Academic Integrity Policy

UMass Amherst is strongly committed to academic integrity, which is defined as completing all academic work without cheating, lying, stealing, or receiving unauthorized assistance from any other person, or using any source of information not appropriately authorized or attributed. The UMass community is centered, among other things, on teaching and learning, a complex process in which many stakeholders, including students, instructors (tenure-stream, lecturer, and adjunct professors as well as graduate student TAs and TOs), administrators, and relevant staff, are a part. As a community, we hold each other accountable and support each other’s knowledge and understanding of academic integrity. The following policy defines the responsibilities towards our collective goal.

Academic integrity asks the community to work together. Scholarship depends upon the reliability of information and reference of the work of others. No form of cheating, plagiarism, fabrication, or facilitating of dishonesty, via analogue or digital methods, will be condoned in the University community. Instructors are to be clear about the expectations in their course(s)/assignment(s) of how work should be completed; students are to demonstrate their own learning during examinations and other academic exercises, and appropriately credit other sources of information or knowledge. Instructors may analyze student work, electronically or by other means, for originality of content. Instructors may include student work in databases for the purpose of checking for possible plagiarized content.

UMass Amherst holds academic integrity in the highest regard and as a foundation of our institution. Therefore, the community of students, instructors, and staff are expected to uphold academic integrity. Upon matriculation to UMass Amherst, all students received and acknowledged a commitment to academic integrity (Appendix A: Commitment to Academic Integrity). Because students are an integral part of the UMass community, they share responsibility for participating in, and upholding, academic integrity.

Academic integrity infractions include but are not limited to:

Cheating: Intentional or attempted use of trickery, artifice, deception, breach of confidence, fraud, or misrepresentation of one's academic work as well as intentional or attempted use of unauthorized materials, including generative AI tools, assistance, collaboration, information, or study aids in any academic exercise (unless explicitly permitted by instructor).
Fabrication: Falsification and/or invention of any information or citation in any academic exercise.
Plagiarism: Knowingly representing the words, ideas, art, and/or creative works of another, including generative AI tools, as one's own work in any academic exercise. This includes submitting without citation, in whole or in part, prewritten term papers, research, art, or other creative works by others, including but not limited to commercial vendors who sell or distribute such materials. Lying: Knowingly providing false information, submitting false documents, or misleading anyone in connection with any academic matter.
Facilitating dishonesty: Knowingly helping or attempting to help another commit an academic integrity infraction, including distributing course materials without permission, manipulating digital technologies with unauthorized course information, substituting for another in an examination, or allowing others to represent as their own one's papers, reports, or academic works.

The above definitions are guidelines and are the foundation for the initiation of either the informal or formal academic integrity process. While there may be cases of genuine misunderstanding, if there is a misunderstanding so egregious that common sense would indicate a different course of action, instructors may choose to pursue academic sanctions
within the academic integrity process.

Sanctions may be imposed on any student who has committed or facilitated an academic integrity infraction. In instances where student-staff (for example, student tutors) suspect an academic integrity infraction, they should report their concerns to their supervisor, who should follow up with any needed communication. For this policy, TOs are responsible for administering the academic integrity policy in their classes. Graduate TAs are responsible for reporting to the instructor of record any suspicions of academic dishonesty. Graduate TOs who oversee their own classes should communicate their suspicions to their course director, faculty advisor, and/or department chair for support during the process.

Upholding academic integrity is centralized in the Academic Integrity Office, which is part of Academic Affairs, and reports to the Provost’s office. All reported cases of academic integrity infractions will go through and be held by the Academic Integrity Office.

Academic integrity expectations
University policies on academic integrity apply across all courses. Instructors are to provide guidance to students, ideally within the syllabus and/or within specific assignment guidelines and, in turn, students are to adhere to that guidance. Expectations within assignments may vary across courses; instructors should be clear in their guidelines, and students should be familiar with individual course policies. Students are responsible for completing all work within the parameters set forth by instructors, to be familiar with the standards set forth by the University, and to understand the basic parameters of independent work. In cases with genuine misunderstanding of the parameters of an assignment, instructors and students should be in communication with each other to take steps to remedy the coursework. Any violation, drawn from the above definitions, will result in negative consequences that may hinder an individual assignment grade, course grade, academic progress, or university enrollment.

Academic integrity process
Once an instructor suspects an academic integrity infraction, they are responsible for contacting the student(s) within 10 business days with a request to meet to discuss the work (this timeline may be extended during periods of instructor/student non-responsibility, such as during semester breaks; an initial attempt at outreach must be made during periods of responsibility). Students are to respond within 5 business days of instructor outreach. Instructors and students should communicate (digitally or in person) to discuss the suspected dishonesty (See Appendix D: Guidelines for communication when dishonesty is suspected). If the communication results in a mutually agreed upon incident of an academic integrity infraction and subsequent resolution, it will trigger the informal review process, of which the bulk of the process will be handled between the instructor and the student(s). Students are responsible for engaging in communication with their instructor to address the issue; ignoring or otherwise avoiding instructor outreach will not result in a suspension of the process (If the suspected academic integrity infraction falls close to the end of the semester/grading period and the proposed sanction may have larger implications, such as academic probation, financial aid, residence, or graduation, please see Appendix C: Guidelines for managing academic integrity infractions timeline close to the end of the semester). If an informal resolution is agreed upon, there may be assignment/course grade implications. This resolution and any corresponding documentation must be filed with the Academic Integrity Office.

