Millersville University, Faculty Senate

Attachment #4
Faculty Senate Minutes
January 20, 2004

The Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Honor Code Committee Recommendation on the
Development of an Academic Honor Code at Millersville University

The Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Honor Code Committee (HCC) was created in late spring 2000 with the charge of determining the feasibility and advisability of introducing an academic honor code system at Millersville University (MU). An initial report of the findings was presented to faculty senate in spring 2002, and included a recommendation for the development of an MU honor code and its associated policy elements. The present document is a modification of that original report and addresses expressed senate concern on issues of overlap with the Student Code of Conduct, potential conflicts with APSCUF recommendations on faculty freedom in the classroom, and the severity of sanctions for violations of the honor system.

Since its initiation, the HCC has encouraged the campus to consider how the university community might best address academic integrity. Toward this end, the HCC has conducted a faculty forum on options toward academic integrity, surveyed both students and faculty, and organized a convocation centered around issues of academic integrity. Using the feedback from these initiatives, and the existent literature and resources on college academic integrity, the HCC finds:

A. The introduction of a new academic honor system to an already-existing institution of higher education is feasible, and would be feasible at Millersville University. Elements of honor systems have been successfully introduced to a number of schools in recent years, including University of Maryland at College Park, University of Tennessee, University of Georgia, University of Minnesota, and Kansas State University.1 Kansas State, like many other colleges, supports their newly instituted honor code system with a well-developed web site which allows students and faculty to quickly and easily access all information related to the program online. The success of this program may be partially assessed by viewing the extensive web site (

We believe an honor system would work for MU. However, institution of such a program should not be taken lightly and needs substantial support and commitment from the faculty, administration, and students. The HCC believes, given adequate campus commitment, resources, and training, the MU community could effectively develop and institute an honor system.

B. The implementation of an academic honor code system at MU is advisable. Specifically, the HCC recommends development of an honor code system which has the following key elements:

  1. required signing of the MU Honor Pledge upon admission to the university and/or at new student orientation,
  2. signing of an academic honesty statement on submitted course work at the option of the course instructor,
  3. a judiciary composed of both students and faculty for adjudication of alleged student dishonesty, and
  4. the creation of an Academic Honor Council, consisting of both students and faculty, which would among other things promote a culture of academic integrity on campus through education, motivational programs, and a system of sanctions for violations of academic honesty.
HCC supports an academic honor system either with or without required student reporting of observed violations of the honor code. The committee believes that a system which is representative of the majority of opinions of faculty members on required student reporting will best serve the interests of the university. The committee therefore leaves it to the university community to determine whether student reporting should be optional or required.

Full details of the proposed program are outlined in the attached Proposed Millersville University Honor System Constitution and By-Laws. These recommended elements of the proposed academic honor system are subject to faculty discussion and approval. It is essential that MU develop the system which best reflects the ideals of the faculty and students. Revision of these recommendations may be in order to best meet the needs of the university community.

The HCC believes that the benefits of an honor code system would be substantial and sustained for the following reasons:

  1. Significantly fewer cases of cheating are believed to occur on campuses with honor codes2,3, probably because of the culture of mutual trust and respect that develops between faculty and students4,5, and the clarification of expectations and definitions of cheating behaviors. It therefore becomes less easy for the student to rationalize cheating behaviors3.
  2. Greater consistency in addressing cases of academic dishonesty is likely to occur.
  3. Students commonly take considerable pride in their code schools, and find a sense of prestige in having attended such an institution.
  4. Having served on the student judiciary often advances career opportunities for students.
  5. Honor code schools are highly respected by the local community, academia, and potential employers. Such prestige may be attractive to high-achieving prospective students.
  6. Moral norms are more likely to operate within an honor code structure3. Furthermore, learned values may be carried away with students when they leave the university.
  7. The greater discussion and awareness of the value of academic integrity promoted by the honor system supports key elements of General Education Objective 16: Personal, Ethical, and Civic Values and Decision-making.
  8. The academic honor code system is consistent with that part of the university mission statement designed to "foster the examination, development and understanding of personal values and appreciation of values of others." The honor code system embodies MU community values and provides a means to foster them in our students.

