Policy

All members of the community are expected to be honest and forthright in their academic endeavors. At its core, academic integrity requires accuracy and honesty regarding the representation of the work of others in one’s own academic work. Since violations of academic integrity erode community confidence and undermine the pursuit of truth and knowledge at the College, academic dishonesty is not acceptable.

Reason for Policy

To set forth policies and procedures for faculty, staff and students to meet college guidelines.

To Whom Does The Policy Apply

Faculty, Staff and Students of Ramapo College.

Related Documents

Procedure

Academic Integrity Reporting Form (fillable pdf or google form)

Grading System (Academic Policy 300-OO)

College Honors Program (Academic Policy 300-L)

Contacts

Office of the Provost: 201-684-7532

Responsibilities

Office of the Provost

The Office of the Provost has responsibility for the oversight and enforcement of the Academic Integrity Policy and for making the policy an institutional priority. The Office of the Provost is also responsible for publishing the policy and for educating both faculty, staff, and students about the policy.

Faculty and staff

Faculty members and College staff play a crucial role in implementing the Academic Integrity Policy. They are responsible for educating students about the importance of academic integrity and for communicating to students their expectations with respect to academic integrity in course work including but not limited to permissible limits of student collaboration and, where relevant, acceptable citation format. In order to demonstrate responsible teaching and academic practices that are grounded in academic integrity, all faculty will:

• foster an environment where academic integrity is expected and respected, by undertaking adequate measures to prevent academic dishonesty, and by imposing penalties and reporting all suspected violations of academic integrity to the Vice Provost whenever such incidents occur; and
• adhere to and encourage all students to comply with the policy in their academic work, which includes but is not limited to adhering to the honest pursuit of research and scholarship by attribution of credit to all individuals who participated in the conduct or contributed to the completion of a project, paper, publication, experiment, etc.; by citation of the specific source of all information; and by respect for truth in reporting experimental findings or the results of scholarly inquiry.

Students

Students have the responsibility to know and understand the Academic Integrity Policy, and the means by which to ensure academic integrity and avoid academic dishonesty. Students must comply with the policy in their academic work, and inform the faculty and/or the Vice Provost if they are aware of suspected violations of the Academic Integrity Policy.

Types of Academic Dishonesty

There are four (4) broad forms of academic dishonesty; overlap may occur between them.  Faculty will generally communicate expectations of what is/is not allowed for their specific assignments (for instance, they might specify that the use of grammar tools/spellcheck are allowable, but artificial intelligence tools (“generative AIs”, such as ChatGPT) or bots are not; or an assignment might require that a generative AI tool is used).  As a general rule, if no specific guidance or exceptions are provided by their instructor, students should assume all of the following are to be avoided, along with any other practices that violate academic integrity.

Cheating

Cheating is an act of deception by which a student misrepresents their mastery of material on a test or other academic exercise.  Examples of cheating include, but are not limited to:

• copying from another student’s work;
• allowing another student to copy their work;
• using unauthorized materials such as a textbook, notebook, or electronic devices during an examination;
• using specifically prepared materials, such as notes written on clothing, or other unauthorized notes, formula lists, etc., during an examination;
• collaborating with another person during an examination by giving or receiving information without authorization from the instructor;
• taking a test for another person or asking or allowing another to take the student’s own test.
• Using homework or tutoring websites to complete assignments / exams

Plagiarism

Plagiarism occurs when a person represents information as their own work, when it is actually the work of someone (or something) else.  Examples may include someone else’s words, ideas, phrases, sentences, or data represented as the student’s own work; the use of the online tools (including bots & generative AI) in preparing the work; and a third party (person or tool) preparing the work for the student.

When a student submits work that includes such material, the source of that information must be acknowledged through complete, accurate, and specific footnote or endnote references; additionally, verbatim statements must be acknowledged through quotation marks. To avoid a charge of plagiarism, students should be sure to include an acknowledgment of attribution:

• whenever they quote another person’s words directly;
• whenever they use another person’s ideas, opinions, or theories, or data, even if they have been completely paraphrased in one’s own words;
• whenever they allow another individual (or online tools/generative AIs) to contribute to the work in some significant fashion (for instance, through editing or sharing of ideas);
• whenever they use facts, statistics, or other illustrative material taken from a source, unless the information is common knowledge.

