VI. ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: POLICIES & PROCEDURES

Jurisdiction over cases of alleged academic misconduct by graduate students shall be determined according to the degree program the student is pursuing.

            1.  The Honor Council

The Honor Council adjudicates cases involving students in coursework, including those in certificate, master’s, or doctoral programs and in professional graduate programs at Georgetown. The policies and procedures of the Honor Council may be found on its website.

            2.  Students Enrolled in Dual-Degree Programs

 Students matriculated in dual-degree programs pursued concurrently with another Georgetown University academic unit (e.g., the Law Center or the School of Medicine) will generally be subject to the academic disciplinary procedures described in this Bulletin when the alleged violations of academic integrity occur outside the law or medical sequence of the dual-degree program. When the alleged academic misconduct occurs within the other academic unit’s sequence of a dual-degree program, the matter will generally be adjudicated by the other unit. However, the Honor Council and the student’s School retain the right to impose sanctions on graduate students who have been found to have violated standards of academic integrity by another academic unit, and to adjudicate any case that the other academic unit chooses not to pursue. Similarly, findings of academic misconduct by students enrolled in programs governed by this policy will be reported to the other academic unit.

            3.  Students Enrolled in Consortium Courses or at Other Universities

Allegations of academic misconduct by graduate students who are enrolled at Georgetown as visitors from another university that is a member of the Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area will be adjudicated at Georgetown as described above in so far as their Georgetown transcript is concerned. If the student is found responsible for academic misconduct, in addition to authorizing any notation on the Georgetown transcript (and in addition to whatever grade may be assigned by the course instructor), the adjudicating body will provide the evidentiary materials and findings to the Georgetown University Registrar for transmittal to the Registrar at the student’s home institution per the policies of the Consortium. Under those policies, the home institution may undertake its own investigation and impose its own sanctions. Allegations that do not result in findings of responsibility for academic misconduct will not be reported to the other university.

Allegations of academic misconduct by Georgetown graduate students who are enrolled in a course at another Consortium university will be handled in a reciprocal manner. If the student is found responsible for academic misconduct by the other university, in addition to any annotations or grades placed on its own transcript, the Registrar of that university will forward the evidentiary materials to the Georgetown University Registrar, who will forward them to the student’s School for possible adjudication as described above.

Should the University receive findings of academic misconduct by a Georgetown graduate student who is enrolled at a university that is not a member of the Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area, the University reserves the right to undertake its own investigation and to impose its own sanctions.

Anyone who has reason to believe that a graduate student, including doctoral students in coursework, has engaged in academic misconduct must report the case to the Honor Council. 

Allegations of academic misconduct may be brought to the School dean’s attention at any time in the student’s academic career, even after the student’s graduation, regardless of when the alleged incident occurred. Communications regarding allegations of academic integrity fall under the protection of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA). They are to be treated as confidential information, to be shared only with those with a need to know that information.

If the allegations concern a course for which a grade has not yet been posted, the faculty member shall not grade any assignment associated with the allegations nor submit either a letter grade or an “Incomplete” for the course until the allegations have either been adjudicated or dismissed. In the intervening period, the student will receive a “NR.”

  1. Adjudication of Allegations

a. Standing Committee on Academic Integrity

JOGS will appoint a Standing Committee on Academic Integrity (henceforth, the “Standing Committee”). The Standing Committee will be composed of:

• Three faculty members, appointed to staggered three-year terms.

• One graduate student who is pursuing a Ph.D.-degree program and one who is pursuing a professional doctoral program. Each student will be appointed to a one-year term with the possibility of reappointment.

• One JOGS designee, who will serve as the non-voting Investigating Officer.

• One non-voting ex officio member of the University Research Integrity Committee, to be appointed by the Chair of the University Research Committee.

The Vice President for Graduate Studies may appoint additional faculty members or students to the Standing Committee as needed should a case brought to the Committee present possible conflicts of interest.

Faculty representatives on the Standing Committee will be drawn from the full range of the University’s doctoral programs, on the Main Campus, at the Medical Center, and in the School for Continuing Studies. JOGS shall designate a faculty member of the Standing Committee to serve as Chair.

b. Transmittal of Allegations and Decision to Investigate

When JOGS receives an allegation of academic misconduct by a doctoral student, the Investigative Officer will gather relevant information from the reporting party and will notify the student that an allegation has been received and that the Chair of the Standing Committee will assign an Adjudication Committee to review the allegations. The notice will include a copy of the allegations, any relevant supporting material, and a list of the members of the Standing Committee.