Key to the success of any campus integrity program is the promotion of a culture of academic integrity which clearly and frequently communicates the value of and requirements for achieving academic honesty. This culture is promoted by 1) establishing clear guidelines toward academic integrity with frequent encouragement to know the rules, 2) providing an atmosphere which inspires students to value and practice academic honesty, 3) initiating open university dialog on honesty issues, 4) encouraging high student involvement in the integrity program, and 5) carefully monitoring dishonesty and taking offenses very seriously.6 Recognizing this need, the HCC recommends establishment of an MU Honor Council. This committee would function to oversee the honor system, promote education on academic integrity, and develop and maintain the culture of academic integrity that is so integral to the success of integrity programs.

This document has outlined the ingredients the HCC believes will lead to a successful academic integrity program at MU. These include the use of honor pledges, clear guidelines on how to achieve academic honesty, an active student role in the educational function of the Honor Council, and strong sanctions for violations of the honor code. Given the needed resources and campus commitment, the HCC is confident the proposed MU honor system can truly enhance the educational experience of our students.


1D. McCabe and G. Pavela. 2000. Some Good News about Academic Integrity. Change. September/October: 32-38.

2Bowers, W.J. 1964. Student dishonesty and its control in college. New York Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University.

3McCabe, D.L., and Trevino, L.K. 1993. Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education. 64: 522-538.

4McCabe, D.L. and Drinan, P.F. 1999. Toward a culture of academic integrity. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 46(8,Oct. 15):B7.

5Lowry, J.D. 1996. Communities of trust: A recent graduate's experience with honor codes. Journal of College Science Teaching 26(1): 6.

6McCabe, D.L., Trevino, L.K., and Butterfield K.D. 1999. Academic integrity in honor code and non-honor code environments. The Journal of Higher Education. 70(2): 211-234.

Past and Present Honor Code Committee Members

Charles Baker, Student
Eric Blazer, Business
Jane Bray, School of Education
Jill Craven, English
Brandon Danz, Student
Jessica George, Library
Carol Heintzelman, Social Work
Sandra Hoffman, Elem. & Early Childhood Education
John McLarnon, History
Jennifer Miller, Philosophy
James Mone, Biology
Elba Rohena, Special Education
Jane Rudden, Elem. & Early Childhood Education
Carol Phillips, Academic Affairs
Kathleen Schreiber, Geography, Chair

Proposed Millersville University Academic Honor System Constitution


  1. The Academic Honor System is designed to promote an environment of academic honesty at Millersville University by 1) educating the academic community on the value of academic integrity, and means by which it may be achieved, and 2) providing timely adjudication for alleged violations of the honor code.

  2. The Honor Code and Pledge are designed to reaffirm and foster the value of integrity within the community. Upon acceptance to the university, all students shall sign the following:

  3. The Honor Statement provides further reinforcement of the values of the Millersville University Community. Teaching faculty may require the following signed statement on student assignments, papers, and/or exams:

    The Honor Statement is implied for all academic work whether or not the instructor requires the written statement on the work.

  4. Violations of the Academic Honor Code include plagiarism, fabrication, cheating, and/or academic misconduct as defined in the Academic Integrity at Millersville University brochure and in the schedule of sanctions in the By-Laws of this document.

  5. The MU Academic Honor Council is responsible for overseeing the MU Academic Honor System; coordinating and conducting hearings with the Associate Provost for Academic Programs and Services; and providing counsel and support to faculty reporting, and students charged with, academic integrity violations. The Academic Honor Council is also responsible for developing/coordinating educational activities on campus related to academic integrity, and for appointing judicial members to the Honor Court.