Examples of standard citation formats can be found on the George T. Potter Library Website: Library Website: Citation Manuals and Style Guides

Fabrication

Fabrication refers to the use of invented information or the falsification of research or other findings. Examples of fabrication include, but are not limited to:

• citing information not taken from the source indicated;
• citing of sources in a “works cited” that were not used in that project;
• altering, stealing, and/or falsifying data and information;
• submitting as one’s own any academic work prepared in whole or in part by others, including the use of another’s identity: this would include acquiring such work from a third party with or without payment, and using online tools (including generative AIs) to prepare the work.

Academic Misconduct

Academic misconduct includes the alteration of grades, involvement in the acquisition or distribution of unadministered tests, and the unauthorized submission of student work in more than one class; and any other forms of academic dishonesty that do not clearly fall into the categories of cheating, plagiarism, and fabrication. Examples of academic misconduct include, but are not limited to:

• falsifying information or signatures on registration, withdrawal, or other academic forms and records;
• changing, altering, falsifying, or being the accessory to the changing, altering, or falsifying of a grade report or form, transcript, or other academic record, or entering any computer system or College office or building for that purpose;
• stealing, buying, selling, giving away, or otherwise obtaining all or part of any unadministered test or paper or entering any computer system or College office or building for the purpose of obtaining an unadministered test;
• submitting written work (in whole or in significant part) to fulfill the requirements of more than one course without the explicit permission of both instructors;
• disregarding policies governing the use of human subjects or animals in research;
• sabotaging another student’s work through actions designed to prevent the student from successfully completing an assignment;
• knowingly facilitating a violation of the academic integrity policy by another person.

How to report a suspected violation

In order to ensure due process, any member of the community who is aware of a suspected violation of the Academic Integrity Policy is expected to report the incident to the Vice Provost, using either the reporting form (found at https://www.ramapo.edu/provost/policy/academic-integrity/) or by email (academicintegrity@ramapo.edu).

Instructor reporting a suspected violation in their own course:

• Instructors may choose to adjudicate the matter themselves and report the outcome to the Vice Provost, or refer the case to the Vice Provost for adjudication.
• The reporting form should be used, which serves not only to report the incident but also to record the finding and the sanction in situations in which the faculty member chooses to resolve the case.
• A faculty member is encouraged to report a suspected violation of academic integrity within 30 days of the discovery of the alleged violation, but must do so no later than the last day to submit grades for the term in which the suspected violation occurred, unless new evidence or knowledge of the incident only comes to light after that date.

Reporting a suspected violation in another instructor’s course, or in a non-course context:

• A community member (including staff, students, and faculty [if the incident is not in their class] suspecting a violation of the policy by a student should inform the Vice Provost, either on the Reporting Form or by email (academicintegrity@ramapo.edu).
• Incidents should be reported as soon as possible after the discovery of the suspected violation.

The Hearing Process

Overview

A faculty member has the option of resolving a case of a suspected violation of the Academic Integrity Policy with the student (and informing the Vice Provost of the outcome, if found “responsible”) or referring the case to the Vice Provost for handling (e.g., the faculty member’s preference, timing at the end of semester).

The case must be forwarded to the Vice Provost for handling if:

• the student prefers the case to be reviewed by the Vice Provost (or designee);
• the student fails to attend the scheduled conference with the faculty member;
• the student contests the faculty member’s finding and/or sanction;
• the student has withdrawn from the course;
• the case is not otherwise resolved by the faculty member.

