2025-26 Honor Code

I. Purpose

A. The university's Honor Code is based upon the premise that a person's honor is their most cherished attribute. In a community devoted to learning, a foundation of honor among individuals must exist if that community is to thrive with respect and harmony among its members. An Honor System is an ideal mechanism to ensure such a state of affairs. With it, students and faculty are afforded a freedom that otherwise cannot be available. With this freedom comes each individual's responsibility to conduct themselves in such a way that the spirit of mutual trust which sustains the system is not compromised.

B. While we endeavor to create a climate of honor that is self-sustaining, it is imperative that all members of the community work to uphold the Code. Reasonable precautions by instructors to deter violations are not incompatible with the letter or spirit of this Code provided that they respect students’ right to privacy and non-discrimination. Students, faculty, administrators, and other members of the community are encouraged to take action when they believe that any person may have violated the Honor Code; although failure to take action is not, in itself, a violation of the Honor Code, it detracts from the community of trust.

II. Authority

1. Non-Degree-Seeking Student: a student who is not enrolled as a degree candidate in any specific academic unit will be subject to the Honor Council associated with the course in which the violation is alleged to have occurred, if the violation is associated with a particular course, or the Undergraduate Honor Council if the matter is not associated with an academic course.

2. Joint Degree-Seeking Student: for students declared as joint degree seeking, the matter will be subject only to the authority of the Council in which the alleged violation occurred, if the violation is an academic matter. If the violation is non-academic, the joint degree Respondent can elect to have the matter referred to the Honor Council of either of the academic programs in which the Respondent is enrolled.

III. Definitions

A. Academic matter: any work, required or volunteered, that is a) submitted to a faculty member, b) submitted for publication in a university-sponsored or university-affiliated academic publication, or c) submitted for use in conjunction with a university-sponsored event or activity.

Attempt: any act beyond mere preparation carried out with the intent to engage in conduct that violates the Honor Code. Attempted violations can be sanctioned in the same manner as completed violations. A student need not complete the intended act in order to be held accountable. 

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: the amount of proof required to find a student in violation of the Honor Code. Reasonable double is doubt based upon reason and common sense that is based on the information presented at the proceeding. Reasonable doubt is not doubt created in order to avoid the unpleasant duty of finding a student responsible. 

Designates: all administrators involved in the honor process can designate subordinates to carry out their responsibilities. 

Dishonorable conduct: an act of cheating, lying, or stealing that adversely affects the university community.

Inconsequential conduct: conduct that is of too minimal a scope to affect the university community. 

Intent: an act that is not the result of an accident. A student acts with intent if the student carries out an act knowingly and voluntarily; one need not prove that the student intended a particular result or particular harm in order to establish intend under the Code of Conduct or the Honor Code. 

Principal parties: the Respondent and Reporting Party

Respondent: the student reported for engaging in behavior in violation of the Honor Code

Reporting Party: the party reporting the matter for review by the Honor Council. The Reporting Party need not be the individual who directly witnesses, or was affected by, the alleged conduct (e.g., an instructor in whose curse a student observes academic cheating, or a student who discovers that a classmate has submitted an inflated grade point may serve as the Reporting Party). 

SARP: Student Accountability & Restorative Practices

Working Days: any day that the university is open for business and classes are in session, exclusive of weekends and holidays. 

IV. Administrative Procedures

1. The university’s undergraduate student body and the six Graduate/Professional Schools (Arts & Sciences, Business, Computing, Data Science, and Physics, Education, Law, and Marine Sciences) have their own Honor Councils responsible for:
   • Overseeing their own operations, including recruiting, selection of Co-Chairs and other leaders, and maintaining standards for continued involvement in the Council
   • Ensuring that the Council has valid and updated Bylaws governing its operations
   • Educating its student body regarding Honor Code expectations and procedures, and
   • Ensuring that all entering students, upon matriculation, execute a pledge to abide by and uphold the Honor Code.

B.  Honor Code Report Resolution Bodies

1. The Undergraduate Honor Council manages the resolution process for all cases involving undergraduate students
2. The Law School Honor Council manages the resolution process for all cases involving students in the School of Law
3. A Consolidated Case Resolution Body manages the resolution process for graduate/professional students in the following schools: Arts & Sciences, Business, Computing, Data Science, and Physics, Education, and Marine Sciences
   • The Case Resolution Body consists of seven students from each of the five aforementioned graduate/professional schools (35 total)
   • If a case results in an Honor Panel, the panel reviewing the case will consist of five members of the Case Resolution Body, at least three of whom must be from the Respondent’s school.