  6. The MU Academic Honor Court, with the Associate Provost for Academic Programs and Services, adjudicates alleged student violations of the Academic Honor Code, and imposes sanctions in appropriate cases. The Academic Honor Court consists of student and faculty Academic Honor Council members who are appointed by the Academic Honor Council Chair at the time of each hearing. The composition of the Academic Honor Court may change from case to case.

  7. Academic dishonesty and plagiarism by faculty is specifically prohibited under Section 5 of the MU Governance Manual. The Collective Bargaining Agreement between APSCUF and the State System of Higher Education prohibits alleged cases of faculty academic dishonesty from being adjudicated by faculty and students. Allegations of faculty academic dishonesty shall be handled consistent with the Collective Bargaining Agreement between APSCUF and the State System of Higher Education.

  8. The Student Honor Education and Activities Council (SHEAC) consists of the student members of the Academic Honor Council, and other interested students, who carry out campus educational activities on academic integrity.


  1. . The Academic Honor Council includes two faculty members from each of the three schools: Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, and Science and Mathematics; and one non-school faculty member. The Academic Honor Council also includes at least eight student members. A chair oversees the operation of the Academic Honor Council, and 3 student counselors coordinate administrative, educational, and administrative functions.

  2. Selection of Student Members

    1. Student nominees must have completed 24 semester hours at Millersville University, be in good academic standing and be enrolled with a minimum of 6 credit hours.
    2. At the start of each academic year, students interested in serving on the honor council apply for membership to the Student Senate.
    3. Student Senate elects 8 - 12 Honor Council members and forwards the names to the Honor Council.

  3. Selection of Faculty Members

    1. Faculty members are elected in the faculty senate elections at the start of the academic year.

  4. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair

    1. The Chair is elected by majority vote from among the faculty membership of Academic Honor Council at the start of the academic year in which the former Chair's position ends.
    2. The Vice Chair is elected by majority vote from among the faculty membership of Academic Honor Council at the start of the academic year in which the former vice chair's position ends.

  5. Selection of Student Counselors

    1. Student Counselors are elected by majority vote from among the student membership of the Academic Honor Code Committee at the start of the academic year in which the former counselor's positions ends.


  1. Two faculty and three student members of the Academic Honor Council are appointed by the Academic Honor Council Chair to the Academic Honor Court for each alleged violation that is tried.

  2. The Associate Provost for Academic Programs and Services shall preside over hearings.


  1. Attend scheduled meetings of the Academic Honor Council.

  2. Serve in one of the student, special-duties positions, as called: Community Education Counselor, Administrative Counselor, Hearings Counselor.

  3. Teach and advance the MU Honor System.

  4. Advise faculty and students reporting/charged with academic honesty violations.

  5. Serve as judging members on the Honor Court.

  6. Participate in a training process that is coordinated by the Academic Honor Council chair.


  1. The COMMUNITY EDUCATION COUNSELOR is responsible for developing educational programs that encourage academic integrity at Millersville University, and educating the Millersville community about the Honor Code.

  2. The ADMINISTRATIVE COUNSELOR is responsible for compiling annual statistics on cases and hearings related to the Honor Code at Millersville University.

  3. The HEARINGS COUNSELOR is responsible for coordinating and scheduling hearings on alleged violations of the Honor Code.



  1. Members' terms are two years. Initial appointments are divided equally between one-year and two-year terms.

  2. Members' terms begin at the start of the fall semester and end at the beginning of the fall semester of the final year of their appointment.

  3. If a member resigns or is removed from office, a replacement appointment for the remaining portion of the member's term shall be made by the student senate or faculty senate, as appropriate.

  4. Removal from Academic Honor Council

    1. A member of the Academic Honor Council may be removed from office by 2/3 vote of the Academic Honor Council for reasons of misconduct, failure to perform duties, or improper execution of duties.
    2. The Academic Honor Council Chair may be removed from office by action of the Associate Provost for Academic Programs and Services for reasons of misconduct, failure to perform duties, or improper execution of duties.


