Graduate Student Academic Integrity

The Graduate Student Academic Misconduct Policy describes two phases for addressing suspected academic misconduct by graduate and professional students: An early resolution phase and a committee-led investigation phase. Throughout both phases, the Graduate Division serves as an impartial consultant to ensure consistency, equity, and adherence to due process.

All information related to a case is evaluated through the preponderance standard, which means more likely than not, or a 51% likelihood. Reaching a preponderance for alleged academic misconduct issues can be complicated at the graduate level due to increased specialization in subject matter, amongst other reasons. Graduate level academic misconduct should be taken extremely seriously given that our graduate students are expected to have completed their bachelors with an understanding of ethics and integrity that they carry to their graduate education. 

When an instructor suspects that a graduate student has committed an academic integrity violation, they must first discuss their suspicion with their chair or dean and with the director of Graduate Academic Conduct and Climate before attempting to resolve a suspected academic misconduct case.

If you are faculty suspecting of graduate student academic misconduct, please note the following:

• Faculty are responsible for notifying their chair/dean and the Graduate Division if they suspect a case of academic misconduct.
• Faculty should always presume that a graduate student is not responsible for an alleged violation unless the student openly admits or is determined to be responsible after a preponderance of evidence.
• Faculty may not take any punitive action against a student upon suspicion of misconduct or during the pending resolution of an allegation.
• If grades need to be submitted, faculty must utilize a temporary notation of “RD” (Review Deferred) on the grade roster during the pending resolution of an allegation.
• Faculty have sixty (60) days to report an incident of suspected academic misconduct.

When an instructor suspects academic misconduct, it is imperative that they move through the resolution process with the presumption that the student is not responsible. During this process, it is crucial to inform the student about their available options. Successful early resolution relies on clear communication channels, allowing the graduate student to provide a thorough response to the suspected academic integrity violation.

Early resolution of a suspected case of academic misconduct may be documented with an Early Resolution Form (ERF). This form is an agreement between the student, the instructor and the dean or chair. If you are an instructor who wants to document an early resolution, you must reach out to the director of Graduate Academic Conduct and Climate. 

During an early resolution process, the Academic Unit may not direct any actions that may affect the student’s academic status.

Academic sanctions (i.e. class grade reduction or assignment fail) can be imposed on the graduate student only after a student has accepted responsibility for the violation and the academic sanction that is recommended by the instructor.

No further actions are required if a graduate student is found to not have engaged in academic misconduct during the early resolution process.

If a graduate student does not agree with the allegation brought forward by the instructor or does not consent to the sanction(s) proposed by the instructor, a formal hearing process, which takes place as a committee-led investigation, must be initiated if the instructor wants to charge the student. 

Academic units (schools, colleges, departments, or graduate groups) can adopt the policy so that they can engage in the resolution of suspected graduate student academic misconduct cases locally to meet professional and collegial standards. The following academic units have internally adopted the policy to adjudicate suspected graduate student academic integrity violations locally. 

• School of Information
• Haas School of Business
• Graduate School of Journalism
• Vision Science Graduate Group 

If you’re interested in adopting the policy locally, please contact the director of Graduate Academic Conduct and Climate. 

• If you suspect a case, report it to your chair or dean and the Graduate Division to make sure the student does not have a prior record. This meeting is also intended to assist the Academic Unit in approaching the matter following professional standards.
  
• Presume the student to be not responsible for the misconduct until they admit responsibility and withhold on giving academic sanctions. 
• Notify the student of your suspicion. 
• Make sure the student shares their side of the story. In this notification, refer the student to this website AND provide them copy of the student fact sheet 
• Make sure the student shares their side of the story. 
• Make sure to ask for documentation that clarifies the student’s actions and give them a deadline to submit the documents.
• Refer the student to this website AND provide them with a copy of the student fact sheet. 

The Graduate Division oversees allegations of graduate student academic misconduct matters. Other behavioral conduct issues are overseen by either the Center for Student Conduct or OPHD, or other administrative offices depending upon the nature of the matter.

The Berkeley Campus Code of Student Conduct administered by the Center for Student Conduct is more attuned to adjudicating cases of academic misconduct by undergraduate students. Academic and professional graduate students have different pedagogical norms and expectations, and this policy is intended to provide greater nuance to the investigation and adjudication process.