1. A student governing body for each academic unit will:
   • approve the procedures for selecting and removing its Honor Council members and qualifications for continued service on that Council
   • approve amendments to the Code on behalf of its students as outlined in Sec. XIII.
2. The governing bodies are as follows:

• Undergraduate: the undergraduate members of the Student Assembly Senate
• Arts and Sciences: the Graduate Student Association (GSA)
• Business: the MBA Association in conjunction with the MAC Council
• Education: the Education Association in the Graduate School of Education
• Law: the Student Bar Association
• Marine Science: the Graduate Student Association in the School of Marine Science 
• Computing, Data Sciences, and Physics: the Graduate Student Association (GSA)

1. The Honor System Advisory Committee's responsibilities consist of the following:

• reviewing and recommending changes to core provisions of the Code (see Amendments)
• approving amendments to procedural provisions of the code (see Amendments)
• establishing the presumptive initial levels of sanction for each category of violation in consultation with the Council of each academic unit
• issuing periodic guidance to the Councils, students, and faculty on issues pertaining to interpretation and application of the Code
• assisting with efforts to educate the university community regarding the Code
• assessing the climate of academic integrity
• reviewing concerns and grievances about the system
• responding to evolving challenges regarding honor and integrity
• publishing each semester a brief summary of cases in a manner that does not identify the student, to include the charges, a short summary of the case, the findings, and sanctions imposed; this summary is to be provided to student media publications and posted on the Honor Council website

2. The Honor System Advisory Committee's composition is as follows:

1. Two undergraduate students nominated by the President and approved by the Student Assembly Senate serving a one-year renewable term;
2. One graduate/professional student nominated by the President and approved by the Student Assembly Senate serving a one-year renewable term;
3. The Undergraduate Honor Council Chair or another member of the Undergraduate Honor Council designated by the Chair to represent it;
4. One graduate/professional Honor Council Chair selected by the group of graduate school chairs;
5. The Director of SARP/designee;
6. Two faculty members nominated by the President and approved by the Faculty Assembly (one with a role in teaching graduate/professional students) serving two-year renewable terms;
7. One administrator with current or previous Appeals Committee experience nominated by the President and approved by a majority of the other members of HSAC

1. The Chairs of the other six graduate/professional Honor Councils (aside from the voting member designated above)
2. The Chair of the Undergraduate Student Conduct Council or another member of the Student Conduct Council designated by the Chair to represent it
3. The Chair of the Conduct/Honor Advisors Program (CHAP) or another member of CHAP designated by the Chair to represent it

V. Rights and Duties*

 A.   Rights and Duties of the Respondent

1. Right to Freedom from Harassment and Retaliation: The right to be free from harassment, intimidation, and coercion, including attempts to change any person’s previously provided information. Any violations of this right can be considered a serious violation of the Student Code of
2. Right to Notice
   • The right to preliminary written notice of the nature of the allegations received from the Reporting Party as soon as practical and not less than one week in advance of a proceeding.^[1]
   • The right to subsequent written notice of the formal allegations and of the date, time and location of any proceeding no fewer than 72 hours in advance of the The panel cannot find the student responsible for allegations other than those reasonably embraced within the original alleged violations.
   • If a student, after being properly notified of the date, time, and location of the proceeding, does not appear, the Council can proceed proceeding in the absence of the
3. Right to Know the Information to be Presented: The Respondent will have the opportunity to inspect, review and request copies of all documentary information to be considered by the panel at least 72 hours prior to the The Respondent can be required to sign an agreement that they will not make copies of or disseminate the work product of an instructor or other materials containing information about other students that are protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and must return the materials immediately after the proceeding. The Respondent will be instructed that failure to abide by the agreement can be considered a serious violation of the Student Code of Conduct.
4. Right to Assistance

5. Right to Confidentiality: The Respondent has the right to confidentiality regarding all matters related to the alleged violations.^[3] Violations of that right can be considered an infraction of the Code of Conduct

6. Right to Receive Notification: The right to be notified of the outcome of the proceeding following review by SARP and prior to the commencement of the appeal period.

7. Right to Continue Course Attendance and Participation: The Respondent will continue to enjoy the right to attend courses, including the course in which the alleged violation occurred, until a finding of responsibility is found, and the appeal process is completed. However, the university will not award any degree or academic credit until the process is completed. Students who have been suspended are not allowed to participate in university activities during the appeal period without the permission of the Vice President for Student Affairs. Students found not responsible for the reported violations will have the option to withdraw from the course in which the violations were reported.

8. Right to Timely Resolution: Generally, honor reports should be resolved within 30 working days of the date the Council receives the report; this timeline can be extended by the Chair, with approval from the Director of SARP, for cases which require extended investigation or in which extraordinary circumstances arise. If the Council cannot resolve a report within the 30-day time period and no extension has been granted, the Director of SARP can resolve the matter informally with the agreement of the Respondent. If the Respondent is found responsible for the reported violation(s), the student retains all options to appeal contained in Section XII.

