Academic Case Resolution Process
Honor Council members or designees will review all written referrals to determine that a report of academic dishonesty is supported by reasonable cause.
If reasonable cause exists, the accused student will be informed in writing of the charges and shall be offered an opportunity for a preliminary meeting to review the case. The faculty member or referring party may be included in the meeting.
During the preliminary meeting, the student will be provided with a copy of the Code of Academic Integrity and a statement of procedural rights approved by the Honor Council.
If the referred student has no prior record of academic dishonesty or serious disciplinary misconduct, the student may choose to participate in an informal resolution with the referring party or designee in order to reach an agreement concerning how the case should be resolved.
The standard "XF" grade penalty will normally be imposed if the student agrees that he/she committed an act of academic dishonesty. Any other sanction agreed upon by the student and referring party or designee will constitute a recommendation to the Honor Council and must be supported by a written statement signed by the student and the referring party or designee.
If the student and referring party or designee cannot resolve the case in an informal resolution, then the case will be scheduled for an Honor Review. The Honor Review is conducted by an Honor Board, normally consisting of six persons, five of whom will be voting members. The Board will normally consist of three students, two faculty members, and a non-voting student Presiding Officer.
Honor Review Process Flowchart
Information taken from www.jpo.umd.edu