The following are two routes instructors may choose from:

Active communication: If the instructor and the student come to a mutual agreement that the work meets the definitions of an academic integrity infraction, the instructor may assign a grade penalty commensurate with the infraction (See Appendix B: Infraction/Consequences Suggestions). The student(s) and the instructor(s) will both sign the informal resolution form. Instructors will submit the informal resolution form (see Appendix E: Forms) to the Academic Integrity Office. Instructors will complete the informal agreement within 10 business days of the agreement; students will sign the informal agreement within 5 business days of the instructor’s signature. Students can request additional time to access resources before signing if necessary; it is up to the instructor to approve the additional time. The informal agreement will be submitted to the Academic Integrity Office and no more than 2 weeks after both signatures are obtained.
No proactive communication: If, after the initial 5 days, 5 additional business days (for a total of 10 business days) pass without the student actively communicating with the instructor, the instructor may assign a grade/course penalty without consultation (See Appendix B: Infraction/Consequences Suggestions). Any additional time for communication beyond 10 business days is up to the instructor; any student who wants to contest the timing beyond the 5 additional business days may start the formal process. If a grade/course penalty is assigned without student consultation, the instructor must maintain communication outreach documents that demonstrate non-responsiveness from the student and submit these, and the Non-Communication Form (see Appendix E: Forms), to the Academic Integrity Office.

The Academic Integrity Office will keep all forms on file. If two forms per student are filed, the Academic Integrity Office will connect with the student for further discussion; if three or more forms per student are filed, the Academic Integrity Office will connect with the student and the Dean of Students Office (undergraduate) or the Graduate School (graduate students) for further disciplinary action.

If no agreement can be made via an informal resolution, this will trigger a formal resolution. The instructor will submit a form documenting the suspected violation, including evidence of attempts at communication with the student, details of the conversation where the informal resolution could not be reached, and the specific sanction they impose on the student following the infraction. This form will be submitted to the Academic Integrity Office and will trigger the appeal process. The Academic Integrity Office has 5 days to notify the student(s) of the alleged violation; students have 10 business days to respond to the complaint. If the student(s) does not appeal, the instructor’s sanction will stand. If the student(s) appeal, this triggers a hearing. If the hearing finds the student(s) were academically dishonest, there will be both course sanctions as well as a notification on the student(s) official academic record.

Instructor expectations

Will provide clear guidelines in syllabus and/or individual course assignments on expectations of how work is to be completed (Examples include, but are not limited to: Individually, in collaboration/groups, restriction of outside sources and appropriate citation format, permission/restriction of generative AI tools).
Will make a good-faith effort to communicate proactively with student(s) when an academic integrity infraction is suspected.
Will not assign a grade on the basis of suspicion.

Students’ Rights

When facing concerns of academic integrity infractions, students have the right to:

A conversation with their instructor about what occurred within a prescribed time frame.
A conversation with the instructor prior to signing anything that may unduly harm academic progress.
Clarity on resources for support in understanding the process, including academic advisors, the Ombuds office, SGA student conduct advisors, the college point-person, and student legal services.
The opportunity to reject the informal process; if the student feels they have completed the work with academic integrity, they may initiate a formal hearing.
The opportunity to request more time for the processes if they want/need to consult with additional resources. Any additional time granted is at the discretion of the instructor.
Grieve a grade sanction imposed that did not follow the process outlined in the Academic Integrity Process.
Stay in class and continue to submit work during the informal/ formal Academic Integrity Process.

If formal charges are pursued, students have the right to:

A conversation with a disinterested party prior to the hearing to ensure their full comprehension of the charges.

Please see the Academic Integrity Procedures, The Academic Integrity Board, Hearing Panels, and Hearing Processes, and the Appendices for detailed information and support on proceeding with academic integrity action.

Sources: Sen. Doc. No. 25-030, Sen. Doc. No. 16-038A

Academic Regulations > Academic Grievances Policy

I. Introduction
The students, faculty and administration of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst recognize the need to provide an orderly process for the resolution of academic grievances. The following Grievance Procedure has therefore been created to meet this need. This procedure applies to all undergraduate and graduate degree programs, and all courses offered by the Amherst campus, including courses offered by the Division of Continuing Education and online courses.

NOTE: The policy is limited to academic coursework. An additional Graduate School Academic Grievance Procedure relating to issues surrounding graduate academic dismissal, involuntary transfer from a doctoral to a master’s program, extensions of the Statute of Limitations, comprehensive examinations, theses and dissertations, and other aspects of graduate students’ academic experience is detailed on the Graduate School website.

This procedure is the only official procedure for resolving academic grievances. No school, college, department or office on the Amherst campus may require any student to pursue an academic grievance through any other procedure.

Grievances which have been brought to a hearing under another campus grievance procedure shall not be brought to a hearing under this procedure. Students who file a written grievance under this procedure shall be expected to abide by the final disposition of the grievance, and shall be precluded from seeking review of the matter under any other procedure within the University.

The Provost’s Office shall be responsible for the distribution of this document. Copies shall be kept on file by all deans, department heads and chairs, undergraduate program directors and all other centers responsible for undergraduate academic advising. Additional copies shall be available upon request from the Provost’s Office, the Faculty Senate Office and the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office. Both the existence of the procedure and the role of the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office shall be summarized in the Undergraduate Catalog and the Graduate School Bulletin, and the entire procedure shall be published in Undergraduate Rights and Responsibilities and the Graduate School Handbook.

II. Definitions and Formal Procedure

Academic Integrity and Grievance Office
The Academic Integrity and Grievance Office, located in Room 613 Goodell Building is the process manager for grievances brought under this procedure. As such, the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office is responsible for ensuring that only those matters properly defined as academic grievances are pursued through this procedure, for advising all concerned parties of their rights and obligations under this procedure, for convening hearing panels, and for scheduling hearings. The Academic Integrity and Grievance Office has discretion to extend timelines. For each formal grievance which proceeds to a hearing, the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office shall maintain a confidential file open only to the student, the instructor, the Provost or designee, and the Hearing Panel.

The Ombuds Office, located in Room 823 Campus Center, is a confidential and neutral place where students and instructors can receive help weighing their options, understanding relevant policies and available resources, and receiving referrals for more formal measures when circumstances warrant. It is sometimes the case that the issue of concern can be resolved through informal mediation and the Ombuds Office can provide informal mediation services.
Definitions
Student – The student or students bringing a complaint under this procedure. This includes matriculated and nonmatriculated students registered for classes during the fall or spring semester through the undergraduate registrar’s office, the graduate registrar’s office, or the Division of Continuing Education; matriculated and non-matriculated students enrolled in classes offered during the winter session or a summer session; and matriculated graduate students on program fee.

