paraphrases any written or printed media material without acknowledgment may not be submitted for credit. Ideas from sources such as books, essays, multimedia (like text, images, audio, video, animation), social media, or artificially intelligent (AI) generated materials, may be incorporated in students’ work as starting points, governing issues, illustrations, and the like, but in each case the source must be cited.

4. Any and all online materials students used for a paper are also governed by plagiarism rules. Students need to cite all electronic sources as well as printed and other sources.

5. Students may not use, without prior permission, generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools for work submitted for credit; any and all use of such tools must be acknowledged and cited in accordance with item (4) above.

6. Students may not use notes or other forms of assistance on a test, such as videos, illustrations, artificial intelligence (AI) generated materials, and the like unless explicitly approved by the professor, nor may they provide such aid to other students.

7. Students may not use or submit work that has been generated from any form of a paid-for or free writing service.

8. Students may not submit any work for credit that has been used to fulfill the requirements of another course previously taken or currently in progress at this or any other institution without obtaining permission of the professor in advance.

Students must be aware that violations are not limited to the actions prohibited in the guidelines above. Any kind of dishonesty related to academics is a violation. Other examples of academic dishonesty, apart from giving or receiving unauthorized aid as described by the professor in each course, include but are not limited to:

a) Listing false reasons for taking a make-up examination.

b) Falsifying data.

c) Falsely representing oneself as another student or using another student’s identifying information to complete academic work or complete academic assessment tests, attend university events, or gain access to and interact on the internet representing another party.

d) Falsifying grade information or course completion information.

e) Participating in activities that permit another student to engage in an academic integrity violation.

f) Purposefully concealing information about a known violation.

g) Misrepresenting oneself as being cleared to participate in commencement.

B. Academic Behavior: Collaborative

1. Working on material with other students is of great pedagogical value, and this policy should not be construed as discouraging such work. Unless such consultation is forbidden by a professor, students may work with other students on assignments and present ideas and even written work to their peers for comments and criticism. Each student, however, should be guided by the following:

a) If a professor explicitly permits or forbids certain collaborative work with other students, such work is permissible or forbidden as the professor indicates. A professor’s explicit guidelines take precedence in determining whether certain actions are permissible.

b) It is a presupposition that ideas and expressions in a submitted paper or report originate from the writer unless otherwise indicated. Consequently, if ideas or expressions in written work originate from another, whether the person is an author or fellow student, that source should be cited in an endnote or footnote. If an idea arises from the common effort of two or more students in conversation, this fact should be cited.

c) If a student is unclear about whether certain forms of consultation or common work are acceptable or what the standards for citation are, the student is responsible for consulting his or her professor. 

C. Responsible Actions

1. Each student, as an integral member of the academic community, must make the ethical and moral commitment not to act dishonestly and not to tolerate academic dishonesty on the part of other students. If a student witnesses a violation of the Academic Integrity Policy or otherwise has reason to believe that a violation has occurred, the student may either urge that person to report himself or herself to the professor or discuss this allegation with the professor of the course. In situations where a student has knowledge of a violation, he or she is expected to report that violation to a professor, department chair, or dean in a timely manner.

D. Opportunities to Serve on a Review Committee

1. Students may be able to participate in investigating and determining responsibility in alleged cases by serving on an academic integrity review committee (see Section V.D.2). Any student found responsible for a violation of the Academic Integrity Policy will immediately forfeit his or her eligibility to serve on a review committee. 

IV. Academic Integrity Responsibilities: Faculty

A. Knowledge and Education of Responsibilities

1. All members of the faculty are required to become aware of the policies and procedures as outlined in the Academic Integrity Policy.

2. Deans and department chairs are responsible for introducing new faculty to the policy. The orientation procedures should be done, when possible, prior to faculty activities in the classroom. The faculty member in charge of a particular course is responsible for educating and establishing guidelines for any teaching assistants in the course.