9. Rights within the Panel Proceedin

a. The right to the presumption that the Respondent is not in violation until the panel has found the student in violation by evidence beyond a reasonable
b. The right to a separate proceeding on each alleged violation if multiple and unrelated allegations have been
c. The right to request a separate proceeding if two or more students are alleged to have committed the same violation(s).[4]d. The right to present information relevant to the allegations and, if necessary, possible sanctions and to request the presence of necessary SARP staff can assist in procuring the presence of student witnesses upon request.[5] The Presiding Chair can limit the number of witnesses if the Chair finds the proposed statements will duplicate that of the other witnesses or the proposed statements are immaterial. The Respondent can submit written statements from witnesses in lieu of personal appearances.
e. The right to ask relevant question of all witnesses.
f. The right to a closed proceeding and the right to request an open proceeding.

10. Right to be Free from Conflict of Interest

a. The right to have the Reporting Party or witnesses barred from participating in the matter in any other capacity.^[6]
b. The right to request that a Council member be removed from the case on the grounds of possible bias or conflict of interest. The Respondent must provide reason as to why the Council member in question is unable to hear the case fairly, and the decision whether to grant the request is left to the Council’s Chair, who, where such a request is rejected, will provide a written explanation.

11. Right to Prepare for Appeal: The right to review the documentary evidence and recording in preparation for appeal. The review must occur in the presence of at least one Honor Council member or member of SARP staff.

12. Right to Waive any Rights: The Respondent has the right to sign a knowing and voluntary waiver of any of the rights accorded in the Honor Code. 

13. Duty to Cooperate: The Respondent will cooperate reasonably with the investigation and, if necessary, any proceeding. This duty includes answering questions fully and honestly and presenting requested information; however, the Respondent has the right not to answer questions if the Respondent is facing charges in criminal court for the same or similar behavior.^[7] Lying in the course of an investigation or proceeding can be considered a separate violation of the Honor Code. This duty also includes complying promptly with requests for meetings or information.

B.      Rights and Duties of the Reporting Party

1. Right to Freedom from Harassment and Retaliation: The right to be free from harassment, intimidation, and coercion, including attempts to change previously provided information. Any violations of this right can be considered a serious violation of the Student Code of Conduct.
2. Duty to Preserve Confidentiality: The Reporting Party will keep all matters regarding the honor case confidential except from those who have a legitimate educational interest in the information under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.^[8]
3. Right to Know the Outcome of the Case: Faculty reporters will have the right to know the outcome of the case, both following the proceeding, and if applicable, the appeals process. This right does not extend to providing faculty with access to all case materials. Due to the protections afforded student records, this provision does not extend to those who do not have a legitimate educational interest in receiving the information.
4. Right to Know Grounds for Dismissal of Case: Faculty reporters will have the right to know the basis for dismissal of a particular case, regardless of the stage at which the case is dismissed, if such knowledge serves a legitimate educational purpose.
5. Right to Request Student not Participate in End of Semester Evaluations: A faculty member who reports a student for a potential violation of the Honor Code will have the right to request that the student be excluded from conducting a formal end of semester evaluation.
6. Duty to Cooperate: The Reporting Party will cooperate reasonably with the investigation and, if necessary, proceeding. This duty includes answering questions fully and honestly and presenting requested information and complying promptly with requests for meetings or information.

C.   Rights and Duties of Witnesses

1. Right to Freedom from Harassment and Retaliation: The right to be free from harassment, intimidation, and coercion, including attempts to change previously provided information. Any violation of this right can be considered a serious violation of the Student Code of Conduct.
2. Duty to Preserve Confidentiality: Witnesses will keep all matters regarding the honor case confidential.
3. Duty to Cooperate: Student witnesses will reasonably cooperate with the investigation and, if necessary, the proceeding. This duty includes answering questions fully and honestly and presenting requested information; however, the witness has the right not to answer questions if the witness is facing charges in criminal court for the same or similar behavior.^[9]  Lying in the course of an investigation or proceeding can be considered a separate violation of the Honor Code. This duty also includes complying promptly with requests for meetings or information.

D. Rights and Duties of the University and the Council

1. The university has the right to have its own counsel present when a student chooses to have legal counsel present.^[10]
2. Members of the Council will have the right to be free from harassment and retaliation.
3. The university and the Council have the duty to treat all parties fairly and with respect.
4. Pending final disposition of a case, the university has the right to withhold the awarding of academic credit for any courses taken during the term in which the alleged violation occurred and/or to withhold the awarding of an academic degree.