Respondent – An employee of the university who has made an official determination with respect to the academic performance or academic record of the student. Graduate students who serve as teaching assistants or course instructors may also be names as respondents. If the grievance results from a policy which a graduate student was instructed to carry out by a faculty supervisor, then the graduate student and the faculty supervisor should be names as co-respondents. Hereafter called “instructor.”

Academic grievance – A complaint by the student alleging that the instructor has caused the student to suffer some specific harm related to the academic matter within the authority of the Provost’s Office. However, complaints that concern (1) matters of academic judgment, or (2) the substance (as opposed to the administration) of University, campus, Faculty Senate or school and College policies and regulations shall NOT be considered grievances under this procedure.

Academic Judgment – The evaluation of a student’s academic performance and the assignment of a grade as a result of that evaluation shall be considered a matter of academic judgment, and therefore not subject to a grievance except where the grade has been determined in an arbitrary and capricious manner or where the procedure used in the evaluation is found to be in violation of University policy or state or federal statute.

University policy – Any policy which has been approved by the Provost, the Chancellor, the Board of Trustees, or the Board of Higher Education or any successor board.

Arbitrary and capricious grading – (1) The assignment of a course grade to a student on some basis other than performance in the course, or (2) the assignment of a course grade to a student by resorting to unreasonable standards different from those which were applied by the same instructor to other students in that course, or (3) the assignment of a course grade by a substantial, unreasonable and unannounced departure from the instructor’s previously articulated standards.

Written notification – When notification in writing is required, this may occur by way of a suitable record of e-mail transmissions in any situation where privacy rights are not infringed by the use of e-mail according to written University policy, and where the recipient has previously provided the sender with his or her e-mail address. The word “confidential” should be inserted in the subject line of the message. Hard copies of all e-mail transmissions should be maintained by the sender. Written correspondence not done by e-mail will be sent to instructors at their departmental address, and to students at their current address as recorded at the University.
For the purpose of determining deadlines, the event which gives rise to the grievance shall be deemed to have occurred when the student may reasonably be assumed to have become aware of its existence.

C. Attempting Informal Resolution Prior to Instituting a Grievance

Students should attempt informal resolution prior to instituting a formal grievance. Assistance or advice in doing this is available from the Academic Honesty and Grievance Office.

Communication with Instructor
1. Students wanting to contest a grade that they find arbitrary or capricious must offer the instructor the opportunity to discuss the situation prior to taking any action. After receiving a grade that the student wishes to contest, he/she must notify the instructor in writing within ten business days. The instructor then has no fewer than five business days to respond.
2. The instructor does not respond: If the instructor does not respond in these five days, the student should communicate with the department head or designee for assistance in resolving the matter. The student may then decide to file a formal grievance and has fifteen business days to do so (see D. below). At this point, the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office will begin the process to organize the hearing panel and schedule the hearing.
3. As process manager, the Office has the discretion to extend timelines; if warranted, the Office may contract timelines (with the agreement of the parties) during sessions outside the regular academic year.
Informal Process
The instructor and student may agree on an informal means of resolving the matter. In the event that the instructor has left the University or is on leave, the student should bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate department head or chair or designee.
Formal Process
If no informal agreement is reached and a student wishes to file a grievance, the student must file a formal grievance by notifying the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office within 15 days of any of the following:
1. the student sends a written request to contest the grade to the instructor, the instructor does not respond within five business days, and subsequent efforts to communicate with the department head or designee were not successful.
2. the student and instructor (even after notifying the department head or designee) are unable to reach an informal resolution
3. the instructor denies the allegation, but the student continues to believe that arbitrary or capricious grading has occurred

D. Procedures for Initiating a Formal Grievance

If attempts at informal resolution are not successful, the student may initiate a formal grievance.

The student contacts the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office, 613 Goodell Building, in writing, concerning the desire to file a grievance. The student is advised about the hearing process and receives the official Hearing Request Form, if the student decides to proceed with the grievance. On the request form, the student identifies: the instructor, the grade that the student wishes to contest and the harm alleged to have been caused as a result of the instructor’s action(s). The student should describe the substance of the grievance, any steps that have been taken to try to resolve it, any evidence that might be introduced at a hearing, and the relief that the student would find acceptable. From this point on, in the absence of credible and relevant new evidence, the student’s pursuit of the academic grievance must remain consistent in content and scope with this claim, and instructor will be expected to respond only to the issues raised in this grievance.

Hearing Request Procedure: The request for a hearing must be submitted in writing to the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office on an official Hearing Request Form, as described above. The request must clearly and concisely state a description of the grade being contested; it must also indicate any remedy sought by informal resolution. The form must be signed and dated by the student.
The Academic Integrity and Grievance Office notifies the instructor of the grievance. Within two business days of receiving the student’s formal grievance, the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office sends a copy of it to the instructor, along with a notice specifying the deadlines involved. The Academic Integrity and Grievance Office begins the process of scheduling a date for the hearing, not to exceed 15 business days after the student submits the formal grievance.
A hearing on the grievance will be held within 15 business days of the student filing the formal grievance letter. If the grievance is filed with fewer than 15 business days remaining in the semester, the hearing may be delayed as long as 15 business days from the beginning of the following semester. The process may go forward during intersession or the summer if the student so requests and the instructor can be present. The student’s and instructor’s rights and obligations in the hearing process are described below. The Academic Integrity and Grievance Office will schedule the hearing, and will give the student and instructor at least ten days’ notice. The student and instructor will be responsible for notifying their respective advisers and witnesses, and shall provide the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office with their names and roles.