B. Academic Behavior: Classroom Expectations

1. Faculty are expected to include a written statement in their course syllabus stating the course expectations for academic behavior, including the consequences of violations of those standards. This statement may be a referral to this policy or may elaborate on additional guidelines and expectations of the faculty.

2. Faculty are expected to explain the conditions under which students are permitted to share their work, for example, outlines that can form the basis of an exam or paper, take-home exams, lab reports, and in-class examinations. Faculty should also offer guidelines when asking students to work in teams or groups, for example, when inviting students to collaborate on problem sets, or to develop computer programs, either inside or outside of class.

3. Faculty are encouraged to distribute a handout with information about what constitutes plagiarism when assigning writing in their courses, keeping in mind the goal of teaching students how to use and document sources appropriately.

4. Faculty are encouraged to make provisions for early submission of drafts of written work so that students can refine their documentation skills before the final due date of the assignment.

5. Faculty are encouraged to take note of the guiding principles articulated in Section V to reinforce these principles and possible sanctions (see Chart A) in their discussions of the Academic Integrity Policy with students, and to explain how academic integrity expectations apply to the work in their class.

C. Academic Environment

1. Each faculty member will strive to establish an environment which supports the evaluation of students in a fair and reasonable manner. The purpose of this policy is not to test students’ ability to perform in a highly competitive and stressful environment, but to help them develop habits of moral character and to understand and practice academic integrity as a student and as a global citizen.

2. Faculty hold the primary responsibility for maintaining the above “fair and reasonable” learning environment. Faculty members will usually be present in classrooms during examinations, fostering an environment which does not create temptations for dishonest action.

D. Responsible Actions

1. Any person with the responsibility to teach or assist in a course, or to direct or provide leadership of an academic or co-curricular activity, will not tolerate dishonesty.

2. Faculty are expected to provide written guidelines to the students in their course about classroom expectations for academic integrity. Reinforcing academic integrity expectations prior to student completion of key assignments is recommended.

3. Faculty are expected to follow standard procedures to notify the student in cases where they suspect academic dishonesty has occurred and to report the violation and sanctions given (see Section V.B.5).

V. Procedures for Handling Alleged Violations

A. Procedure

1. If the faculty suspects an academic violation has occurred, the faculty member should gather information to support or refute their concerns. The faculty may also choose to consult department colleagues, including the program director and/or department chair, to review the evidence, provide additional interpretation of the evidence, and/or check coursework from other current or past courses for evidence of further academic violations.

a) If it is determined that the infraction appears to only affect one course, the faculty should discuss the situation with the student(s) suspected of violating the policy. If this discussion and the evidence gathered result in the decision that the initial suspicion was unjustified, no additional action will be taken.

b) If evidence of academic integrity violations across multiple courses is found, the program director/department chair may then choose to meet with the student, either along with or in lieu of the affected faculty member(s), at his/her discretion. If this discussion and the evidence gathered result in the decision that the initial suspicion was unjustified, no additional action will be taken.

2. If there is still a reason to suspect an academic integrity violation, the faculty member shall assign a sanction as appropriate according to the syllabus for that class and the standards of the discipline and the department.

3. The faculty member will record the violation with the Office of the Provost designee. Online reporting forms are available on the Provost website. The Office of the Provost designee will keep a record of the violation and send a letter to the student confirming their violation. Copies of the form and the letter will be sent to the faculty member, the program director/department chair, and a student affairs designee.

4. Alleged violations of an academic nature not directly connected to one class may be referred to the Office of the Provost designee by APU faculty or administrators for subsequent action by a review committee (see Section V.D).

B. Guiding Principles in Assigning Sanctions

1. If a student is found to have violated the Academic Integrity Policy, the faculty must decide on the sanction (see Chart A). The faculty should take into consideration the syllabus of the course and the severity of the offense. The faculty, when assigning a sanction, may also consider as a mitigating factor the degree to which the student was honest and forthcoming regarding the violation, or any other evidence of sincere contrition. The faculty may take into account sanctions invoked in previous cases of a similar nature and should consult the Office of the Provost designee for this information.