If the student is enrolled in a professional doctoral program, the notice will also include the name of a faculty member from the program or a related discipline who has no direct knowledge of the case at hand. This individual’s role will be limited to assisting the Adjudication Committee in determining whether the allegations primarily involve a breach of professional standards or of academic integrity, or some combination of the two.

The student will be informed that they have three business days to do either or both of the following:

• Submit a written statement concerning the allegation that they wish the Adjudication Committee to consider when making the initial decision about whether the allegations merit investigation. The student is encouraged to make any such written submission at this stage short, preferably no longer than one page. If the Adjudication Committee determines that investigation and further adjudication of the allegations are warranted, the student will be given the opportunity to submit an additional written response.

• Indicate their objection to having any specific member of the Standing Committee serve on the Adjudication Committee. A student in a professional doctoral program will also have the opportunity to object for cause to the faculty member proposed to assist the Adjudication Committee in determining the extent to which the allegations involve professional standards. If the student has concerns about any of these individuals serving on the Adjudication Committee, the student must notify the Investigative Officer in writing of the good faith basis for the objection within the three-day period.

After the student has been notified and had an opportunity to respond, the Investigative Officer will refer the allegations and any response submitted by the student to the Chair of the Standing Committee for assignment to an Adjudication Committee. In doing so, the Chair will consider any objection to membership submitted by the student, but the final decision regarding the membership of the Adjudication Committee will rest with the Vice President for Graduate Studies.

An Adjudication Committee shall consist of two faculty and one student member of the Standing Committee. A Standing Committee member who is mentoring a thesis in which academic misconduct has been alleged may not serve on the Adjudication Committee handling that case. Nor may a faculty member with such a connection to the student assist the Adjudication Committee in reviewing professional standards as they related to the allegations.

Each member of the Adjudication Committee will be given a complete copy of the allegation, supporting materials, and any written response to the allegation’s materials submitted by the student. If a faculty member has been named to assist the Adjudication Committee in reviewing professional standards, that individual also will be given a copy of the materials. As soon as reasonably possible, the newly-appointed Committee will caucus to review these materials.

• If the student is enrolled in a Ph.D. program, the first responsibility of the Adjudication Committee will be to determine whether the allegations could reasonably constitute a violation of the standards of academic integrity.

• If the student is enrolled in a professional doctoral program, the first responsibility of the Adjudication Committee and the assisting faculty member will be to determine whether the allegations primarily involve a breach of professional standards or of academic integrity, or some combination of the two.

If it is determined that the allegations are solely professional in nature, the Adjudication Committee will refer the matter back to the professional standards committee of the student’s program. If that committee finds the student to be responsible for professional misconduct serious enough to warrant suspension or dismissal from the program, it can recommend such actions to JOGS, in addition to whatever other sanctioning actions it may take. No further action will be taken by the Adjudication Committee and all copies of the allegations materials it received will be securely destroyed. No record of the allegations will be kept in the student’s file, unless they are resubmitted to the Vice President for Graduate Studies by action of the program’s professional standards committee.

If it is determined that the allegations, in whole or in part, might constitute a violation of academic integrity, the assisting faculty member will leave the group and those members appointed from the Standing Committee will proceed to investigate the allegations under JOGS’ normal procedures, beginning with a determination of whether the allegations could reasonably constitute a violation of academic integrity.

In either case, if the members of the Adjudication Committee determine that the allegations do not constitute a violation of academic integrity, they will return the materials to the Investigative Officer with a recommendation that the allegations be dismissed. All materials received will be securely destroyed and both the student and the individual alleging academic misconduct will be informed that the case has been closed. No record of the allegations will appear in the student’s records.

If the Adjudication Committee determines that the allegations do warrant further investigation and adjudication, the members will notify the Investigative Officer.

The Investigative Officer will send written notice to the student that an investigation has been initiated. This notice will include the names of the Standing Committee members who have been appointed to the Adjudication Committee. The student will be informed that they have five business days to (a) request an opportunity to meet with the Adjudication Committee, and (b) to submit a written response to the allegations, not to exceed ten typewritten pages. A copy of this response will be provided to each member of the Adjudication Committee.

At the discretion of JOGS, a representative from the Office of General Counsel may serve as an advisor to the Standing Committee or any Adjudication Committee.

c. Investigation of Allegations by the Adjudication Committee

Having determined that the facts as alleged could constitute a violation of academic integrity, the Adjudication Committee will initiate an investigation. The Committee may supplement the information it initially receives with any information that it deems necessary. Since the purpose of this investigation will be to make determinations of fact, it will be interrogatory rather than accusatorial in both format and approach.

