CODE OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

The Code of Academic Integrity was established in the 1996 -1997 academic year and was written and designed by students, faculty, librarians and administrators. The Code of Academic Integrity:

• Sets minimum standards for academic student conduct
• Defines the rights of students charged with an academic disciplinary violation
• Lists the procedures for resolving academic disciplinary matters
• Provides guidance for academic disciplinary sanctions
• Addresses other issues regarding academic student conduct

Previous Codes of Academic Integrity

• Code of Academic Integrity effective August 15, 2023 - March 3, 2024 (PDF) - Effective until March 3, 2024
• Code of Academic Integrity effective June 30, 2023 - August 14, 2023 (PDF)
• Code of Academic Integrity effective August 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023 (PDF)
• Code of Academic Integrity effective July 1, 2021 - July 31, 2022  (PDF)
• Code of Academic Integrity effective until June 30, 2021  (PDF)

About the Academic Integrity Process

Conflict Education & Student Accountability (CESA) facilitates the resolution process of instances of academic dishonesty which take place within the university community, promotes academic integrity through educational initiatives, and administers the university’s academic disciplinary procedures detailed within the Code of Academic Integrity. 

The role of CESA in the academic misconduct process is limited to:

• Providing information to the individuals involved in the academic misconduct process
• Training and advising the hearing panels
• Organizing academic integrity proceedings
• Maintaining academic misconduct records

CESA does not investigate allegations of academic dishonesty, charge students with academic integrity violations, or propose sanctions.

Jump to a section:

• How & Why to Report Academic Integrity Violations
• How to promote academic integrity
• Academic Integrity Process Overview
• Guidance for Reporting Parties
• Guidance for Students
• Preparing for a Panel
• Outcomes & Sanctions for Academic Integrity Violations
• Appeals

How & Why to Report Academic Integrity Violations

Video Overview: How & Why to Report Academic Integrity Violations

This video will be updated soon. It does not reflect the option for faculty to issue a warning through CESA, which is new in Fall 2023. More information about warnings can be found in the Code of Academic Integrity.

Why Should I Report Academic Integrity Violations?

• When students believe faculty report violations, violations actually decrease. 
• Reporting centrally allows us to connect repeat violations across programs. 
• Reporting formally upholds fairness and accountability. Using this process protects you against accusations of unfair treatment and provides the accused student with an impartial process to respond. It also increases equitable access to the learning environment for all students by making sure that students use resources more fairly. 

How Should I Report Academic Integrity Violations?

The process for reporting involves: 

• Observing or identifying the violation 
• Checking with our office for previous violations in order to inform the sanction recommendation
• Completing the charge of academic dishonesty form
• Discussing the alleged violation and proposed sanction with the student 

Depending on how the violation was observed/identified, some of these steps may occur in a different order. 

For example, if you observe the violation occurring during an exam, you might want to intervene, stop the violation, and address with the student immediately. 

Before discussing a proposed sanction with the student, you should check with our office for prior violations.

What Happens After I Discuss the Violation with the Student?

After your conversation with the student, the case can resolve in one of two ways. 

Academic Integrity Agreement	Academic Integrity Panel
Student accepts responsibility for the allegation and agrees to the proposed sanction.	Student refutes the allegation and/or the proposed sanction, or
The proposed sanction does not include suspension or expulsion.	The proposed sanction includes suspension or expulsion.
Not subject to appeal	Subject to appeal by the student
Occurs in approximately 75% of cases	Occurs in approximately 25% of cases
Agreement is maintained by CESA.	Outcome is communicated and maintained by CESA.

How to promote academic integrity

CESA has created the following suggested guidance to assist in promoting and upholding academic integrity.

Faculty can promote positive academic integrity through...

• Outlining class expectations on academic integrity in the course syllabus and remind students of these expectations throughout the course.
• Providing clear directions on exams and assignments about which resources are permitted and which are prohibited.
• Clarifying the type/style of citation standards.
• Giving students opportunities to seek and receive clarification about expectations.