When the Vice Provost receives notification of a suspected or resolved violation, they (or their designee) will determine if there have been prior violations of the Academic Integrity Policy by the student. For cases referred to the Vice Provost for handling (i.e., not already resolved by faculty), the Vice Provost (or designee) will review the documentation and determine if there are sufficient grounds to pursue the incident; and if there are, will proceed as follows:

• The Vice Provost (or designee) is generally required* to convene an Academic Integrity Board if the case is a second or subsequent suspected violation by the student, even if the case had already been resolved (with a “responsible” finding) by the faculty member.
  • The Board’s finding and sanction (if applicable) will take priority over that issued by the faculty member.
  • *If the incident is a second violation, in which the first violation is judged by the Vice Provost/Designee to be extremely minor and the new case appears to be straightforward, the Vice Provost (or designee) has the discretion to adjudicate the second case, rather than referring it to an Academic Integrity Board.
• The Vice Provost (or designee) may elect to convene an Academic Integrity Board for certain cases (including but not limited to the case being particularly complex or egregious in their judgment, cases in which suspension or expulsion is a possible outcome, or at the request of the referring faculty member).
• The Vice Provost may elect to handle a “first case” I (or by a designee), and the Vice Provost (or designee) will be the sole Hearing Officer. The procedure will mirror that of a faculty-handled case.

Cases adjudicated by the faculty member

The faculty member will notify the student of the allegation in writing. The faculty member will give the student the option of meeting with the faculty member, or the Vice Provost. The student will be advised to review the Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure.

1. If the student opts to meet with the faculty member: at the meeting:

• The faculty member will issue a finding (i.e., responsible or not responsible for violating the Academic Integrity Policy) and, if responsible, a sanction.
• The student will sign the reporting form in agreement of the finding and sanction(s).
• If the student does not sign the report, the case must be referred to the Vice Provost for handling.
• If the finding was” responsible”, the faculty member reports the violation as well as the finding and the sanction on the reporting form and submits it with all supporting documents (including the syllabus and assignment instructions) to the Vice Provost (preferably by email, to academicintegrity@ramapo.edu). The Vice Provost will acknowledge receipt of the report via Ramapo e-mail; if the student has been found responsible for a prior violation, the faculty member will be informed and the Vice Provost will refer the case to an Academic Integrity Board for review.
• Examples of sanctions: requiring students to redo the assignment or to retake the exam with or without penalty; assigning a failing grade on the assignment or the exam; assigning a failing grade for the course.
• The faculty member may also recommend or require that a student utilize services such as the Center for Reading and Writing (workshops and/or tutoring), or utilize other support services (e.g., meeting with their OSS/CSS/EOF advisor)

2. If the student opts instead to meet with the Vice Provost, the faculty member forwards all documentation to the Provost’s Office (preferably via academicintegrity@ramapo.edu).

Cases adjudicated by the Vice Provost

• The Vice Provost (or designee) will notify the student by Ramapo email of the alleged violation, and arrange a hearing, reminding the student to review the Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure prior to the hearing
• At the hearing, the Vice Provost (or designee) will review the policy and procedure, present the evidence to the student, and determine the finding (responsible or not responsible for violating the Academic Integrity Policy) and, if found “responsible”, the sanction.
• Examples of sanctions: requiring the student to redo the assignment or to retake the exam with or without penalty (with the agreement of the faculty member), assigning a failing grade on the assignment or the exam, assigning a failing grade for the course, issuing an official warning, suspending the student from activity privileges, and/or placing the student on disciplinary probation.
• The Vice Provost (or designee) may recommend or require the student to utilize services such as the Center for Reading and Writing (workshops and/or tutoring), or utilize other support services (e.g., meeting with their OSS/CSS/EOF advisor),
• Failure to comply with sanctions by the prescribed time may result in a registration hold, deregistration from future semesters, and/or other disciplinary action.
• The Vice Provost (or designee) will communicate the finding and the sanction (if applicable) to the student and the referring faculty member via Ramapo e-mail.

Cases adjudicated by the Academic Integrity Board

• The Vice Provost (or designee) will notify the student of the allegation in writing and inform them that an Academic Integrity Board hearing is required, reminding the student to review the Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure prior to the meeting. (Office staff will schedule the hearing. The referring faculty member may ask or be asked to attend.)
• The Vice Provost (or designee) will provide the student with the option to meet with them individually prior to the hearing to present the evidence and to review the policy and procedure.