The student and instructor have five business days to submit any additional information he/she wants the panel to review and the Office distributes these materials to the panel three business days in advance of the hearing.

E. Hearing Panels

The Academic Integrity and Grievance Office will convene a panel to hear the grievance. Each Hearing Panel will be composed of five disinterested persons. Three will be members of the University faculty, and two will be students (of the same graduate or undergraduate constituency as the student in the case). If the instructor is a graduate student, he or she may choose to have one of the faculty members on the Panel be replaced by a graduate student who is or has been a teaching assistant or teaching associate on the Amherst campus. The members of the panel are to be appointed by the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office in consultation with the Secretary of the Faculty Senate, the President of the Student government Association, and the President of the Graduate Student Senate. One of the faculty members on the Panel shall serve as chair.

All five members of the Panel must be present at a hearing. The Hearing Panel will evaluate all evidence and arguments presented to it by the student and the instructor. The chair of the Hearing Panel will ensure that the Panel will disregard any arguments or evidence that have not been presented in the student’s formal grievance statement.

The Hearing Panel will keep in confidence all matters which come before it. Its members will not communicate with each other about the nature of the grievance or the response prior to the hearing.

F. Rules of Hearing

The Academic Integrity and Grievance Office is responsible for the reasonable implementation of these rules.

Materials available to participants: At least five business days prior to the hearing, the student and the instructor must submit to the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office copies of any materials they wish the Hearing Panel to consider, so that the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office may distribute them to the other party and the Hearing Panel for review three days prior to the hearing. Any new material submitted at the hearing will be accepted only at the discretion of the hearing panel. The party submitting the materials should provide enough copies for all parties and all members of the Hearing Panel, as well as a copy to be retained by the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office. Any materials submitted in connection with the grievance process are considered confidential.
Persons present at the hearing: Attendance throughout the hearing is limited to: the student, the instructor, a representative of the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office who will serve as staff person during the hearing, members of the Hearing Panel, and an advisor for each of the parties. Witnesses may be present at the hearing only when they are presenting evidence. An advisor may confer with and advise the student or instructor during the course of the hearing, bur may not directly address the Hearing Panel except with the consent of the Hearing Panel and the other party. This advisor may not be an attorney or an employee of an attorney, unless the opposing party is himself or herself an attorney.
Failure of a person to appear: The Hearing Panel may proceed with the hearing and make it findings and decision even in the absence of any party, witness, or advisor who fails to appear. However, the Hearing Panel may not base its findings of fact or decision on the fact that a person has failed to appear.
Evidence: the Hearing Panel need not follow technical rules of evidence, but evidence shall be admitted only if it is the kind of evidence upon which reasonable persons would rely in the conduct of serious affairs. The Hearing Panel may consider evidence presented by affidavit, giving it such weight as it deems proper. All evidence shall be taken in the presence of all members of the panel and of all of the parties, except where any party is absent by default or has waived the right to be present. The burden of proof shall be placed on the student, who must demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that one or more of the specified forms of arbitrary and capricious grading has occurred and that its occurrence has adversely affected her or him.
Presentation of the case: the representative of the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office will make a recording of the hearing. Statements from the parties will be addressed to the Hearing Panel, not to each other. The chair will ensure that the hearing does not become a debate or engagement between the two parties. The time limits noted below are considered norms; the chair has the discretion to allow extensions of time. The case will be presented in the order noted below.

The student and then the instructor will each present his or her documentary evidence and witness testimony. Panel members and opposing parties may question witnesses, through the chair. If either party wishes to put questions to the other party, he or she will submit the questions to the chair, who shall decide if any of the questions submitted would be useful to the panel’s determination, and then ask the questions of the other party. Each party will then summarize his or her position.

The hearing is considered concluded following the parties’ summaries. Recording will end when the chair asks all persons present except Panel members to leave the room while the Panel discusses the evidence and formulates its decision. If necessary, the Panel may reconvene at a later time to complete its deliberations, and the chair may be empowered by the Panel to obtain answers to questions from one or both of the parties that occur to the Panel during its deliberations.

The chair of the Hearing Panel has the authority to modify procedures during the course of the hearing to accommodate unforeseen circumstances or needs of the parties or the Hearing Panel. If the chair is unable to exercise this authority, the representative of the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office will appoint another faculty member to act as substitute chair if necessary.

The recording of the hearing will be placed in the grievance file of the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office. Either the student or the instructor may request a copy of the tape, to be made at the party’s expense. Any transcription of the recording shall be at the private arrangement and expense of the party who desires the transcript. Additional recordings of the hearing may be made by either party.

G. The Decision of the Hearing Panel

The report will state the Panel’s findings on the questions(s) in dispute, and the Panel’s decision. Both the findings and the decision shall be arrived at by a majority vote of the Panel. The chair will issue the written report of the Hearing Panel within three business days of the conclusion of the hearing. The report shall be addressed to the Provost or designee. The chair will also send a copy to the Academic Integrity and Grievance Office for dissemination to the student and the instructor within five business days.

If an instructor has been found to (1) to have engaged in arbitrary and capricious grading, or (2) to be in violation of the University policy or state or federal statute, the hearing Panel will determine an appropriate method for redressing the situation. The Academic Integrity and Grievance Office will also send the report to the appropriate administrative offices within five business days after receiving the written report of the Hearing Panel.

The Hearing Panel’s findings are final and binding on all parties.

H. Appeals

The Hearing Panel’s findings are final, and may not be appealed, except on the basis of a violation of due process.

Due Process Appeal: “A violation of due process” is defined as a failure to comply with the Rules of hearing such that the failure reasonably may have affected the decision of the Hearing Panel to the harm of the party who has appealed. If either party believes that he or she was denied due process by the Hearing Panel, he or she may appeal in writing to the Provost or designee. This appeal must be made in writing within ten business days of the release of the Hearing Panel’s report. The Provost or designee will rule on the appeal within ten business days of its submission. This procedure shall be deemed to have been exhausted once the ruling of the Provost or designee has been rendered.