2. Additional sanctions (e.g., academic probation for the major) may be applicable to students in disciplines where such action is specified in student handbooks (e.g., Nursing, Social Work, Athletic Training).

3. Discovery of an academic integrity violation provides the faculty member an opportunity to engage in discussions with the student about expectations of appropriate, ethical, professional behavior using a Christian worldview. Sanctions, although given as a disciplinary action, can also be used to ensure the student engages in activities to improve their practices and prevent subsequent recurrences. For example, sanctions may include having the student required to go to the Writing Center for consultation on all future course papers, or having the student rewrite the assignment (even though they will receive no grade for the work). Faculty need to clearly articulate to the student the consequences of any failure to complete the agreed upon sanctions.

4. Based upon the severity and frequency of the violation(s) suspension or dismissal from the university may be the assigned sanction (see Chart A).

a) Academic integrity suspension is separation from the university for at least one semester. The student is eligible to apply for readmission after dismissal to Azusa Pacific University, but readmission after dismissal is not automatic. 

b) Academic integrity dismissals are permanent separations from the university with no opportunity to apply for admission after dismissal.

5. The University Registrar must be notified by the Office of the Provost designee and dean of an academic integrity suspension or dismissal to place proper holds on student accounts.

a) The University Registrar shall be copied in all letters to the student regarding suspension or dismissal.

b) The letters are archived in the student’s permanent file.

C. Student Appeals Procedure

1. If the student feels that the sanction is unwarranted or unjust due to new information, procedural error, or an excessive or unjust penalty, he or she must utilize a process of appeal as described in the academic catalog section: Undergraduate Student Grievance and Appeals Procedure. The appeal procedure begins with the student initiating a meeting with the professor of record, then meeting with the chair of the department in which the infraction occurred, and finally meeting with the dean of the school in which the infraction occurred, if warranted. For all steps in the grievance and appeal process, refer to the academic catalog at

2. If, after completing step 1 (above), the student continues to feel that the final sanction is unwarranted or unjust due to new information, procedural error, or an excessive or unjust penalty, a formal grievance can only be filed after the process above has taken place and within fifteen (15) business days from the date of the Office of the Provost’s letter confirming the violation.

3. A formal written grievance may be submitted to the Office of the Provost designee that includes the following:

a) A statement addressing how the appeal meets one or more of the three following criteria necessary for a formal appeal:

• New information or evidence exists that was not considered in the original appeal.

• An error was made in determination of the academic integrity violation (must have evidence to prove this error).

• Standards different from those established in written course, department, school, college, or university policies, if specific policies exist, were used in assigning the academic integrity violation.

b) A description of the outcome of the informal discussion process as described in Section V.C.1. 

c) Any relevant documents the student would like to have reviewed as part of the appeal process.

d) A copy of the course syllabus and assignment descriptions.

D. Convening a Review Committee

1. Upon receiving a formal written grievance from the student, the Provost designee will appoint a review committee. Each review committee shall include two faculty members, two undergraduate students, and the Office of the Provost designee. The Office of the Provost designee will serve as the review committee chair for all grievance hearings; a faculty member will serve as chair for all hearings related to violations not directly connected to one class. Student appointees must be approved by the Vice President for Student Affairs or his or her designee.

2. The committee chair will schedule a hearing as soon as possible, with at least ten (10) business days’ notice. The chair will also notify the student of the names of the review committee members with a request that, if the student has any reason to believe any member is biased, he or she should notify the chair immediately. The chair shall also inform the student(s) under suspicion that he or she can bring to the hearing a member of the university community (faculty, staff, or student) for support. The support person must be approved by the committee chair and will not participate in the proceedings. Legal counsel is not permitted. Family members are not permitted. The student may invite witnesses to be called in during the review proceedings. The student and faculty must disclose which witnesses they will bring and the topics the witnesses will address, as well as what information or documents they may bring, if any.