E. Students with Disabilities

The university is committed to providing reasonable accommodations for students with documented disabilities. Such accommodations can include, but are not limited to, administrative assistance, additional time, and/or an alternative to the formal proceeding. Students with disabilities who need reasonable modifications to address a suspected violation of the Honor Code are encouraged to meet with the Director of Student Accessibility Services (SAS) as early in the process as possible to identify and plan specific accommodations. SAS staff will ask the student to provide medical documentation. The Director of SAS will inform the Council of appropriate accommodation(s).

[1] Written notice includes notice by letter delivered to the student’s residence and/or email delivered to the student’s official William & Mary email account.

[2] The student advisor for undergraduate students must be undergraduate students; graduate and professional students can consult an undergraduate student advisor.

[3] All parties will keep matters confidential except from those who have a legitimate educational interest in the information under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Examples include the instructor of the course in question or members of the SARP staff who serve as advisors to the Council.

[4] The Chair can deny a request for a separate proceeding in cases where the student is unable to distinguish their case from the others referred or in extraordinary circumstances, such as if a matter involves a large number of respondents and separate proceedings would be impractical. If the Chair denies the student’s request, the Chair must provide the student with a written explanation of the basis for the denial.

[5] If a witness fails to appear, the Presiding Chair will determine whether the proceeding should proceed in the witness’s absence, and the Respondent can appeal the Chair’s decision through the Appeals process.

[6] For example, when the Director of SARP is the Reporting Party, that person would not also conduct the post-proceeding review or provide advice to the panel or Presiding Chair.

[7] The Respondent should make the Chair aware of any reasonably foreseeable criminal charges during the investigation phase, and the Chair can deem an assertion of this right improper if the party was aware of pending charges and failed to make the Chair aware until the proceeding. One cannot assert the right not to answer questions solely in order to protect another.

[8] Examples include faculty supervisors and members of Student Affairs staff.

[9] The party should make the Chair aware of any reasonably foreseeable criminal charges during the investigation phase, and the Chair can deem an assertion of this right improper if the party was aware of pending charges and failed to make the Chair aware until the proceeding. One cannot assert the right not to answer questions solely in order to protect another.

[10] The University’s counsel can include the University’s legal counsel or a member of the SARP staff. Students must notify the Chair of the presence of legal counsel at least 48 hours prior to the proceeding, and the Chair retains the right to bar any legal counsel from the proceeding if sufficient notice has not been provided.

 * The list of rights and duties is provided as an addition to other enumerated rights outlined in the Honor Code.

VI. Honor Code Violations*

A student violates the Honor Code if the student engages in dishonorable conduct as defined below. The Honor Code will be applied reasonably in accordance with the examples below. Examples of proscribed conduct are meant to be instructive and not all-inclusive.

A. Lying:

The presentation of false information with the intent to deceive. Lying includes, but is not limited to:

1. Misrepresenting oneself or one's accomplishments for the purpose of gaining an academic advantage or an advantage in opportunities for employment or other co-curricular opportunities;
2. Falsifying university documents including alteration or forgery;
3. Providing false or misleading information to Honor or Student Conduct members during the course of an investigation or proceeding of an alleged violation of the Honor Code or Student Code of Conduct. The Council can refer allegation of lying within this context can be charged as a separate violation. 

B. Stealing:

Knowingly taking or appropriating the property of another, including property of the university, without the rightful owner's permission and with the intent to permanently or substantially deprive the owner of the property. One does not receive rightful permission if it is induced by fraud or deception. 

C. Cheating:

1. Plagiarism: the presentation, with intent to deceive, or with disregard for proper scholarly procedures of a significant scope, of any information, ideas or paraphrasing or another as if they were one's own without giving appropriate credit to the original source.
   1. One commits plagiarism when one includes the words of another without quotation or when one includes the substantive work of another without properly crediting the source with footnotes, quotation marks, or other appropriate citation.
   2. The panel can infer from a student's intent based on the extent and context of the improperly cited material and whether the student has provided false citation or has manipulated the original text such that a reasonable person would conclude the student did so in order to avoid detection. 
   3. The instructor can address disregard for properly scholarly procedure that is minimal in scope solely as an academic matter and can determine whether an academic penalty should be applied without pursuing resolution under the Honor Code. However, the instructor should treat any intentional acts of plagiarism or disregard for scholarly procedure of a significant scope as violations of the Honor Code and address them under the resolution processes outlined below. 
2. Unauthorized Assistance/Collaboration: giving unauthorized aid to another student or receiving unauthorized aid from another person on tests, quizzes, assignments, or examinations. Unauthorized assistance includes providing information to another about an assignment or examination prior to the conclusion of the administration of such exams/assignments to all related sections of the course unless permitted by the instructor. 
3. Use of Unauthorized Materials: using or consulting unauthorized materials (including electronic materials) or using unauthorized equipment or devices on tests, quizzes, assignments, or examinations. 
4. Unauthorized Dual Submission of Previous Academic Work: using any material portion of a paper or project to fulfill the requirements of more than one course unless the student has received prior permission to do so from the appropriate instructor(s).
5. Time Constraint Violation: intentionally commencing work or failing to end work on any examination, test, quiz, or assignment to the time constraints imposed. 
6. Directions Violation: failing to follow instructions for an assignment or examination despite knowing or having reason to know that such conduct could result in an unfair academic advantage. 