III. Records of Academic Grievances

The Academic Integrity and Grievance Office (or any successor agency designated as process manager of this procedure) shall maintain the record of an academic grievance for a period of two years following the awarding of a degree to the student. If no degree is awarded to the student, the record shall be maintained indefinitely.

No record that an academic grievance has been filed may be made part of a student’s official file in a department or school or college office, except as necessary to document a grade change (if relevant).

Source: Academic Regulations, Sen. Doc. No. 17-011

Academic Grievances Policy

Academic Regulations > Academic Integrity Policy > Academic Integrity Procedures

Academic Integrity Procedures

These procedures apply to all students and instructors and other instructional staff participating in academic classes, programs, and research projects offered at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, i.e., all graduate, undergraduate, and Continuing and Professional Education programs including all online/distance learning courses.

The Academic Integrity Office

The Academic Integrity Office is responsible for maintaining records, advising all concerned parties about their rights and responsibilities under this procedure, and convening hearing panels. As process manager, the Office has the discretion to extend timelines; if warranted, the Office may contract timelines (with the agreement of the parties) during sessions outside the regular academic year. The Academic Integrity Office shall maintain records of all allegations that come to its attention, and of all hearing panel proceedings in accordance with University record retention polices.

All cases of academic integrity infractions will be handled by the Academic Integrity Office except cases involving paid or sponsored work under the auspices of a research project led by a Principal Investigator employed at UMass, then research that they conduct in that context falls under the UMass Board of Trustees Responsible Conduct of Research Policy and the UMass Amherst Research Misconduct Procedures should there be an accusation of misconduct. If a student conducts research independently as part of class or degree work, then this activity falls under the Academic Integrity Policy. With the exception of cases falling under the UMass Amherst Research Misconduct Procedures, the procedures outlined herein are the only official procedures for addressing charges of academic integrity infractions. No school, college, department, instructor, or office on the campus may impose any penalty for suspected academic integrity infractions, nor require a student to appeal, through any other procedure, except as otherwise noted in the previous sentence. Students shall not threaten, coerce, or pressure instructors to drop a charge as doing so may violate the Code of Student Conduct. Withdrawal from the course may not be used to avoid an informal resolution or a formal charge of an academic integrity infraction.

Procedures for Reporting Academic Integrity Infractions

Anyone who suspects that a student has committed an academic integrity infraction must first communicate with the student about the suspicion and intended penalty. No instructor may impose a penalty based solely on suspicion, without communicating with the student(s). Instructors should consider the seriousness of each specific incident and to recommend an appropriate sanction (see Appendix B: Infraction/Consequence Suggestions for support). If sanctions are filed, students have the right of appeal and the right to remain in the class until the issue is resolved. While a charge is pending (informal, formal, or appeal), a course grade may not be submitted. If action is pending close to the submission of grades deadline, the instructor, in consultation with the Registrar’s office, will enter a grade of NR. In pursuing allegations of academic integrity infractions, instructors are required to respect the student’s right to privacy as provided by the Family Educational Rights Privacy Act (FERPA).

Instructor-Student Outreach & Communication:

An instructor suspecting an academic integrity infraction must offer the student a reasonable opportunity to discuss the situation prior to taking any action. When an instructor suspects dishonesty they must communicate with the student(s) within 10 business days of the discovery. If the notification is by email, it must be sent to the student’s official University email address. Notification should specify that students have five business days to respond. If students feel they need more time, they must communicate with their instructor, acknowledging receipt of the notification, and provide an explanation of how much additional time is needed and for what purpose.

The instructor may seek support from the college point-person (see Appendix F: The College Point Person), especially in cases of suspicion of multiple cases of academic integrity infractions within one assignment and/or across one course. Instructors should maintain active communication with the student(s) throughout the process, even when soliciting support of the college point-person.
If the student meets with the instructor, the instructor may include the college point-person in the meeting; not including this person will not invalidate the process.

Proactive instructor-student communication: Genuine mistake/misunderstanding

Upon communication with the student, the instructor may conclude that no academic integrity infraction has occurred (See Appendix B: Infraction/Consequence Suggestions). Following such discussion, if the instructor is satisfied that no academic integrity infraction has occurred, the instructor will evaluate the student’s work as though the suspicion of an academic integrity infraction had never been raised.

If a genuine mistake or misunderstanding has occurred, the instructor may choose to ask the student(s) to re-do the assignment.
If a genuine mistake or misunderstanding has occurred, the instructor may submit a referral to the Academic Integrity Office (see Appendix E: Forms for support).
This referral is not binding and has no grade or course consequences; its purpose is to support students who may demonstrate a pattern of misunderstanding or mistake-making and will be an opportunity to provide them with additional resources.

Proactive instructor-student communication: Informal process

When the instructor and student communicate, they may arrive at an agreement to resolve the matter informally. If the student acknowledges that academic integrity infraction did occur, the instructor and student may choose to review the recommendations made in Appendix B: Infraction/Consequence Suggestions and come to a mutual agreement about the appropriate sanctions. Furthermore, instructors may consider supplemental assignments the student may complete to help them reflect upon their academic choices and ways to prevent academic integrity infractions in the future.
Instructors can only impose grade penalties via the Informal Process; no university sanctions will be imposed through the informal resolution process. No student may be forced in any way to agree to a proposed informal resolution of an allegation of an academic integrity infraction.
Informal resolutions of academic integrity infractions may not be appealed. If a student wishes to contest an allegation of academic integrity infractions rather than agree to an informal resolution, they may reject the process. The instructor will then issue a formal charge, which will trigger the hearing process.
Informal resolutions (see Appendix E: Forms for the Informal Resolution template) are to be forwarded to the Academic Integrity Office only, which will maintain a confidential record of all such resolutions. The Academic Integrity Office will maintain the Informal Resolution form. If 2 informal resolution forms are filed on one student, the Academic Integrity Office and the college point-person will reach out for further communication. If 3 or more informal resolution forms are filed on one student, the Academic Integrity Office, the college point-person, and the Dean of Students Office will reach out for further communication and possible university sanctions. The quantity of informal resolution forms will be documented over the tenure of a student’s time matriculated at UMass Amherst.