3. If any member of the review committee has a relationship with someone involved in the case which may compromise his or her objectivity, they should recuse themselves. The Office of the Provost designee will then appoint new members to the committee.

4. Review committees ordinarily do not meet during the final examination period. However, if the student who is suspected of a violation is a graduating student during his or her final semester, the review committee must make every reasonable effort to meet prior to graduation.

5. Except for the required notifications as set forth throughout this policy, all review committee proceedings are to be strictly confidential. Information regarding such proceedings is to be disclosed only on a legitimate need-to-know basis, and as required by law. If the student provides written consent, and if a parent or guardian of the student under suspicion inquires about the suspected violation, the chair of the review committee may describe the general nature of the suspected violation and the procedures defined in this policy. However, the chair should not engage in a detailed discussion of the issue. 

6. Before the hearing, committee members should not discuss the allegation or the evidence with the student suspected of the violation. If a student suspected of a violation has questions about the Academic Integrity Policy and the procedures of the hearing, he or she should contact a faculty member who is not involved in the review of the student’s case. The consulted faculty member should not discuss the evidence against the student under suspicion nor make any recommendation about how the student should respond to the suspicion of a violation but should only discuss the hearing procedures and principles of the policy.

7. The hearings are administrative and concern internal university affairs; accordingly, the hearings are informal and are not subject to formal rules of civil procedure or evidence. The hearings are not open to the public, nor does the student under suspicion (or any other individual involved) have the right to legal counsel at the hearing.

8. The chair of the review committee should open the hearing by briefly presenting the allegations. Next, the professor of the course and/or any other individual(s)reporting the allegations should present their evidence of the alleged violation. The student suspected of a violation may question the professor or other witnesses concerning the evidence, as may the review committee members. The student may then present his or her own witnesses, including his or her own testimony, and any other evidence. The review committee members may then question the student under suspicion and any of the other invited witnesses. Witnesses called by the student and the committee will testify individually and will not be present during the testimony of other witnesses.

9. At the end of this process, the professor and any other witnesses are excused. At this point, the student has the opportunity to respond further to the charges if he or she desires by making a statement to the committee members. The student is then dismissed, and the review committee members deliberate.

10. After deliberation, the review committee decides, by a majority vote, whether the evidence supports a finding that the student under suspicion more-likely-than-not violated the Academic Integrity Policy or whether the evidence does not support such finding, in which case, the charges are dismissed. In the case of a tie, the committee chair’s decision prevails.

11. If it is found that the evidence does not support a finding that a violation has occurred, the chair of the review committee notifies the student and the professor in writing of this decision. This notification should, if possible, be sent within two days of the hearing.

12. If a student is found to have violated the Academic Integrity Policy, the review committee must decide to uphold the sanction as given by the faculty member or assign a different sanction that will supersede the sanction from the faculty member. The committee should take into consideration the syllabus of the course and the faculty’s recommendation on the reporting form. In addition, the committee should be guided by the following broad distinction between offenses and sanctions.  

E. Notification Process

1. If the review committee decides a student is responsible for an offense and assigns a sanction, the chair of the review committee notifies the student in writing of the committee’s decision and of the sanction within one week of the hearing. A copy of the letter is sent by the Office of the Provost designee, to the dean of students, the department chair of the student’s major, and the professor of record. The letter will note that an additional violation of the Academic Integrity Policy will normally result in suspension or dismissal from the university.

2. The professor of the course, upon receipt of the letter from the review committee chair, will execute the sanction that the review committee has determined to be appropriate. The chair then sends all documents relevant to the case to the Office of the Provost designee.

3. If the semester’s grade must be submitted before the necessary hearing procedures and appeals are completed, an IP (in progress) grade will be authorized by the Office of the Provost designee.

4. A finding of responsibility for academic dishonesty with regard to a particular course will void any earlier withdrawal from that course. A grade of F in a course assigned due to an academic integrity violation will preclude a subsequent withdrawal from that course. A finding of responsibility for academic dishonesty may be considered in academic probation extensions and appeals.

