SMCM recognizes that mistakes in judgment may be a an opportunity for development and growth in the college experience. As such, the procedures and policies around academic misconduct at SMCM have room for second chances, and also work to apply sanctions incrementally based on the frequency and severity of the misconduct. All of this depends on the instructor's commitment to document and report all instances of misconduct, so that the College may ensure any chronic issues of academic dishonesty are tracked and addressed.
While faculty are obliged to report any cases of misconduct, there is considerable leeway in addressing the incident. An in-course penalty may range from a verbal warning to failing the course. For more complex matters (multiple students involved in cheating, a strongly-contested incident for which the instructor feels certain the student is responsible), the instructor may opt to request a hearing by the Academic Judicial Board (AJB).
If you're wondering whether or not to file an incident report, try this thought experiment: if you were a member of the AJB, would the documentation and explanation for this case of misconduct meet the standard of "a preponderance of the evidence," thus demonstrating that it must be more likely than not that the academic misconduct occurred? If so, this is a case that must be reported. However, if the description and documentation reads instead like "a strong suspicion," "a hunch," etc., those are more difficult to prove. When in doubt, please feel welcome to consult with the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, Katy Arnett (kearnett@smcm.edu).
First: here's the link to the College's Judicial Procedures for Academic Misconduct, included in the Student Handbook, To the Point. This outlines all definitions of academic dishonesty, procedures and policies, students' rights and responsibilities, etc. Determine if the activity you've seen meets the college's standards of academic misconduct. If so, you'll need to report it. NEW in 2023-2024: The definition of cheating has been updated to indicate that use of artificial intelligence by a student in a course where it has been explicitly prohibited by the instructor (in the syllabus) is considered a form of cheating.
Second: There are two ways to submit a report this year, as we are transitioning into an electronic platform (Maxient) for managing academic misconduct cases.
Option 1: Use our traditional paper-based process, which starts with THIS FORM (also updated for 23-24). You submit the Incident Report simultaneously as a PDF or in hard copy to both the student and to the Office of the Associate Vice President, Katy Arnett (kearnett@smcm.edu), along with any related materials to document the misconduct. Materials that are submitted using our traditional paper-based process will be added to the Maxient portal by the Office of the Associate Vice President.
Option 2: Submit directly to the Maxient portal. The questions at the Maxient portal directly mirror what is on the paper form. Attachments up to 5GB can be included in the submission, though it may take a while to fully upload. IMPORTANT: At the bottom of the form, BEFORE YOU CLICK SUBMIT, check the small box "Email me a copy of this form" to receive the copy of your answers to then share with the student (this becomes the "copy" of the original submission form you'd otherwise give the student in Option 1). Any materials used to document the misconduct can also be given to the student electronically.
Third: FOR EITHER MODE: Please explain and notate the misconduct as clearly as possible for our records and/or for the committee who many need to evaluate it. Instead of writing, "Student plagiarized passages of XYZ article," take the added step of providing the journal article and highlighting the passages you're referencing in each document.
Broadly speaking, it's the instructor's prerogative to initially decide the following, to be noted on the incident report:
whether this constitutes minor or major academic misconduct (note this is a fairly subjective discernment, and does not have a direct bearing on how possible sanctions will be applied);
whether to treat the incident as an "in-course penalty" (sanctions determined by the instructor and only applicable within the course) or to request an AJB hearing (finding of "responsible/not responsible" determined by AJB)
NB: regardless of the instructor's request to apply an in-course penalty, if the student is found to have previous academic misconduct on file, the incident will automatically be forwarded to the AJB for a hearing.
a *recommended* sanction. The AJB or the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs may opt to diverge from the faculty member's recommended sanction for the following reasons:
if the student is found not responsible by the AJB, all records of the incident will automatically be deleted from college records.
if the proposed sanction is deemed to be out of alignment with the violation, the AJB may recommend a more suitable penalty. The Associate Vice President will discuss this with the instructor to find an appropriate compromise.
if the student has been found responsible in previous incidents of academic misconduct. If, in the present case, the AJB finds the student responsible, the Office of the Associate Vice President will inform the AJB of any previous sanctions for misconduct in incidents for which they have been held responsible. In those situations, the AJB may suggest more stringent sanctions than what had been suggested by the instructor.
IMPORTANT: this is a rare incident in which FERPA does *not* cover our internal college rules of "Legitimate Educational Interest." That is, information regarding the names of those involved in cases of academic misconduct may not be divulged to other instructors, to the student's academic advisor or coach, to the department chair, or anyone not immediately involved in the incident OTHER THAN the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and, via the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, the members of the AJB. Colleagues are free to discuss the circumstances of a possible violation for the purposes of seeking advice as long as no identifying information is exchanged.
Should the College receive an external request for a reference check of a student’s academic conduct, these queries should be directed to the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs. Per the processes outlined in the Student Handbook, the Office of the AVP maintains the records for seven years from time of the incident. Such requests include but are not limited to applications for graduate programs and background checks as a condition of employment for security-sensitive work, and are made with the knowledge of the SMCM alumnus. For the purposes of external reporting, the College makes a distinction between educational and disciplinary sanctions in the AJB process, and will report only the occurrence of disciplinary sanctions to employers and institutions conducting reference checks.
An educational sanction is any in-course sanction up to but not including an “F” in the course.
All other sanctions are considered disciplinary sanctions and therefore part of the student’s official academic record.