Non-communication by student

If after five business days from the initial instructor outreach the student has not responded and/or there are no known extenuating circumstances for why the student may be non-communicative, the instructor may begin the process of completing the Non Communication Form (see Appendix E: Forms).The instructor may consider reaching out to the student’s advisor and/or academic dean to see if there are extenuating circumstances that renders them non-communicative.
The instructor should attempt outreach at least one more time via email and provide the student with a limited and clear deadline for communication; if there is no response within the instructor’s timeframe, the instructor will complete and submit the Non-Communication Form to the Academic Integrity Office, with explanation of grade penalty incurred.
The Academic Integrity Office will maintain the Non Communication form. If 2 Non Communications forms are filed on one student, the Academic Integrity Office and the college point-person will reach out for further communication. If 3 or more Non Communication forms are filed on one student, the Academic Integrity Office, the college point-person, and the Dean of Students Office will reach out for further communication and possible university sanctions. The quantity of informal resolution forms will be documented over the tenure of a student’s time matriculated at UMass Amherst.

Proactive communication: Formal process

The formal process may have two separate or combined starting points:

When the instructor and student communicate, they may not arrive at an agreement to resolve the matter informally. In this case, the student and/or the instructor can reject the informal process, which will trigger the formal process.
If the instructor feels the instance of suspected academic integrity infraction is so egregious that both grade consequence and university sanctions must be applied.

To begin the formal process, the instructor must first attempt communication with the student(s). If all attempts at communication are exhausted and no agreement can be made, the instructor will file a formal charge and must notify the Academic Integrity Office of the intended sanction. The instructor may file a formal charge of academic integrity infraction by notifying the Academic Integrity Office within 15 business days of any of the following:

The student admits to the alleged dishonesty, but the student and the instructor are unable to reach an informal resolution
The student denies the allegation but the instructor continues to believe that the dishonesty has occurred
The student does not respond to the allegation by the stipulated date and the instructor finds the suspected dishonesty so egregious that penalty via the Non Communication form feels too minimal.
The instructor finds the suspected dishonesty so egregious that university sanctions seem most appropriate.

The instructor must submit written notification to the Academic Integrity Office via the Formal Resolution Charge (see Appendix E: Forms). The instructor’s notification to the Office must include a statement of the evidence that is the basis of the allegation and the recommended consequence, which may include failing the course. If the instructor believes that the alleged dishonesty infraction warrants an additional sanction, the instructor may also recommend to the Academic Integrity Office that a University sanction be imposed, including, but not limited to, a letter of reprimand, University probation, suspension or expulsion (in the case of probation or suspension, duration must be specified). A recommendation for a University sanction must include the rationale for imposing an additional sanction and requires that a hearing be held.

Please note: If an informal agreement is reached after a formal charge has been forwarded to the Academic Integrity Office, the instructor must immediately notify the Academic Integrity Office in writing that the charge is withdrawn.

The college point person

In any of the above cases, the instructor may turn over all documents and processes to the college point-person(s) assigned to the college of the instructor’s course (See Appendix F: The College Point Person). The college point- person(s) for Academic Integrity are centralized positions that supports each college and serves as a partner for instructors working through the academic integrity process.

The college point-persons are intended to support instructors. In instances where handling cases of academic integrity infractions on one’s own may have a negative impact on an instructor’s ability to continue teaching their course(s) and/or if the relationship between the instructor and the student(s) has disintegrated to a level where individual involvement may harm the process, the college point-persons will be provided with all documentation and will manage the process through the end. Instructors are encouraged, but not required, to remain an active part of the process.

The college point person is available to support any instructor who may need additional guidance throughout the process. In cases where instructors are dealing with multiple instances of dishonesty within one class/one assignment, they may submit student information and the informal resolution form to their college point-person to manage. The form will detail the infraction, the communication with the student(s), and the recommended sanction(s). In cases where the college point-person has taken over, they will meet with the student(s) to complete the process. Upon completion, the college point person (or their designee in any instance of potential conflict of interest) will submit the signed form(s) to the Academic Integrity Office. If there are instances of high quantities of infractions, the college point person may deputize persons within their college for additional support. The involved instructors may opt to stay informed about the progress of the case once it is handed to the college point-person. If the suspected academic integrity infraction goes to a formal hearing, the instructor and/or the college point-person (or their designee) may attend. Instructors need not go to the hearing, however, they will need to provide a narrative and all relevant details from which the college point-person will work. Instructors are encouraged to remain involved throughout the process; the college point-person takes on a support role for when, for example, the instructor will be unable to follow both the academic integrity process and maintain their teaching responsibilities.

Academic Regulations > Academic Integrity Policy > The Academic Integrity Board, Hearing Panels, and Hearing Processes

The Academic Integrity Board, Hearing Panels, and Hearing Processes

There shall be an Academic Integrity Board comprised of a minimum of twelve members of the full-time faculty (tenure track, tenured, or lecturers on continuous appointments), six undergraduate students, six graduate students, and six professional academic advisors.

Faculty appointments shall be made by the Rules Committee and shall include at least one faculty member from each school or college.
Student appointments shall be made by the respective governance bodies, with representation from diverse academic areas.
Each appointment shall be for a term of three years.