Suggested Syllabus Language

The University encourages faculty to use their syllabus as an opportunity to address the importance of academic integrity. This statement is a sample of such language and could be used verbatim in GW courses or may be modified as suits the needs of the course.

• Academic integrity is an essential part of the educational process, and all members of the GW community take these matters very seriously. As the instructor of record for this course, my role is to provide clear expectations and uphold them in all assessments. Violations of academic integrity occur when students fail to cite research sources properly, engage in unauthorized collaboration, falsify data, and otherwise violate the Code of Academic Integrity. If you have any questions about whether or not particular academic practices or resources are permitted, you should ask me for clarification. If you are reported for an academic integrity violation, you should contact Conflict Education & Student Accountability (CESA) to learn more about your rights and options in the process. Consequences can range from a warning to expulsion from the university and may include a transcript notation. For more information, please refer to the CESA website, email [email protected], or call 202-994-6757.

For guidance about establishing behavioral expectations in a course, faculty may find this resource helpful for syllabus language (see “Before a course begins or an incident occurs”).

Integrity Pledge Model

Research indicates that requiring students to affirm academic integrity on graded assignments increases the likelihood that they will engage in the assignment honestly¹. For this reason, the University recommends that students affirm their academic integrity on all assignments. The following suggested affirmation is adapted from this research¹.

Faculty may amend and/or use this as suits their needs. The research is based upon affirmation with each graded assignment. This could also be used as an affirmation at the beginning of a course or for major assignments and exams, for example.

Reporting cases of academic integrity violations is not contingent upon use of this or any other affirmation.

• I affirm that this is my own work, I attributed where I used the work of others, I did not facilitate academic dishonesty for myself or others, and I used only authorized resources for this assignment, per the GW Code of Academic Integrity. If I failed to comply with this statement, I understand consequences will follow my actions. Consequences may range from receiving a zero on this assignment to expulsion from the university and may include a transcript notation.

Guide to Clarifying Academic Integrity Expectations

This guidance may help faculty clarify for students examples of resources that may be permitted or prohibited on various assessments. While some of these may seem obvious, we encourage faculty to think critically about these resources and communicate expectations explicitly to students. Providing clear, meaningful, and specific boundaries has been proven to improve academic integrity.

The Faculty Guide to Clarifying Academic Integrity Expectations (docx) is intended so that faculty can copy and paste this into their assessments, moving various resources between categories as fits their assessment. Feedback and suggestions can be provided to CESA at [email protected].

• For the upcoming [insert assessment here], the following resources are prohibited or permitted as indicated. Where indicated, you may use the resource, and doing so requires proper citation. If you have questions about other resources, please don’t hesitate to contact me. If the resource is not listed under “permitted” or “permitted with citation,” you should assume it’s prohibited unless you receive notice otherwise from me. If I detect you used prohibited resources or failed to cite appropriately, I will address that matter as described in our University’s Code of Academic Integrity. Questions about that process should be directed to Conflict Education & Student Accountability.

Resource	Permitted	Permitted with Citation	Prohibited
ChatGPT or other artificial intelligence.
Chegg, Course Hero, Quizlet, and similar sites focused on academic assessments.
Classmates in your assigned group.
Classmates, including via GroupMe or other shared conversations
Classmates in other groups, not your own.
Course materials on Blackboard.
Course materials not on Blackboard.
Gelman Library Research Services
Google translate, other translation services and tools, or other tools of “artificial intelligence” (broadly interpreted). [Faculty may wish to specify further.]
GW Writing Center
Material from outside of this course (e.g., library books, notes from other courses, online material, Wikipedia, YouTube videos, etc).
Material from students formerly enrolled in the course (when used without permission, this may result in academic integrity violations for all students involved).
Notes page designated for this purpose (e.g., you may bring one page of notes to an in-class exam).
Notes taken in course meetings (including office hour meetings).
Other people (not classmates as noted above).
Recorded lectures (from this class, if recording was done or permitted by instructor).
Recorded lectures, talks, podcasts, videos (from a source other than this class).
A tutor (from GW’s Academic Commons or elsewhere at GW).
A tutor not affiliated with a GW service.
All other resources not specified, unless you receive direction otherwise from the course leaders.			X
Copying (including and pasting) text or answers from a resource without citation or if that resource is prohibited.			X

---

¹ Beasley, E.M. (2014). Students reported for cheating explain what they think would have stopped them. Ethics & Behaviors, 23:3, 229-252 and Tatum, H. and Schwartz, B.M. (2017). Honor codes: Evidence based strategies for improving academic integrity. Theory Into Practice, 56:2.