VI. Records of Violations and Repeated Violations

A. Records

1. The Office of the Provost designee will maintain records of all academic integrity violations. These records are used to keep account of repeated student offenses, provide aggregated data of academic integrity issues at the university, and provide data to departments on campus that need information about violations. The Office of the Provost designee will retain such records for seven (7) years after the student’s graduation or separation from the university and will reveal their contents to others only with the written approval of the student or if required by law. A copy of the letter documenting a violation will also be kept in the student’s Student Affairs file.

2. When the Office of the Provost designee receives a report that an academic integrity policy violation has been established, that office checks the files to determine if thestudent has a previous violation. If so, the Office of the Provost designee will forward the violation records to the dean of the school of the student’s major who may assign a further sanction for the repeated offense. In the case of a student with an undeclared major, the Office of the Provost designee may assign a further sanction. The standard sanction for a repeated offense is suspension or dismissal from the university.

3. It is the responsibility of the Office of the Provost designee, upon recommendation of the dean of the student’s major in all cases but undeclared students, to notify the student, the dean of the school/college in which the violation occurred (if this differs from the school/college of the student’s major), the dean of students, and the registrar of the suspension or dismissal of a student.

B. Admission After Dismissal

1. In order to be admitted to the university after dismissal, a suspended student must submit an application which must be approved by the Office of the Provost designee and the dean of the school or college to which the student wishes to be admitted, as well as other university offices, as is otherwise required.

2. In the case of suspension, a student’s transcript will read Academic Integrity Suspension; and in the case of dismissal, it will read Academic Integrity Dismissal.

VII. Chart A – Types of Violations and Possible Sanctions Reference

Defining Minor and Major Violations

Minor Violation

A minor violation is recognized by the faculty as a violation of concern, but not of the level of severity to warrant the student’s automatic failure of the course.

See Level I and Level II

Major Violation

A major violation is recognized by the faculty as a violation of significant concern, warranting at minimum the student’s automatic failure of the course.

See Level III and Level IV

Level I


Level I violations may occur because of inexperience or lack of knowledge of principles of academic integrity on the part of persons committing the violation. These violations address incidents when intent is questionable and are likely to involve a small fraction of the total course work, are not extensive, and/or occur on a minor assignment.

Registering a Level I violation provides the opportunity for the students to receive further education of academic integrity policies and the importance of academic integrity to the academy.

Repeated offenses of this type would be considered a Level II violation

Examples of Violations

• Working with another student on a laboratory or other homework assignment when such work is prohibited.

• Failing to footnote or give proper acknowledgment in an extremely limited section of an assignment.

• Sharing your work with another student that is then submitted by that student as their own work.

• Seeing a violation and not informing a faculty member.

Examples of Sanctions

Level I violations should lead to one or more of the sanctions listed below, with the type and number based on the faculty’s discretion.

• Reduction or no credit given for the original assignment (not to include a zero for the assignment in question but may entail dropping the grade from an average or allowing the student to re-do and resubmit the assignment with or without an additional requirement that is graded).

• An assigned paper or research project on a relevant topic.

• A make-up assignment at a more difficult level than the original assignment.

• Required attendance in a noncredit workshop or seminar on ethics or related subjects.

• Required consultation with the Writing Center (including proof of attendance).

• Required submission of future papers through plagiarism detection software.

• Required submission of a draft paper and meeting with the instructor.

• Requiring that all future take-home tests are proctored for this student.

Level II


Level II violations are breaches of academic integrity that are more serious or that affect a more significant aspect or portion of the coursework compared with Level I violations.

Examples of Violations

• Repeated offense of Level I violation.

• Quoting directly or paraphrasing, to a moderate extent, without acknowledging the source.

• Submitting the same work, or major portions thereof, to satisfy the requirements of more than one course without permission from the instructor to whom the work is submitted for the second or subsequent time.