*Specific application of these policies can vary by department or school, and schools, departments, and/or faculty are encouraged to make all students within their programs aware in advance of the particular expectations of their students. Students are expected to be responsible for knowing University, school, departmental and individual instructor policies regarding the Honor Code. 

VII. Reporting Violations

A. Timeline for Addressing and Reporting: Alleged academic cheating or lying violations must be addressed and reported within 30 calendar days of discovery unless the Director of SARP/designee finds good cause for delay. Allegations of non-academic lying or stealing must be addressed and reported within four months of discovery unless the Director finds good cause for the delay and determines that a fair proceeding may be held despite the delay. Once a party officially reports an alleged violation, the party cannot withdraw the complaint unless the Chair agrees such withdrawal is appropriate.* 

B. Good Faith Requirement: The Code is not designed to be a tool of harassment. The Chair of the appropriate Council can decline to pursue allegations that appear to be motivated by personal animosity, and students alleging misconduct without a good faith basis to do so can be charged with an Honor violation or with "Abusing the Conduct System" under the Student Code of Conduct.

C. Initial Discussion: Prior to pursuing a suspected violation under the Code formally, the Reporting Party must make a diligent and good-faith effort to discuss the matter with the alleged violator, preferably in person. This discussion should occur as soon as practical after the Reporting Party observes or learns about the alleged violation, as specified in Timeline for Addressing and Reporting above. The Reporting Party should request a truthful explanation of the suspected violation, reminding the Respondent of the obligation to uphold the Honor Code. If the student offers an explanation that satisfies the Reporting Party that no violation has occurred, both parties are to move forward as though there is not violation. If, however, the Reporting Party remains concerned that a violation has occurred, or if despite good faith efforts an initial discussion between the parties is not held, the Reporting Party should pursue the matter under the Early Resolution Procedures or Honor Council Resolution Procedures below. 

*An example would be when another person accepts responsibility for the alleged violation.

VIII. Early Resolution Procedures 

A. Early Resolution under the Honor Code: In participating academic units,* a faculty member can propose early resolution of suspected Level I and II Honor Code violations (see Appendix I) directly to the student rather than refer the matter to the Honor Council. An instructor considering this option contacts the Director of SARP (prior or subsequent to an initial conversation with the student (see "Initial Discussion" above) for guidance on the level of conduct at issue, the student's eligibility for early resolution (which can be restricted due to previous Honor or serious Conduct violations), and the sanctions available (see Appendix I). 

B. Early Resolution Proposals (Undergraduate Students)

1. Level I Violations: The instructor proposes a grade consequence and an educational requirement in accordance with Appendix I. 
2. Level II Violations: The instructor proposes both a grade consequence and referral to the Honor Council for additional sanctions in accordance with Appendix I. 
3. Level III Violations: Level III Violations are eligible for early resolution on a case by case basis determined by the Chair and a member of the SARP staff. If deemed eligible, the incident will be referred to the Honor Council for a panel proceeding on additional sanctions in accordance with Appendix I. If not, the incident will be referred to the Honor Council for investigation and, if necessary, a proceeding to resolve the matter. 

Early Resolution Process (Undergraduate Students)

1.  An instructor who chooses to offer Early Resolution informs the student of the student's option to consult with SARP staff and of the right to consult a student advisor prior to agreeing to the proposal.
2. An instructor who chooses to offer Early Resolution reports the proposal to SARP.
3. SARP will summarize the suspected violation(s) and proposed sanction in writing, and the student has one working day to decide whether to accept the instructor's proposed resolution.
4. If the student agrees to the proposed resolution, SARP will provide a copy of the agreement to the instructor, the Honor Council, and the student. The matter of the violation will then be resolved through the following steps, and no subsequent appeal is available (although the Respondent can appeal any additional sanction imposed by the Honor Council in Level II violations under Appendix I). 