Academic Integrity Process Overview

Step-by-Step Process

1. The instructor of record for the course initiates the academic integrity process by contacting the student or submitting a charge of academic dishonesty form to CESA. Students and others may contact the instructor of record or CESA to initiate the process.
2. When the Instructor of Record determines that the circumstances call for a low-level educational sanction and a warning status sanction against similar future behavior is the maximum appropriate outcome, a warning may be issued. This warning does not constitute a student conduct or an academic conduct record and will typically not be included in a general release. The respondent may request a fact-finding process to refute the assignment of a warning status and any attending educational sanction. In that event, the Instructor of Record will have the option to move forward with the Academic Integrity Panel (AIP) process. Please see Number 5 of this list for more information regarding AIPs. 
3. If the instructor has decided against a Warning and recommended a grade-related and/or an accompanying educational sanction, the accused student has three options:
   • accept the charge and recommended sanction, 
   • accept the charge and contest the recommended sanction, or
   • contest the charge and recommended sanction. 
4. If the student accepts both the charge and recommended sanction, the student will receive an outcome letter from CESA and the instructor of record will implement the sanction. By accepting, the student waives the right to an Academic Integrity Panel as well as their right to an appeals process outlined in the Code of Academic Integrity.
5. If the student contests either the charge or the recommended sanction, or initiates a dispute of a Warning, an Academic Integrity Panel is scheduled.
   • After receiving notice of a panel, instructors will have five business days to submit any additional documents/witnesses.
   • The student will submit additional documents/witnesses no later than 3 business days before the panel.
6. An Academic Integrity Panel hears the case and deliberates to determine if the student is Not Responsible or Responsible. If the student is found Responsible, the Panel may also make a sanction recommendation.
7. The case and outcome are forwarded to the Dean or a Designee of the college/school where the reported violation occurred for review of the recommended sanction.
8. The instructor of record and student receive notification of the Panel’s decision on the student’s responsibility and the relevant Dean’s decision on the sanction recommendation, if applicable.
9. After the outcome notification, the respondent may file an appeal.

Guidance for Reporting Parties

CESA has created the following suggested guidance to assist in conversations regarding academic integrity.

Submitting a Charge of Academic Dishonesty

• Review the Code of Academic Integrity if you suspect academic dishonesty. Identify applicable violation(s) and collect information associated with the alleged violation(s) (documents, papers, emails, etc.).
• Submit a charge of academic dishonesty form and propose a sanction consistent with the nature of the violation.
• Share the concerns and evidence with the student and give them a chance to respond.  Discuss the alleged violation(s) and the proposed sanction(s) in a constructive conversation about the importance of academic integrity within the classroom.
• Refer the student to our office so that they can understand their rights in the process.
• Allow the student time to consider a course of action, typically three business days.

Talking to Students about Academic Integrity

Prepare for the conversation:

• Be clear about identifying the behavior.
• Be compassionate about the student’s experience because they may be feeling significant stress.
• Be candid about your interpretations and your feelings about the incident.

What You Can Say

• Begin your intervention with a statement. For example, “I have concerns about a recent assignment and would like to have a conversation with you about it.”
• Start the conversation with a question. For example, “What was your process for completing the assignment?”
• Express your concerns about the assignment after listening to the student’s story and give the student a chance to respond to those concerns. For example, “I am concerned because the information I have suggests that you may have cheated. Is that an accurate assessment? Why or why not?”
• Tell the student what you plan to do next, which could include considering the matter further or reporting the incident.
• Provide the student with resources regarding the Academic Integrity Process and the contact information for our office.