Members of the Board will serve on hearing panels as described below:

Hearing Panels

A Hearing Panel will be composed of five disinterested members of the Academic Integrity Board. A ‘disinterested member’ is someone from the Academic Integrity Board who will, under normal circumstances, not encounter the student on their academic path:

Three will be members of the faculty.
Two will be students of the same status (i.e., graduate or undergraduate) as the student in the case.
If the instructor bringing the charge is a graduate student, one of the instructor members on the Panel may be replaced by a graduate student who is or has been a TO on the UMass Amherst campus.
One of the faculty members on the Panel shall serve as chair.
One advisor may substitute for an instructor if there are insufficient instructors available.
A hearing may proceed with fewer than five members, but only with the consent of the student and the instructor.
For appeals which proceed during the sessions outside the regular academic year, a Hearing Panel may be composed of three members: Two faculty members one of whom will serve as chair, or one faculty member(who will serve as chair) and one academic advisor, and one student of the same graduate or undergraduate status as the student in the case.

When an instructor files formal charges and/or when a student files an appeal, the Academic Integrity Office will convene a panel to hear the appeal. The Hearing Panel will evaluate all evidence and arguments presented to it by the student and the instructor, and will inform the Academic Integrity Office of its findings within five business days of the conclusion of the hearing. No evidence in addition to that submitted to the Academic Integrity Office may be submitted at the hearing without the permission of the chair of the Hearing Panel. The Hearing Panel will keep in confidence all matters which come before it. Its members will not communicate with each other about the nature of the allegations or the appeal prior to the hearing.

Hearing Process

The Academic Integrity Office is responsible for the reasonable implementation of the following process:

Materials available to participants: At least four business days prior to the hearing, the student and the instructor should submit to the Academic Integrity Office copies of any materials they wish the Hearing Panel to consider, so that the Academic Integrity Office may distribute them to the other party and the Hearing Panel for review prior to the hearing. Any new materials submitted at the hearing will be accepted only at the discretion of the chair of the Hearing Panel.
Persons present at the hearing: In addition to the Hearing Panel, only the following persons may be present at the hearing:
1. the student(s),
2. the instructor(s) and/or the college point-person
3. Academic Integrity Office staff who will serve as administrative support for the Hearing Panel.
4. an advisor for the student and for the instructor (who may confer with and advise the student or instructor during the course of the hearing, but who may not directly address the Hearing Panel except with consent of the Hearing Panel; the advisor may not be an attorney or an employee of an attorney),
5. witnesses (who may be present at the hearing only when they are presenting evidence)
6. one non-participating observer for each party may be present at a hearing (who may be an attorney or an employee of an attorney)
7. other persons, at the sole discretion of the Hearing Panel

Please note: The Hearing Panel may proceed with the hearing and make its findings even in the absence of the student(s), the instructor(s), witness(es), or advisor(s) who fail to appear. However, the Hearing Panel may not base its findings on the fact that a person has failed to appear.

Evidence: The Hearing Panel shall base its findings on a preponderance of the evidence. The Hearing Panel need not follow the technical rules of evidence, but evidence shall be admitted only if is the kind of evidence upon which reasonable persons would rely in the conduct of serious affairs. Such evidence might include, for example, documentary evidence such as written assignments, lecture or study notes, quizzes or examinations ,and course syllabi, as well as the testimony of witnesses. The Hearing Panel may consider evidence presented by notarized affidavit, giving it such weight as it deems proper. All evidence shall be taken in the presence of all members of the panel and the student and instructor, except where either is absent by default or has waived the right to be present.
Presentation of the case: The representative of the Academic Integrity Office will make a recording of the hearing. These rules of hearing [Appendix E] will be provided to the parties prior to the hearing and no later than the materials noted in Section II:G:1.

The Decision of the Hearing Panel

The Hearing Panel will arrive at its findings by simple majority.
Findings are final and are binding on all parties unless appealed.
If the Panel finds in favor of the student, the instructor must compute the student’s grade as though the suspicion of academic integrity infraction had never been raised.
If the hearing occurs after the semester in which the allegation was raised, the course grade is to be submitted within fifteen business days.
The Hearing Panel may not impose a sanction more severe than the instructor’s intended sanction.
Any decision by the Hearing Panel to modify the instructor’s sanction will require the unanimous agreement of the Hearing Panel and the rationale for so doing shall be explained in the Panel’s report.
The chair will issue the written findings of the Hearing Panel, addressed to the Academic Integrity Office, within five business days of the conclusion of the hearing. The report will state the Panel’s findings, and, if it finds that the allegations against the student were substantiated, the sanction imposed. The Academic Integrity Office will send a written notification to the student, the instructor, and the appropriate administrative offices within ten business days.
In instances where a University sanction is considered, the Hearing Panel may recommend suspension or expulsion only by agreement of 80% or more of the Hearing Panel. If such agreement is not obtained, a lesser sanction and/or a grade of “F” for the course in question will be recommended.
If the Panel does recommend a university sanction, the final determination will be made by the Provost or designee, who will then inform the student and the Academic Integrity Office. The Academic Integrity Office will then notify the instructor and the appropriate administrative offices within ten business days.

Notification of Charges and Appeals of Charges and Sanctions

Notification of Charge of Academic Integrity Infraction

The Academic Integrity Office notifies the student of the charge and the right to appeal. Upon receipt of the formal charge from the instructor, the Academic Integrity Office will issue an official notification of the charge to the student including the right to appeal, and the timelines for doing so. The Office will send this notice and a copy of the charge to the student within five business days of receiving the instructor’s formal charge of an academic integrity infraction. Should the charge proceed to a hearing, the hearing panel cannot impose a more severe sanction than that specified by the instructor.