  1. Constitutional amendments may be recommended by any member of the faculty or student body at Millersville University.

  2. All amendments must be approved by 3/4 vote of the entire Academic Honor Council body.

  3. All amendments are subject to approval by Faculty Senate and Student Senate.


  1. By-Law revisions must be approved by a 2/3 vote of the entire Academic Honor Council body.



To administer the Millersville University Academic Honor System.


  1. Any student or staff member who witnesses a violation is encouraged to report the violation directly to the instructor of the class in which it was observed. The student reporter may choose to remain anonymous, and is not required to confront the alleged violator. The student witness is encouraged but not required to testify before the Honor Court. Student reports of observed violations of academic dishonesty shall not proceed to hearing unless evidence of the violation exists beyond the observation of the student. This evidence may include copies of exams, papers, or other assignments.

  2. After observation or report of an alleged violation, the class instructor chooses whether to handle the matter according to the procedures of the traditional MU Academic Honesty Policy or the MU Academic Honor System Policy. Those faculty members electing the traditional honesty policy should obtain and follow the procedures in the instructor's version of Academic Honesty and Dishonesty at Millersville University. The following procedures outline the MU Academic Honor System Policy. Regardless of the system chosen, the instructor is encouraged to fill out an academic honesty violation form, if only for record-keeping purposes. Faculty members choosing the honor system policy may still elect to choose the sanction, given approval of the Academic Honor Court.

  3. A reasonable effort should be made by the course instructor to inform the alleged violator of the allegation to allow the alleged violator the opportunity to self report the incident. A student is considered notified if a reasonable effort has been made to contact the student.

  4. Every effort should be made by the course instructor to meet with the alleged violator to discuss the allegation. The meeting should occur within 5 school days of the report or faculty observation of the alleged violation. During this meeting the following events shall occur:

    1. The alleged violator shall be informed of the nature of the allegation.
    2. The alleged violator shall be presented with any evidence of the alleged violation.
    3. The alleged violator shall be given the opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation.
    4. The alleged violator shall be informed of her/his right to contest the allegation in the Academic Honor Court should the instructor choose to report the incident to the Academic Honor Council.
    5. The alleged violator must be informed of the availability of an Academic Honor Council advisor to answer procedural questions relating to the allegations, honor court process, possible sanctions, and mechanisms for appeal. The advisor shall appear with, but shall not defend, the student in Academic Honor Court.
    6. An academic honesty violation form shall be completed at the instructor/student meeting describing the allegation, the evidence supporting the allegation, the instructor-recommended sanction(s) to be applied (if any), and any other information deemed relevant by the course instructor or Honor Council member. If further action is warranted, the instructors shall check the 'further action warranted' box. The form shall be signed by both the instructor or Honor Council member, and the alleged violator, and submitted to the Honor Council Chair within 5 school days of the meeting.
    7. An instructor may, after meeting with the alleged violator, decide that no further action is warranted. This decision may be based on lack of evidence or other circumstances which arise during the meeting with the alleged violator. In this case, the instructor shall check the 'no further action warranted' box on the violation form, and provide a reason for the decision. The form is then submitted to the Honor Council Chair within 5 school days of the meeting. No further action shall result.


  1. The collection of evidence to support an allegation of academic dishonesty shall be the responsibility of the course instructor, who may request the assistance of the Honor Council.

  2. The evidence shall consist of more than the allegation itself, and may contain copies of exams, reports or other relevant materials. Faculty observation of student cheating is considered relevant evidence.


  1. Meetings of the Academic Honor Court

    1. The Academic Honor Court shall first meet within 30 calendar days after student notification of a suspected academic honesty violation to hear the charge of academic dishonesty and make a determination of whether a breach of academic honesty has occurred. First meeting within 15 calendar days is expected when possible.
    2. All members of the Academic Honor Court must be present when considering charges and sanctions. If a member cannot be present, a proxy must be designated by the Chair of the Academic Honor Council. This proxy shall be selected from the list of active Academic Honor Council members.