Adapted from UC San Diego Academic Integrity Office

Guidance for Students

CESA has created the following suggested guidance to assist in conversations regarding academic integrity.

Upholding Academic Integrity

• Read the syllabus carefully at the beginning of each course.
• Follow exam and assignment instructions.
• Ask questions about completion of course assignments, including levels of collaboration during group work, permitted and prohibited resources, standards for citations/references, and behavior during exam and other projects.
• Plan ahead to avoid pressure and confusion.
• Understand the Code of Academic Integrity. Contact CESA at [email protected] with questions.
• Anticipate challenges and share those with faculty. Utilize available resources, such as the Writing Center.

Responding to an Allegation of Academic Dishonesty

Ask the faculty member for a copy of the Charge of Academic Dishonesty and to review the evidence of the alleged violation(s). Review the Code of Academic Integrity. Consult with our office to discuss your rights & responsibilities in relation to the alleged violation(s). You may also consult with a support person of your choosing.

Understand:

• The specific violation(s) you are being charged with
• The potential sanction(s) and how they may affect your academic status within the course, within the academic program or school, and at the university
• Your options in response to the charge(s), which include
  1. Dispute the assignment of a Warning, thereby requesting an Academic Integrity Panel to review the matter,
  2. accepting the charge and recommended sanction,
  3. accepting the charge and contesting the recommended sanction, or
  4. contesting both the charge and the recommended sanction
• Panel procedures and your rights in the process

Participate in any panel or meetings requested or required of you.

Preparing for a Panel

This is intended to provide a summary of what to expect during the panel process. The panel may make changes to the process on a case-by-case basis while still preserving fundamental fairness and integrity in the process. Questions regarding this process should be directed to CESA. 

What is an Academic Integrity Panel (AIP)?

• A formal, non-adversarial meeting between the respondent, the instructor of record, and members of the University Integrity & Conduct Council

Which parties are involved in an AIP?

• Respondent: the student charged with academic dishonesty
• Reporting party: the instructor of record who reported the alleged academic dishonesty
• Case manager: a university administrator who will facilitate the process
• Academic Integrity Panel: 3 students and 2 faculty members
• Presiding Officer: a student member of the AIP who will exercise control over the proceedings 
• Witnesses (sometimes): individuals with relevant information regarding the alleged violation(s) who can be requested by the respondent, the complainant, or a university official
• Support person (sometimes): person to emotionally or strategically support the respondent

What should you expect?

• To ask questions regarding the reported violation(s)
• To answer questions regarding
  • The reported violations
  • The level of your responsibility, if any
  • Your decision-making process during the incident
  • How this incident will impact you in the future
  • What harms occurred and how they can be repaired
• To interact with the presiding officer and other individuals present by asking and answering questions

What is expected of you?

• Provide information that is true and accurate
• Engage in good faith with all involved in the process
• Dress in a way that is comfortable for you, as you would for class

What happens before the panel?

• Parties will provide a list of any witnesses they plan to have attending and any documents they would like to present during the proceeding. If the parties plan to have a support person attend, they should provide the name of that person and a waiver confirming their participation. The deadline for providing that information will be sent to the parties.
• The parties have the option to meet with the case manager during the pre-panel meeting to go over any documents/information that will be provided to the panel, as well as discuss the timeline of events.

What happens during the panel?

1. The Panel will convene briefly before the parties participate. We strive to arrange private rooms (virtual or in person) in which parties can wait while the panel assembles. 
2. The parties will join the panel. The presiding officer will start the recording and explain the purpose and expectations of the panel, including that a decision is reached using the preponderance of evidence standard. Everyone present will introduce themselves.
3. The presiding officer will present and obtain a response for any and all charges of the respondent. The respondent, if present, will provide a response of not responsible or responsible for each charge.

Opening Statements and Questioning of Instructor of Record and Respondent (note that questioning may occur indirectly upon request)

1. The instructor of record and the respondent may provide opening statements.
2. The panel and the respondent may ask the instructor of record questions.
3. The panel and the instructor of record may ask the respondent questions.