Appeals of Charges and Sanctions

If the student does not appeal an instructor’s allegation or intended sanction, the sanction will be implemented. If a student does not file an appeal by the date specified in the Notification of Charge of Academic Integrity Infraction, no hearing will be held, and the Academic Integrity Office will facilitate the implementation of the sanction by notifying the instructor, the Dean of Students Office and the appropriate registrar.
The student may appeal the instructor’s decision and intended sanction. If the student denies the allegation of an academic integrity infraction or wishes to appeal the penalty imposed by the instructor, an appeal may be filed with the Academic Integrity Office. This appeal must be in writing and submitted to the Academic Integrity Office within ten business days of the Office’s official notification to the student. The student’s notice of appeal should describe in detail any relevant evidence and line of argument. [See Appendix D Guidelines for communication when dishonesty is suspected.] The Academic Integrity Office will notify the instructor of the student’s appeal. A course grade may not be submitted until the appeal process has been completed. In place of a grade, the instructor should email the Registrar’s office and request that an NR grade be added to the electronic grade roster.
A hearing of the appeal will be held within 20 business days of the notice of appeal, with the goal to schedule as soon as possible. If the notice of appeal is received by the Academic Integrity Office with fewer than fifteen business days remaining in the semester, the appeal process will begin with the opening of the following semester. The process may, however, go forward during intersession or the summer if the student so requests, the instructor can be present, and Academic Honesty Board members are available.
In situations where more than one student is charged related to the same incident, appeals may be heard in a joint hearing, upon request of the students and with agreement of the instructor. In a joint hearing, the panel will consider each appeal separately and may recommend different outcomes.
A hearing will be scheduled automatically upon recommendation of University sanction(s). An instructor may recommend to the Academic Integrity Office that a University sanction (such as a letter of reprimand, University probation, suspension or expulsion be imposed in addition to a course sanction. In this case, a hearing panel must review the matter and make a recommendation to the Provost or designee.

Administration of Sanctions

The Academic Integrity Office will notify the appropriate administrative offices of the sanction for academic integrity infractions. Where a university sanction is recommended, the Provost or designee determines the appropriate sanction, taking into account the recommendation of the Hearing Panel, and authorizes its administration (e.g., by directing the Registrar to carry out the suspension or expulsion, or directing the removal of a student from academic employment). A student may repeat a course in which he/she has received a grade sanction for academic integrity infractions. However, the grade substitution policy will not apply. The grade submitted as a course sanction will continue to be counted in the student’s cumulative grade point average. No sanction will be imposed on the student until all appeals have been concluded. All appeals should be resolved within six months of the filing of the original appeal.

Appeal Options

The Hearing Panel’s judgments are final, and may not be appealed except on the basis of a violation of the Rules of Hearing or on the basis of new evidence.

Violation of the Rules of Hearing: A violation is defined as a failure to comply with the Rules of Hearing, at the hearing, such that the failure reasonably may have affected the decision of the Hearing Panel to the harm of the student who has appealed. If either the student or the instructor believes they were denied a reasonable opportunity to present their case by the Hearing Panel during the hearing, they may appeal in writing to the Provost or designee. This appeal must be made in writing within ten business days of the release of the Panel’s decision and must describe the purported violation of due process. If the Provost or designee finds on behalf of the person making the appeal, the Provost or designee will ask the Academic Integrity Office to appoint a new panel to rehear the case. The decision of the Provost or designee will be based on their review of the official record of the hearing (official recording and exhibits). The Provost or designee will rule on the appeal within ten business days of its submission. This procedure shall be deemed to have been exhausted once the ruling of the Provost or designee has been rendered.

New Evidence: In the event that new and compelling evidence not available at the time of the hearing becomes available after the Hearing Panel has rendered its decision, the student may appeal to the Academic Integrity Office for a new hearing within 90 calendar days. The appeal shall be in writing and shall include a detailed description of the new evidence and an explanation as to why the new evidence should alter the initial decision of the Hearing Panel. The Office will respond to the request within ten business days of its submission. The decision of the Academic Honesty Office on this appeal is final.

Multiple Offenses & University Sanctions

A student who is found to have committed more than two academic integrity infractions – either through admission, non-communication, failure to appeal, or finding by a hearing panel – may be subject to additional sanctions, including, but not limited to, suspension or expulsion. “More than two acts” including any combination of academic integrity infractions, including but not limited to three or more informal resolutions and/or two informal resolutions and one formal finding of an academic integrity infraction. The Academic Integrity Office will issue a University Sanction Notification and shall convene a hearing panel to make a recommendation on this matter. At such a hearing, the Dean of Students (undergraduate students) or the Dean of the Graduate School (graduate students) (or their designees) will place the matter before the Hearing Panel. Sufficient information about the incidents of academic integrity infractions at issue shall be given to the Panel such that the Panel is able to make a reasonable determination as to the appropriateness and nature of additional sanctions, if any. The Hearing Panel will submit its findings to the Provost or designee.

Records of Allegations, Appeals, and Sanctions

Allegations and charges of academic integrity infractions shall be kept confidential.
No records shall be maintained by individual instructors or academic departments.
The fact that a sanction has been imposed may not be used as the basis of any action relative to the student’s record outside of this process. Certain exceptions to confidentiality may apply if an act of dishonesty occurs in a classroom, practicum or internship where the student is explicitly bound by formal professional codes or standards. If the incident has been handled according to the Academic Integrity Policy and has resulted in an informal resolution or an uncontested or upheld formal charge,

the incident may be reported to the regulating professional organization, including Army and Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC).

If a student is found to have committed an academic integrity infraction, the appropriate Registrar (graduate, undergraduate, or Continuing and Professional Education) and the Dean of Students Office shall be notified of the sanction by the Academic Honesty Office and shall maintain a confidential record of the sanction imposed.
Records of academic integrity infractions will be maintained and disposed of according to appropriate University record retention policies. These will include sanctions administered by an instructor without an appeal from the student and sanctions administered based on a finding of a Hearing Panel.
Informal resolutions do not establish a discipline record.
University of Massachusetts students enrolled in a course through the Five College Interchange are subject to the standards and procedures in force on the campus where the course is taught. If the University is notified that a student was charged with an academic integrity infraction and found responsible under another campus’ policy, the charge will be recorded by the Academic Integrity Office as a formal charge and reported to the appropriate administrative offices as such.
When a student from another campus, including but not limited to the 5 colleges, international exchange, and study abroad, enrolled in a course at the University participates in an informal resolution or is found responsible through a formal charge, the Academic Integrity Office will report this finding to the appropriate administrative office on that student’s home campus.