  2. Membership

    1. The Academic Honor Court, selected by the Chair of the Academic Honor Council, shall be composed of two voting faculty members and three voting student members of the Honor Council.
    2. The Associate Provost for Academic Programs and Services shall form the sixth non-voting member of the honor court, and shall preside over the hearing.

  3. Procedures of the Academic Honor Court

    1. If the student, having been properly notified, fails to appear at the hearing, the Academic Honor Court chooses whether to proceed in the student's absence.
    2. The investigators of a case may not serve on the Academic Honor Court for that same case.
    3. Both the alleged violator and the instructor of the class in which the alleged violation occurred are expected to attend the hearing. Applicable student reporter(s) may attend the hearing, or, if choosing not to attend, may submit an anonymous written statement detailing evidence of the violation.
    4. The charge and associated facts of the case shall be considered by the Academic Honor Court, but the honor hearing is not a trial and therefore does not require formal rules of evidence associated with civil or criminal trial. The Associate Provost for Academic Programs and Services shall accept all evidence and testimony, whether submitted by faculty, staff, or students, which reasonably appears to hold probative value in the conduct of the Honor Court's affairs. Character references shall not be allowed as part of the proceedings. The review of facts shall be non-adversarial.
    5. The alleged violator has the right to examine the evidence and documents presented.
    6. Only members of the Academic Honor Court shall question participants and/or witnesses.
    7. The accused student may decline to answer questions and shall not be penalized for not answering those questions.
    8. If a student accused of a breach of academic honesty chooses to present an explanation for her/his actions, he/she must present this defense alone; the student may use optional counsel only in an advisory capacity.
    9. The evidence considered and a final vote regarding conviction by the Academic Honor Court shall focus on whether a breach of academic honesty occurred and the seriousness of the act.
    10. A majority vote among the members of the Honor Court shall be required to reach a decision on the guilt of the alleged violator. The Associate Provost for Academic Programs and Services shall inform the Honor Council Chair in writing of the final decision. The Academic Honor Council Chair shall then notify the alleged violator, instructor, and student reporter of the decision in writing.
    11. If a breach of academic honesty arises during the summer, that case shall be tabled until hearings resume in the fall.
    12. The alleged violator has a right to notification of the decision of the Academic Honor Council no later than 5 school days after the end of the hearing.

  4. Honor Court Records

    1. The results of the hearing are recorded and kept as part of the permanent record.
    2. All records are confidential and subject to the provisions of the Family Rights and Privacy Act.


  1. Only the Academic Honor Council can authorize and apply sanctions. If charges of academic dishonesty are upheld by the Academic Honor Council, a sanction must be applied.

  2. In the interest of consistency and fairness, the Honor Council should follow the sanctions outlined in Article V. Section 3. However, if a course instructor believes that the sanction outlined in Article V, Section 3 is inappropriate, the course instructor may, upon providing compelling reasons, ask the Honor Council to impose an alternative sanction. The Honor Council must honor this request, or provide a compelling justification for any alternative sanction.

  3. Schedule of Sanctions for Violations of Academic Honesty

    1. Class 1. The most serious breaches of academic honesty fall into this category, as well as any and all second or more offenses of any sort. Sanctions: 1) XF grade and suspension, or 2) XF grade and disciplinary probation. The XF grade indicates that a student has failed a course due to academic dishonesty. Examples of violations include, but are not limited to:

      1. cheating on a test where premeditation and/or conspiracy of effort can be shown,
      2. taking a test for someone else, or permitting someone else to take a test or course in one's place,
      3. plagiarizing, where the majority of the submitted work was written or created by another,
      4. obtaining or sharing all or part of an unadministered exam,
      5. acquiring another's course paper and resubmitting it as one's own work, whether altered or not, and
      6. changing, altering, or being an accessory to changing and/or altering a grade in a grade book, on a test, on a "Change of Grade" form, or other official academic University record which relates to grades.