Statement and Questioning of Witnesses 

1. Any university witnesses may make a statement. The instructor of record, the panel, and the respondent may ask the university witnesses questions.
2. Any witnesses for the instructor of record may make a statement. The instructor of record, the panel, and the respondent may ask the instructor of record’s witnesses questions.
3. Any witnesses for the respondent may make a statement. The instructor of record, the panel, and the respondent may ask the respondent’s witnesses questions.

Closing statements and Additional Questioning 

1. The instructor of record can provide any additional information
2. The panel and the respondent may ask any remaining questions they have for the instructor of record.
3. The respondent can provide any additional information if they wish.
4. The panel and the instructor of record may ask the respondent any remaining questions.
5. The instructor of record may provide their closing statement.
6. The respondent may provide their closing statement.
7. The presiding officer will make sure there are no additional or clarifying questions. If not, they will dismiss the parties, and begin the deliberation. 

What happens after the panel?

• The panel will deliberate all of the information provided during the panel, as well as the case documents.
• The decision will be made using the preponderance of evidence standard, meaning that it is “more likely than not” that the respondent committed the reported violation(s).
• If found responsible, the panel will discuss and recommend possible status and active sanctions. The panel will also discuss any mitigating and/or aggravating factors.
• The panel will provide this information to the CESA case manager.
• The case manager will contact the respondent with the decision of the panel, and any sanctions, if applicable.

Outcomes & Sanctions for Academic Integrity Violations

A student has the ability to accept the academic integrity charge(s) and proposed sanctions, accept the charge(s) and contest the sanction, or contest both the charge and the proposed sanctions.

For students who accept, they are agreeing to an in violation outcome for the charge(s).

For students who contest, the matter will be referred to an Academic Integrity Panel (AIP). After the completion of the AIP, a respondent will receive a decision of not in violation for all charges or in violation for some or all of the charges.

Sanctions will be issued to respondents found in violation for some or all of their charges. Violations of the Code of Academic Integrity have typical outcomes and sanctions, although there is flexibility in the assignment of sanctions.

Academic Integrity Sanctioning Model (PDF)

First Offense

Typical sanction recommendation: failure of the assignment in question

Repeat Violation

Typical sanction recommendation: failure of the course, includes transcript notation

More Serious Offenses

May include suspension or expulsion, includes transcript notation (can only be determined by a Hearing Panel)

Other Sanctions

Other sanctions include, but are not limited to:

• Warning: A warning is an initial directive against similar behavior in the future and does not usually create a formal conduct record unless a subsequent violation occurs.
• Reduction of academic credit for the assignment or course
• Educational sanctions
• The inability to participate in extra credit opportunities or grading curve

The AIP may consider significant mitigating or aggravating circumstances when making a sanction recommendation, which may include, but are not limited to:

• The nature and severity of the offense
• The student’s prior disciplinary record

Sanctions will be implemented at the conclusion of the appeals period.

Academic Integrity violations may affect eligibility for study abroad programs. Study abroad eligibility is determined by the Office for Study Abroad and its policies.

Appeals

Students who accept an in violation outcome for the charges and sanctions are unable to appeal.

Appeals of the decision of the AIP or of the sanction imposed by the relevant dean or designee
may be based only on the following grounds:

• There was a material deviation from the procedures of this Code that affected the outcome.
• There is new and relevant information that was unavailable at the time of the proceeding, with reasonable diligence and effort that could materially affect the outcome.

A Respondent found in violation of this Code as a result of an Academic Integrity Panel and sanctioned by the applicable dean or designee may submit a written appeal to CESA within five (5) business days of being notified of the outcome.

Appeals will be reviewed by the Provost & Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs or a designee. The Provost or a designee will then decide on the appeal, based on the written appeal and the reports of the AIP and the relevant dean or designee. The appeal decision of the Provost will typically be rendered and provided to the instructor of record and the respondent within ten (10) business days of the appeal materials being received by the Provost.

The decision of the Provost or designee in connection with the appeal shall be final and conclusive and no further appeals will be permitted. The dean of the respondent’s home school at the University shall also receive final notice of the case outcome.

Submit an Appeal