a. The Chair will convene an Early Resolution Panel consisting of the Presiding Chair and two Honor Council members.

b. The Respondent may request a student advisor (CHAP) to attend the meeting with the Early Resolution panel.

c. The Panel will meet with the Respondent and can consider information regarding the violation, but the primary focus of the proceeding is on issues regarding determining appropriate sanctioning and educational measures.

i. The Reporting Party may attend a portion of the panel to provide more information about the violation's extent and harm created by the violation. If the Reporting Party declines to participate in the proceeding, the Presiding Chair may request additional information and/or documents (e.g., course syllabus or the assignment in question) regarding the violation if more information is necessary for a panel to make a sanction decision.

d. After meeting with the Respondent, the panel will write a sanctions rationale no later than the next working day. Any sanctions will require the support of at least two of the three panel members.

e. If the Presiding chair determines that a case cannot be resolved through this process, the Chair will refer the matter for investigation and resolution via other means available in the Honor Code.

5. If a student contests the suspected violation and/or declines the Early Resolution proposal, the instructor reports the alleged violation to SARP.

6. An instructor who chooses not to offer Early Resolution reports the alleged violation to SARP. 

7. If the student is not enrolled in the course that was allegedly compromised, the instructor handles the matter under "Honor Council Resolution Procedures" under Section IX. 

*Early resolution is an option only for undergraduate students and graduate students in the School of Business and only for defined Levels of Violations. The Council for each graduate/professional school, in consultation with the Honor System Advisory Committee, decides whether to make early resolution for violations involving Respondents enrolled in that school. Please see the School of Business Honor Council's website for details regarding its Early Resolution Process. 

IX. Honor Council Resolution Procedures

A. Referring to the Honor Council

If after initial discussion with the student, the Reporting Party remains concerned that a violation may have occurred (and provided an Early Resolution agreement under Sec. VIII.  is not possible), the party submits a report through SARP to the Chair of the appropriate Honor Council within five working days (or longer, provided the latter finds good cause for the delay).

Upon receipt of the report, the Chair will notify the Respondent of the alleged misconduct, inform the Respondent of the right to receive the assistance of a student advisor*, and provide the Respondent with a list of current Council members, as well as instructors for the Respondent to indicate whether the Respondent believes any member of the Council would be unable to render a fair decision based on the facts and circumstances presented.**

B. Reporting to the Honor Council or Resigning from the University 

Upon receipt of a report of alleged violation, the Director of SARP will confirm that the Reporting Party has made the Respondent aware of the concern regarding possible violation, has provided the Respondent the opportunity to offer an explanation for the alleged conduct, and/or has made a good faith effort to do so. In the case of a good faith effort, SARP will not forward a case to the Council until at least two working days have passed without reply by the Respondent. 

1. Resignation: The Respondent will have the option of resigning from the university within two working days in lieu of the Honor Council investigating and resolving the matter(s) reported. The Respondent can meet with the Director of SARP/designee to discuss options before making a decision. Resignation is an agreement that the student will leave the university within two working days and will not seek or receive re-enrollment at any point in the future as a student in any program. In the case of resignation, SARP will place a permanent notation on the student's transcript: "Resigned under suspicion of an honor code violation: ineligible to return." The student must sign a form letter provided by SARP indicating the intention to resign and the understanding of the terms attendant with resigning. 

C. Honor Council Chair's Obligation to Report to SARP 

The Chair will immediately notify SARP of any reports of alleged violation received by that Council

D. Determining Authority

1. Alleged violations of both the Honor Code and Student Code of Conduct: If the alleged misconduct involves possible violations of the Honor and Student Conduct codes, the Director of SARP/designee will determine which forum, Student Conduct or Honor, is appropriate to resolve the charges. In any case, there can only be one proceeding to resolve the matters asserted. The Director's decision is final and cannot be appealed. 
2. Proper Authority: Before commencing an investigation, the Chair must first determine that the Honor Council has proper authority to address the matter. Proper authority results when the alleged conduct reasonably constitutes a possible violation of the Code, the alleged violation was committee while the person was a student as defined in the Student Handbook, and the matter asserted is not inconsequential. The Chair must disclose the decision regarding jurisdiction to the Reporting Party, the Respondent, and the council within two working days. If the Chair finds that the Council does not have proper jurisdiction for any of the above reasons, the Chair will submit a 1-3 line summary of the matter, to be maintained by the Director, and dismiss the case. All other records of the matter will be destroyed within two weeks of the decision.