    2. B. Class 2. These include other serious offenses for which strong sanctions are applied. Sanctions: 1) grade of F in the course and disciplinary probation. Examples of violations include, but are not limited to:

      1. collaborating during a test with another person by receiving or providing information without the permission of the instructor
      2. plagiarizing, where part of the submitted work was written or created by another,
      3. failing to mention others who helped in the preparation of submitted work ,
      4. allowing another to submit one's work,
      5. giving or taking unauthorized aid in a take home exam or paper,
      6. falsifying or altering laboratory data or lab reports, or copying lab reports,
      7. inventing data or other information for research or other academic projects,
      8. using the course textbook, or other material such as notebook that is unauthorized for use during a test,
      9. using or possessing specifically prepared materials during a test (e.g., notes, formula lists, formulas programmed into calculators, notes written on the student's clothing or person, etc.) that are unauthorized,
      10. altering returned and graded assignments or tests, and resubmitting for another grade, and
      11. cheating on or copying from an exam in which premeditation cannot be shown.

    3. Class 3. These are significant offenses for which the sanction is a grade of F on the submitted assignment and disciplinary probation. Examples of violations include, but are not limited to:

      1. submitting work for a class that was already submitted for another, when unauthorized,
      2. citing information from an incorrect source, or failing to cite when necessary,
      3. listing sources in a bibliography that were not used in the paper, and
      4. copying, or allowing one to copy, homework assignments that are to be submitted for credit.

    4. Class 4. These are offenses in which a party assists another to cheat, but the assisting party is not enrolled in the course in which the offense has occurred. Sanctions may not thus be applied within the course. The sanction includes a verbal and written reprimand and completion of at least one of the following: a term of service to the MU Academic Honor Council, a written paper exploring the ethics and consequences of academic dishonesty, and/or an independent study on the ethics and consequences of academic dishonesty. Examples of violations include but are not limited to:

      1. allowing another to submit or copy from your previously submitted class work.
      2. failing to report observed instances of academic dishonesty (if student reporting is required).

    5. All second offenses of any type of academic dishonesty shall be sanctioned with either 1) a grade of XF in the course and suspension, or 2) a grade of XF in the course and expulsion. If the second offense is a Class 4 offense, the sanction shall consist of either suspension or expulsion.

  4. XF Grade Policy

    1. If the Academic Honor Court sanctions a student with a course grade of XF, and this sanction is not appealed by the student, the Academic Honor Council Chair notifies the Registrar to place a grade of XF for the applicable course on the student's academic record.
    2. Student appeals of the XF grade follow the procedure for all other appeals of academic dishonesty sanctions, as outlined in Article VI of the By-Laws. If the Appeals Board denies the right to another hearing, or another hearing is granted and the Honor Court decides to uphold the XF grade sanction, the Academic Honor Council Chair notifies the Registrar to assign the XF grade to the student's academic record. If another hearing is granted and the Academic Honor Court finds there was no violation of academic dishonesty, or assigns a different sanction, the Academic Honor Council Chair notifies the Registrar to remove the academic hold on the student's academic record.
    3. If grades are due but an academic dishonesty hearing is still in progress, a grade of 'I' shall be applied to the course until the hearing process is complete.
    4. An XF grade shall maintain a quality point value of 0.0.
    5. The XF must stay permanent on the transcript for at least two years.
    6. After two years, a student may petition the Honor Council to exchange the XF for an F. The petition must be in written form and provide the reason for removal of the XF. Additionally, the petitioner must appear before the Honor Council to explain the request. If the student petitions and a majority of the Honor Council agrees to remove the XF, the Honor Council outlines conditions under which the XF is removed. The conditions may include serving on the Honor Council, serving in SHEAC, giving testimony of dishonesty during freshman orientation or other organized Honor Council events, and/or performing specific tasks aimed at increasing the education of the violator and/or campus on the value of academic integrity. When these conditions are met, the XF is removed entirely from the transcript, leaving no past evidence of the XF. A grade of F is recorded in its place.
    7. If a petition to change an XF grade to an F has been made and denied, another petition may not be made for another 4 years.
    8. If the student is/has been found guilty of an additional violation of academic honesty, either in the past or future, the XF remains. For cases where the XF was changed to an F and the student is later found guilty of an additional act of academic dishonesty, the XF grade is restored for the course. In these cases, the XF remains permanent. The student may not petition for an F in exchange for the XF in these cases.
    9. A student who has received an XF in a course and needs to pass the course for a requirement may retake the course. If the student passes the course, the requirement is met, but the course grade shall remain as an XF.