• Using data or interpretive material for a laboratory report without acknowledging the sources or the collaborators. All contributors to the acquisition of data and/or to the writing of the report must be acknowledged.

• Failure to acknowledge assistance from others, such as help with research, statistical analysis, computer programming, or field data collection, in a paper, examination, or project report.

• Sharing one’s own work with another person when prohibited by the instructor.

• Failing to acknowledge the use of AI and claiming work as your own in the form of text, imagery, graphs, charts, or any resource provided by AI. Examples include but are not limited to: Copying or paraphrasing, plagiarizing, altering text to look as one's own, claims of authority or legitimacy, or fabricating or duplicating sources provided by AI.

Examples of Sanctions

Level II violations should lead to a failing grade on the assignment. In addition to a failing grade, other sanctions are recommended to provide a learning opportunity for the student.

• Required participation in a noncredit workshop or seminar on ethics or academic integrity.

• A makeup assignment that is more difficult than the original assignment.

• Voiding any credit for the original assignment and requiring the student to complete another equivalent assignment to receive credit and verify knowledge.

• Required consultation with the Writing Center (including proof of attendance).

• Required submission of future papers through plagiarism detection software.

• Required submission of a draft paper and meeting with the instructor. • Requiring that all future take-home tests are proctored for this student.

Level III


Level III violations are those that go beyond Level I or II violations and that affect a major or essential portion of work done to meet course requirements, or involve premeditation, or are preceded by one or more violations at Levels I and/or II.

Examples of Violations

• Repeating Level II violations (note that three Level II violations equate to one major violation – see above).

• Presenting the work of another as one’s own. This includes having another person complete online coursework and presenting it as one’s own.

• Copying on examinations.

• Plagiarizing major portions of a written assignment.

• Acting to facilitate copying during an exam.

• Using prohibited materials, e.g., books, notes, or calculators, during an examination.

• Conspiring before an exam to develop methods of exchanging information and implementation thereof.

• Altering examinations for the purposes of regrading. • Acquiring or distributing an examination from unauthorized sources prior to the examination.

• Submitting purchased materials such as a term paper or other materials.

• Removing or damaging posted or reserved material, or preventing other students from having access to the material.

• Fabricating data by inventing or deliberately altering material. Fabrication includes citing “sources” that are not, in fact, sources.

• Using unethical or improper means of acquiring data.

• Completing academic work for another student to submit as their own.

Examples of Sanctions

Level III violations should lead to one or more of the following sanctions:

• Failing grade for the course.

• Possible suspension from the university for one semester (see suspension policy in the Undergraduate Catalog).

• Possible dismissal from the university (see dismissal policy in the Undergraduate Catalog).

 Level IV


IV violations represent the most serious breaches of intellectual honesty.

Examples of Violations

Repeating a Level III violation.

• Committing a violation of academic integrity after returning from suspension for a previous violation of academic integrity.

• Committing a violation of academic integrity that breaks the law or resembles criminal activity (such as forging a grade form, stealing an examination from a professor or from a university office, buying a stolen examination, falsifying a transcript to gain access to the university or its resources, or altering the record of work done at the university).

• Having a substitute take an examination or taking an examination for someone else.

• When completing a significant scholarly project (e.g., research, a senior thesis, a capstone project), fabricating evidence, falsifying data, quoting directly or paraphrasing without acknowledging the source, and/or presenting the idea of another as one’s own.

• Sabotaging another student’s work through actions designed to prevent the student from successfully completing an assignment. 

Examples of Sanctions

Level IV violations should lead to the following sanction: 

• Permanent dismissal from the university

VIII. References

The policy was originally adapted with permission from the Notre Dame Honor Code (2007).

Cumberland University Academic Integrity Violations and Recommended Sanctions: zav_ACAD--114.htm (accessed Spring 2017)

University of South Florida Academic Integrity Violations of Professional and Ethical Standards: (accessed Spring 2017)