The Academic Integrity Board hearing:

• The board will convene initially without the student present; the Board Advisor will present the evidence in the case, which the board members can review and discuss.
• With the student present, the board (including the Board Advisor) will invite the student to make an opening statement. The Board will hear testimony from, and pose questions to, the student, the referring faculty member (if present), and any witnesses. The student will in turn have an opportunity to question anyone who provides information at the hearing and to respond to any evidence presented against them. The Board may opt to provide advice and guidance for the student for their current and future academic endeavors.
• After the student leaves the hearing, the board will determine the finding (responsible or not responsible for violating the Academic Integrity Policy) and, if responsible, the sanction.
• Examples of sanctions: assigning a failing or zero grade on the assignment or the exam; assigning a failing grade for the course; Suspension or Expulsion.
• Graduate students found responsible for violations in any part of their theses or capstone projects may be sanctioned with permanent dismissal from their programs in addition to or instead of other sanctions as appropriate.
• Require (or recommend) that a student attend specific workshops or reading/writing tutoring through e.g., the Center for Reading and Writing, or utilize other support services (e.g., meeting with their OSS/CSS/EOF advisor). A deadline will be specified; failure to comply with sanctions by the prescribed time may result in a registration hold, deregistration from future semesters, and/or other disciplinary action.

Within 10 days of the hearing, the Board Advisor will inform the student of the outcome of the hearing.

If the Board is hearing a case that had already been adjudicated by the faculty member, the finding and the sanction of the Academic Integrity Board override the finding and the sanction of the faculty member (as well as the faculty member’s Z grade change form).

Appeal Procedures

A student who is found responsible of violating the Academic Integrity Policy may appeal the decision only if certain circumstances exist.

The student may not appeal the decision of the faculty member. If the student does not agree with the finding and/or sanction of a faculty-adjudicated case, the student should not sign the reporting form, and will instead request review by the Vice Provost (or designee).

For cases adjudicated by the Vice Provost (or designee), or the Academic Integrity Board, in which the student is found responsible, the student may appeal only if:

• sanctions are grossly disproportionate to the offense, and/or
• specific procedural errors or errors in interpretations of College regulations were substantial, and/or
• new and significant evidence becomes available which could not have been discovered by a properly conducted investigation prior to or during the original hearing.

The appeal procedure:

• An appeal must be submitted by the student in writing to the Provost within five (5) business days from the date of the letter of finding. Failure to appeal within the allotted time will render the original decision final and conclusive.
• The Provost reserves the right to hear the appeal and will reject any appeal that does not offer clear evidence that one of the heretofore mentioned circumstances applies.
• In the case in which an appeal is filed in writing, the imposition of the sanction will be delayed.
• Appeals shall be decided only upon the record of the original proceeding and upon the written letter of appeal. Reversal or modification of sanction, or a finding of not responsible, may only occur if one of the heretofore mentioned circumstances applies.

“Z” Grades

A “Z” grade is a temporary grade issued by either the Vice Provost (or designee) or faculty member when a student is involved in an alleged allegation of the Academic Integrity Policy. Once a Z grade has been issued, it may only be changed (e.g., with a final course grade, or W) by the Provost’s Office.

Circumstances under which a Z may be issued, either as a new or changed grade:

• The incident is not resolved (or not expected to be resolved) prior to the semester grading deadline.
• Incident was discovered after the final grade was submitted by faculty and the grading window had closed.
• The student withdrew from the course (or college) prior to resolution of the incident.

Procedure

• The Provost’s Office will submit a Z grade request to the Registrar’s Office.
• Upon resolution of the incident, the office will submit a Grade Change form to the Registrar’s Office as follows:
• For faculty-resolved cases: the faculty member will notify the Provost’s Office of the student’s final grade.
• For cases resolved by the Vice Provost (or designee) / Academic Integrity Board, where the student is found not responsible: the faculty will notify the Provost’s Office of the student’s final grade.
• For cases resolved by the Vice Provost (or designee) / Academic Integrity Board, where the student is found responsible, but the sanction is not an F in the course: the faculty member will calculate the student’s final grade (factoring in any other grade-related sanctions) and then notify the Provost’s Office of the student’s final grade.
• For cases resolved by the Vice Provost (or designee) / Academic Integrity Board, where the student is found responsible, and the sanction is an F in the course: the Vice Provost / Board Hearing Officer will issue the F grade.
• If the case is not resolved within one calendar year of issuance of the Z grade, the Z grade will be changed to an “F” grade, and an uncontested “responsible” finding is assumed.