If specialized knowledge is deemed necessary to investigate a case, the Adjudication Committee may ask the Vice President for Graduate Studies to appoint an appropriate expert to assist the Adjudication Committee in its investigation. The expert will serve as a consultant to the Adjudication Committee and will neither deliberate with the Adjudication Committee nor vote. Copies of any materials provided to the Adjudication Committee by such an expert will also be provided to the student.

If the student so requests, the Committee will meet with and question the student. The student may also propose relevant witnesses from whom it would like the Committee to hear. If the student wishes to propose witnesses, the student must submit their names in writing to the Adjudication Committee, along with their relationship to the student, if any, and the nature of their testimony. The Committee will decide whether to hear from these witnesses.

Because the meeting between the Committee and the student is fundamentally an academic proceeding, not a legal one, the student is expected to represent themselves, and to speak on their own behalf. The student may not have legal counsel or any other party participate in the meeting except material witnesses.  The student may be accompanied by one person, such as a friend or family member, but that individual may not participate in the proceedings. Should that person also be an attorney, they have a professional obligation to inform the Committee of their profession in advance. When that is the case, the Committee reserves the right to have a representative from the Office of General Counsel present.

The Committee may also interview additional witnesses or review any additional material that it believes would be helpful or relevant to its decision-making process. The student against whom allegations have been brought shall have the right to be present as an observer to all witness interviews conducted by the Adjudication Committee.

d. Determination of Responsibility for Academic Misconduct

The Adjudication Committee will determine by simple majority vote whether it believes the student is responsible for academic misconduct and whether it will recommend that sanctions be imposed on the student. The Adjudication Committee will deputize one of its members to report its determination of responsibility, rationale, and any recommended sanctions in writing to the School Dean, with a copy to the Vice President for Graduate Studies. 

Upon receipt of the Committee’s report, the School Dean may:

• accept the findings and recommendations of the Adjudication Committee; or

• refer the case back to that Adjudication Committee for further investigation or more detailed written explanation of its findings and recommendations; or

• reject the Adjudication Committee’s findings or sanctioning recommendations and explain the rationale for accepting a different interpretation of the facts or imposing different sanctions.

The School Dean will provide the student against whom the allegations have been made with a written statement of the final decision and, as appropriate, any recommended sanction. The School Dean’s letter imposing sanctions for academic misconduct will become part of the student’s permanent file held by JOGS.

A one-page summary report of the facts of the case and its outcome will be provided to the Standing Committee. These summaries will be maintained in a sanction precedent file by JOGS and will contribute to the body of precedent to guide future adjudication committees in establishing appropriate sanctions for comparable violations of academic integrity.

  2. Sanctions

Sanctions for PhD students found in violation by a Graduate Adjudication Committee may include, but are not limited to, a transcript notation, suspension or dismissal from the University, and revocation of degrees already granted.

If the Adjudication Committee finds a doctoral student responsible for academic misconduct, it will recommend a sanction to the School Dean, who determines the sanction and conveys the decision to JOGS for processing. The student’s department or program must comply with any such sanctions communicated to them.

The following notations may be placed on the student’s transcript:

• Suspension will be noted as “Suspension for Academic Misconduct”

• Dismissal will be noted as “Dismissal for Academic Misconduct"

• Revocation of a previously awarded degree will be noted “[Degree] revoked for Academic Misconduct”

Transcript notations will remain a permanent part of the student’s record.

  3. Appeals

A doctoral student who has been found responsible for academic misconduct shall have the right to appeal those findings as well as any sanctions that may have been imposed.

Appeals of findings or sanctions will be considered only if the student is able to demonstrate either that new evidence has become available since the case was considered by an Adjudication Committee or that they were harmed by substantial procedural irregularity in the process. Such requests must be filed within thirty days of the date of the letter imposing penalties and must include a description of the grounds for appeal. Dissatisfaction with the decision is not in itself sufficient grounds to warrant granting an appeal.

A student whose sanction includes termination from a degree program should refer to Section III.G.

  4. Accommodations

Georgetown University is committed to ensuring an inclusive and equitable environment for individuals

with disabilities. If any party or witness has a medical condition or disability and believes they may require a reasonable accommodation in order to participate in any part of the academic integrity process, the party must notify the Investigative Officer and submit a written request to the Director of the Academic Resource Center as early as possible to ensure the University has sufficient time to review and process the accommodation request. The request will be reviewed in accordance with the University's policies.