E. Informal Resolution

1. Upon receipt of a report alleging violation(s) of the Honor Code, the Direct or SARP will confer with the Chair of the Honor Council to determine whether the reported matter is appropriate for possible resolution via Informal Resolution. If so, SARP will send the student notice of a scheduled Information Session meeting during which the Director/designee and the Presiding Chair will inform the student of their rights under Section V. of the Honor Code and will provide: a copy of the report submitted, the Respondent's resolution options, the deadline for the Respondent to indicate whether the Respondent desires a possible Informal Resolution or an investigation to commence. The Respondent will have two working days to decide whether to pursue an Informal Resolution. If the Respondent does not respond within two working days, the Presiding Chair will refer the matter to the Investigation Committee for investigation. The Respondent will have the option to waive the two working-day period for decision and, if the Respondent chooses, can proceed with an Informal Resolution during the Information Session meeting.
2. If the Respondent chooses an Informal Resolution, the Director/designee will schedule a meeting to include the Presiding Chair and the Respondent. The Respondent can bring a student advisor to the meeting; this advisor can be any currently enrolled student who is of the same academic status as the Respondent (e.g., an undergraduate student can bring an undergraduate student advisor, and a graduate student can bring a graduate student advisor). If the Respondent and Chair agree to a written summary of facts, and the Respondent waives further investigation and a Panel in writing, the Respondent can resolve the case informally with the Presiding Chair. The Chair will determine whether the matter can be resolved with a finding of responsibility, whether the case should be dismissed with a finding of "not responsible", or whether the matter should be referred for investigation and resolution via the Council's standard processes. The Chair can conduct further investigation as necessary to make the determination as to whether Informal Resolution is appropriate. 
3. If the Chair finds the Summary of Facts supports a finding of responsibility for one or more violations, the Chair will provide the Respondent written notice of this finding and will assign sanctions/educational measures. The notice will provide the Respondent with information regarding the option to appeal the findings and sanctions, but the Respondent cannot challenge previously agreed upon facts in an appeal
4. If the Presiding Chair determines that a case cannot be resolved through an informal process, the Chair will refer the matter for investigation and resolution via other means available in the Honor Code.
5. The Presiding Chair will inform the full Council in the writing of any case resolved via Informal Resolution within three working days. This notice will contain the allegations, the agreed-upon Summary of Facts, and sanctions (if any), and, if the case was dismissed, the rationale for the decision to dismiss.

F. Investigations

1. Upon determining that the Council has proper authority, the Chair will determine whether the nature of the reported matter can be resolved through the Informal Resolution Process or if the matter requires a formal investigation.
2. Prior to the start of the investigation, the Chair/designee will appoint a Presiding Chair, an Investigating Committee Chair, and one other member of the Council; this group ultimately will determine whether there is sufficient information for a panel to conduct a more thorough review of the matter and that the matter at issue is legitimately embraced within the proscribed conduct outlined in the Code.

3.  If the Chair determines an investigation is necessary, the Chair will appoint an investigation team to investigate the matter. Based on the complexity of the matter asserted or the number of possible witnesses involved, the Chair can appoint the number of investigators necessary to conduct a timely and thorough investigation. The investigation team's responsibilities include interviewing necessary witnesses and collecting and preserving other necessary and relevant information.

4. The ICC will provide the parties with two working days to respond in writing to provide relevant documents and witnesses to interview.

   • In consultation with the Director of SARP/designee, the Investigating Committee will determine which documents and witnesses are to be included in the investigation. This determination will be based on what information and witness testimony will provide relevant and non-duplicative information.
     • Relevance is determined by assessing what possible violations of the Honor Code are implicated by the report, and, if there are multiple proposed witnesses, which of those witnesses are best positioned to provide reliable information that is not unnecessarily duplicative.
   • The ICC will notify the parties in writing within three working days which witnesses the Investigation Committee will contact and which documents will be included in the investigation report. If the Committee is declining to include any of the offered documents, or to interview any of the witnesses offered, the ICC will provide the written rationale for the decision to the parties.
     • If the Investigating Committee declines to call any witnesses proposed by the Respondent, the Respondent may provide further justification, in writing and with specificity, as to why the witnesses and/or documents should be considered.

5. The Investigating Committee will prepare an investigation report detailing the significant facts and information gathered in the investigation. The report will not contain opinions regarding whether the student has violated the Code, regarding witness credibility, or regarding the reliability of any information provided, although the report can point out consistencies or inconsistencies between witness statements and/or other available evidence. The report also will include statements regarding what pertinent issues appear to be in dispute.

6. Both the Reporting Party and the Respondent will be provided the opportunity to submit written statements to be included in the investigation report prior to its completion.

7. The Investigating Committee Chair will share the draft report with both the Reporting Party and Respondent and will provide them three working days to review the report and offer any suggested edits, corrections, or additions.