  1. Filing an Appeal
    1. A student has the right to appeal the verdict and/or sanctions imposed during the initial hearing of the Academic Honor Court on any of the following three grounds.
    2. A student may file one appeal based on availability of substantial new evidence. Substantial new evidence is defined as substantial evidence unavailable at the time of the initial hearing that is now available and has a direct bearing on the verdict. An appeal based on substantial new evidence must be filed within three months from the date of the Academic Honor Court's initial decision.
    3. A student may file one appeal based on sufficient good cause. Sufficient good cause is defined as infringement on the rights of the accused student because of any irregularities in the conduct of the hearing process. Irregularities occur when the Academic Honor Court fails to abide by the established procedures as detailed in this document. An appeal based on sufficient good cause must be filed within 10 school days of the initial decision of the Academic Honor Court.
    4. The student may file one appeal of the sanctions on the grounds of disproportionate severity of the sanction. Disproportionate severity of a sanction refers to the excessive severity of a particular sanction compared to the severity of the act for which it was applied. An appeal based on disproportionate severity must be filed within 10 school days of the initial decision of the Academic Honor Court.

    5. Appeal requests must be submitted in writing to the Chair of the Academic Honor Council. The written request must clearly state the grounds for appeal, and fully describe the new evidence, irregularities that occurred in the initial hearing of the Academic Honor Court, and/or reason supporting disproportionate severity of the sanction. This written request shall serve as the primary basis for granting or denying a request for a new hearing.
    6. The student may appeal on up to three grounds, but generally all the grounds shall be considered together in one hearing. An exception to this policy shall be granted in the case that substantial new evidence becomes available after the appeal hearing is finished, but before the end of the three month period following the date of the Academic Honor Court's initial decision.

  2. The Appeals Board and Appeals Process

    1. Upon receipt of a written appeal, the Academic Honor Council Chair shall empanel a separate six-member Appeals Board. The Appeals Board shall consist of three student members, two faculty members, and a non-voting chair selected from the Honor Council. The chair may be either a student or faculty member.
    2. The Appeals Board shall hold a hearing and either grant or deny appeal requests within 30 school days of receiving a written appeal.
    3. The Appeals Board shall review the appeal request, transcripts from the initial hearing, and may request additional written statements from any parties involved in the initial hearing.
    4. If the Appeals Board grants an appeal of the initial Honor Court's verdict, the entire investigation/hearing process shall be repeated, and the case shall be assigned to a new Academic Honor Court panel.
    5. If the Appeals Board grants an appeal of the sanctions imposed by the initial Academic Honor Court, the appeals board is empowered to impose sanctions in accordance with Article V. Section 3.


  1. Members of the Academic Honor Council shall immediately notify the Chair of the Honor Council of any conflicts of interest.

* The MU Honor Code Committee would like to acknowledge and thank both Kansas State University and the New Jersey Institute of Technology for the permitted use of many ideas from their honor code constitutions in the development of this document.

Return to Faculty Senate Home Page
Return to MU Home Page