The policy outlines two different phases in the approach to the resolution of suspected graduate academic misconduct — an early resolution phase and a committee-led investigation phase — where the Graduate Division is a consultant throughout the process. When an instructor suspects that a graduate student has committed academic misconduct, they must first discuss the allegations with their chair or dean and with the Graduate Division to confirm that the student does not have a prior record of academic misconduct. If the student does not have a prior record, then the faculty member may attempt to resolve the suspected academic misconduct by discussing it with the student. This is considered the informal phase. If the student has a prior academic misconduct record, if the student and faculty member do not agree on whether misconduct occurred, or if the student or department chair/dean disagrees with the sanction, then a formal investigation is initiated. During the formal phase, a committee of at least three faculty will conduct a hearing to investigate the allegation (the student may challenge the membership of this committee) and, if the student is determined by a preponderance of evidence to be responsible, decide upon the appropriate sanction(s).

If an Academic Units adopts the Graduate Student Academic Misconduct Policy locally, suspected cases within the Academic Unit will be adjudicated within the Academic Unit. Other suspected cases will be adjudicated by the Graduate Division. If an allegation made under this policy has a connection to federal funding or the alleged misconduct occurs in connection to research intended for publication or dissemination outside the University (e.g. a doctoral dissertation or a journal article) it is considered Research Misconduct and is addressed by the Berkeley Research Misconduct Policies and Procedures.

Anyone may “Report an Incident”. All graduate academic misconduct cases are reported to the Graduate Division.

A student may be notified informally by email or in person by the individual filing a complaint, which would initiate the beginning of an informal resolution process. Cases that need to be resolved through a committee-led investigation are notified to the student with an Alleged Violation Letter (AVL) sent via email to the most recent email address in file with the University.

An AVL will include a statement about when and where the alleged violation occurred and what allegedly happened. It will also include members of the committee responsible for investigating and conducting the hearing, a specific statement of the sanction(s) that may be applied, and a proposed timeline for the completion of the academic misconduct process.

We recommend graduate students contact the Graduate Division via email [email protected] to schedule an appointment if they have questions about the process. Those who receive an AVL will have a date set on the letter to respond to the allegations. Students can schedule a meeting with the Graduate Division prior to responding to the AVL.

Students have a right to be accompanied by an advisor through the adjudication process. They also have a right to ask for the University to provide them an advisor. The advisor may not be involved in the complaint. The advisor may not represent or speak for the graduate student. The graduate student must participate on their own behalf. The advisor may provide assistance to the graduate student in preparing for and participating in meetings.

Students can reach out to the Center for Support and Intervention which provides Respondent Services for students or former students going through a conduct process. Students can additionally seek advice from Student Ombuds Services by calling (510) 642-5754 and/or the ASUC Student Advocate’s Office by calling (510) 642-6912.

Students may use the services of an attorney as an advisor. This means the attorney may not represent or speak for the student during the adjudication process. The attorney may assist the student, like an advisor, in preparing responses to official notifications and/or preparing and participating in meetings.

If a student admits to violating University policies and/or campus regulations, or is determined to be responsible after a committee-led investigation, they should expect to be sanctioned. Sanctions range from a warning to dismissal from the University. The Graduate Division strives to ensure that imposed sanctions are appropriate to the violation.

If a student is able to provide a plausible explanation for the circumstances that led to the allegation and if there is evidence to support that claim, the matter will likely be dropped. However, if the student denies the allegation, and in the judgment in their case, there is evidence indicating that the student is responsible, their case will be investigated by a hearing committee (the Committee).

The Committee consists of an odd number of faculty members (min. 3, one external to the department/unit if the Committee is appointed by the chair/dean) who is responsible for the investigation and hearing. The hearing process is generally conducted in the form of an investigation. The Committee is responsible for collecting testimony, documents and other information regarding the alleged academic misconduct. The Committee is not required to conduct the hearing at a specific time (except when the resolution of the allegations depends upon the credibility of a witness or witnesses, and the appropriate sanction for the academic misconduct could include suspension or dismissal); in fact, the hearing will generally take place as a series of interviews and the collection of relevant documents.

The Graduate Academic Misconduct policy stipulates that a graduate student alleged to have engaged in academic misconduct is not responsible for such violations unless the student admits responsibility or it is determined through the process and procedures set forth by the policy by a preponderance of evidence to have engaged in academic misconduct. 

The standard of proof for all hearings is a preponderance of evidence. A preponderance of evidence is defined as “more likely to be true than not.”

The process will continue with or without the student’s involvement and a decision will be reached based on the information that is provided to the hearing committee. The student may not use a refusal to participate as a later ground for appealing a decision.

Records are confidential and are typically kept for five (5) years from the completion of the incident. At the end of the five years or after a student has graduated, records concerning most cases are destroyed. Cases that resulted in an outcome of dismissal are kept indefinitely.

In compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), all conduct records are considered confidential records, with exceptions noted in FERPA. Only those persons authorized by the student or by the Graduate Division may have access to these records.