Repeat Course (R-Grade) option

• If a student is found responsible and the sanction is an F in the course, the course is not eligible for Repeat-course (R) grading.
• If the student is found “responsible”, and the sanction is a grade reduction (but not an F – even though the reduced grade itself may result in an F), the course is eligible for R grading.
• If a student is found responsible for an academic integrity violation in a retaken course, but the previously-taken course did not have an academic integrity violation, the earlier course grade is eligible for R grading.

See also Academic Policy 300-E Retaking Courses

College Honors Program

If the student is found to have violated the Academic Integrity Policy and is enrolled in the College Honors Program, the Director of the College Honors Program will be notified by the Vice Provost in order to review the student’s status in the program.

Additional Information

Record-keeping

Case files will be retained in the Office of the Provost until five (5) years after graduation or termination.

Privacy of Records

Case files are protected under relevant laws including FERPA and NJ OPRA.

• Hearing outcomes will be communicated to the student, faculty member, Dean of the school offering the course, and Vice Provost, and Office of the Registrar.
• The Office of Student Conduct is informed where outcomes are suspension or expulsion.
• Where there is a legitimate educational reason, members of the student’s advisor network may be informed (e.g., OSS, CSS, EOF), for instance where the Vice Provost (or designee) or Board Advisor judge that specific support services may benefit the student.

Personnel

The Academic Integrity Board

The board is comprised of up to six members: the Vice Provost (or designee) as the Board advisor, plus two matriculated students and three faculty and/or professional staff. A quorum consists of the Board Advisor plus three members of the board, one of whom must be a faculty member. The Vice Provost appoints board members upon positive recommendation from deans (in the case of faculty), divisional vice presidents (in the case of professional staff), and any faculty member, administrator, or professional staff member (in the case of students). The Vice Provost (or designee) also trains each new board member for service on the board and apprises the entire board of any approved procedural changes.

At the hearing, the Vice Provost (or designee) will serve as Board Advisor and, in that capacity, will present evidence, comment on procedure and admissibility of evidence, manage the hearing, and protect the rights of all parties. In addition, the Board Advisor has the right to remove from the hearing any individual who disrupts the hearing or otherwise fails to follow the procedures outlined in this policy. The Board Advisor will be present during the deliberations of the board but will not vote.

Vice Provost’s designee

The Vice Provost may designate an Assistant Academic Integrity officer. This individual will be selected from among the faculty members in the Academic Integrity Board pool. Roles of the designee include: assisting with determining whether cases are to be heard by a single hearing officer (Vice Provost or designee) or the Academic Integrity Board; serving as the hearing officer, or as the Board Advisor. The designee must be utilized in cases that arise from courses taught by the Vice Provost. Cases brought forward by the designee (in their faculty capacity) must be handled by the Vice Provost.

Procedural Protection

For any hearing conducted by the Vice Provost (or designee) or the Academic Integrity Board, the student shall have the following procedural protections:

• The student will receive, in addition to the reporting form, written notice of the charges that is dated at least three (3) business days prior to any scheduled hearing with the Vice Provost (or designee) and seven (7) business days prior to any scheduled hearing with the Academic Integrity Board. A student may relinquish their right to the notification period by signing and executing a waiver with the Office of the Provost. All correspondence will be sent to the student’s Ramapo College e-mail address. It is the responsibility of the student to access their e-mail on a daily basis.
• To request disability-related accommodations, please contact academicintegrity@ramapo.edu at least 48 hours in advance of your scheduled hearing.
• The student will have reasonable access to the case file prior to and during the hearing, provided that all reviews of files must take place in the Office of the Provost. All case materials shall be retained in the Office of the Provost.
• The burden of proof shall be upon the complainant, who must establish that the person charged is responsible for the academic integrity violation “more likely than not” based on the credible evidence. This “preponderance of the evidence” standard is a lower one than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard employed in criminal prosecutions within the court system.
• The student has the right to remain silent and not to present evidence against them.
• The student has the opportunity both to question those who provide information at the proceeding and to respond to any information being presented against them. Formal rules of evidence shall not be applicable pursuant to the Code of Conduct. The Vice Provost (or designee) or Board Advisor, as applicable, shall give effect to the rules of confidentiality and privilege but shall otherwise admit all information for consideration that reasonable persons would accept as having material value. Unduly repetitious or irrelevant information may be excluded.
• Any member of the College community may, upon showing relevance and necessity, request witnesses to appear at a hearing conducted by the Vice Provost (or designee) or the Academic Integrity Board. Character witnesses are not permissible in academic integrity proceedings. It is the responsibility of the complainant and the charged student to notify the Vice Provost, by fax, electronic mail, or in writing of the persons they wish called as witnesses at least three (3) business days before the proceeding. The Vice Provost will notify students who are identified as witnesses that their appearance is expected. It is generally expected that witnesses will appear in person to give testimony. Under rare circumstances, witnesses may appear remotely (e.g., via video-conferencing); or a signed, dated, and notarized statement of a witness who is unable to appear or who has been excused may be introduced at a proceeding. The decision as to whether such a document or any other alternative means of testimony may be used lies solely with the Vice Provost. Under extraordinary circumstances, the Vice Provost may require students to serve as witnesses. Students who refuse to appear as witnesses for either the complainant or the charged student may be charged with “failure to comply with the directions of College officials, including campus Public Safety officers, or officers of the law, acting in performance of their duties (Code H.17).” Witnesses will be excluded from the proceeding during the testimony of other witnesses. All parties to the case and witnesses shall be excluded during any deliberations determining responsibility or sanctions.
• A student charged with alleged violations, complainants, and witnesses may be accompanied by an advisor, who may be an attorney, to the hearing. An advisor may provide counsel to the student but may not speak on their behalf nor appear in lieu of the student. A student who wishes to have an attorney as an advisor must inform the Vice Provost, in writing by fax, electronic mail, or by telephone at least three (3) business days before the scheduled hearing. When informed that an attorney will be present at the proceeding, the College may consult with General Counsel and/or the New Jersey State Attorney General’s Office for advice on whether legal counsel for the College should also be present.
• In accordance with current guidelines established in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and implemented by Ramapo College, the record of most academic integrity proceeding’s findings is not open to the public.
• In cases in which a student charged does not appear after proper notice and has no justifiable reason for non-appearance, the finding will be an “uncontested admission of violation,” and an appropriate sanction will be imposed.
• In cases where a student charged withdraws from the course in question or the College prior to the Academic Integrity proceeding, the Academic Integrity process will not be deferred.
• Hearings will not be postponed unless under unusual circumstances set forth in the “Justifiable Excuse” policy for non-appearance. The policy is available in the Office of the Provost. The process is designed to be educational in nature and support the student speaking for themselves; therefore, only the responding student may make a request to postpone a hearing. Requests by third parties, including counsel, will not be considered.
• Board hearings may be audio- or video-recorded. Other proceedings may be recorded at the discretion of the College. These recordings are solely for the purpose of providing assistance to the Vice Provost (or designee)/Academic Integrity Board Advisor (as applicable), the members of the Academic Integrity Board (if applicable), and the appeals officer in their deliberations. These recordings remain the property of the College and constitute an official record of the proceeding.
• Final decisions and a listing of any sanctions imposed will be noted by the Vice Provost (or designee), Board Advisor (as applicable), who will be responsible for ensuring such information is conveyed in writing to the charged student and to all others as deemed necessary or appropriate. The finding will be e-mailed to the charged student no later than ten (10) business days following the date of the hearing. Notification of others with a need or right to know under the law will only take place after all possible appeal processes have upheld the finding.