8. The ICC will share the final report with both parties within three working days of completion. In general, the investigation report should be completed within fourteen working days unless the Chair grants an extension in writing for good cause shown. The Chair must notify the Reporting Party and the Respondent of any extension and deadline for completion of the investigation.

 G. Panel Authorization Determination

1. Within three working days of receipt of the final investigation report, the Presiding Chair and the Investigation Committee Chair will review the investigation report and determine if sufficient information exists to refer the matter to a panel. 
2. If the Presiding Chair and ICC do not agree as to whether the matter should be forwarded to a Panel, the third designated member will review the matter and offer the deciding vote.
3. When the final decision is made, the Presiding Chair will document the decision by providing a brief written statement outlining the decision and its bases and, if forwarding the matter to a Panel, the primary information and formal allegations to be presented at a Panel. The Presiding Chair will provide the statement to the Chair, the Director of SARP, the Respondent and the Reporting Party. The decision is final and cannot be appealed.[FN]

^{[FN] If the Vice President determines that consequential new information has arisen regarding a case that has been dismissed by a the Committee, the Vice President can refer the matter to the appropriate Council for a new investigation and, if warranted, a new proceeding.}

H. Panels

1. Notice

a. At least 72 hours in advance of the Panel the date, time, and location of the Panel, the Presiding Chair will:

1. Inform the Respondent and Reporting Party in writing of the Panel date, time, and location, the alleged violations to be heard, and the relevant Honor Code violations the Panel will consider.
2. Provide the parties with a copy of the alleged violations that will be addressed at the panel and an overview of the Panel process.
3. Provide the Respondent with options to either accept or deny responsibility for each allegation to be considered by the Panel.
4. Provide the parties with a sample copy of the Panel script.
5. Advise the Respondent that, if they desire, they can submit an opening statement, limited to two pages, to be included in the records reviewed by the Panel. The opening statement must be submitted no later than 24 hours prior to the Panel. There will be no oral opening statements at the panel proceeding.

2. Type of Panel Conducted

The Respondent can elect in writing to accept the findings of the report and accept responsibility for the alleged violations. 

• Student Not Challenging Alleged Violation: If the student accepts responsibility for the violations in writing as specified above, the panel will hear information about the violations but will focus primarily on the issue of sanctioning and educational measures.
• Student Challenging the Violations: If the student does not accept responsibility for the violations, or if the student does not respond, the panel will focus first on the issue of whether the student violated the Code and, if so, what sanctions and educational measures should apply.

3. Procedures for Reports Received During or After the Last Two Weeks of a Semester or During the Summer Session

a. For a reported violation received within the last two weeks of the fall or spring semester or during a summer session, if Informal Resolution (Sec. IX, E) is not applicable, and if the Council cannot assemble a full five-person panel, it can assemble a three-member panel instead. The panel will observe all customary procedures; a finding of responsibility and sanctions will require the concurrence of at least two out of the three members. All Rights and Duties apply under Section V. apply.

• For a Respondent scheduled to graduate at the end of the semester in which the alleged violations originate, the three-member panel is the only means of resolution available should the Council be unable to assemble a full panel. If the alleged violation is reported to have occurred after the last day of classes, including during Commencement, and the student is scheduled to graduate, the university will hold the student's degree pending resolution of the alleged violations.
• In all other cases, the Respondent can choose to proceed with the three-member panel or request that the Chair or designee defer resolution. Provided the Chair determines that such a deferral would not preclude a fair proceeding due to the loss of relevant information or unavailability of witnesses, the Chair will convene a full five-member panel at the beginning of the next fall or spring semester (The Respondent can appeal the denial of a request to defer under Sec. XII.B.3.). SARP can place a hold on the student's records pending resolution.

• Five-Member Panels: In normal circumstances, panels will be comprised of five Honor Council members appointed by the Chair/designee
• Three-Member Panels: When the Chair/designee is unable after reasonable efforts to assemble a full five-person panel, the Chair/designee can schedule a proceeding before a three-personal panel of Council members. In such cases, a finding of responsibility and determination of sanctions will require the concurrence of at least two out of the three panel members. All other customary panel procedures will be observed, and all Rights and Duties under Sec. V. will apply.
  • Rather than proceed with a three-person panel, the Respondent can request that the Chair or designee defer resolution until the Chair can assemble a full five-person panel. Such deferment may extend until the start of the next fall or spring semester. The Chair/designee can deny the request if the Chair determines that there is a reasonable probability that deferring the panel would result in the loss of relevant information or unavailability of necessary parties or witnesses. If the Chair denies the request, the Chair must provide the Respondent with a written explanation of the basis for the denial, and the Respondent can appeal the Chair's denial of the request to defer in accordance with Section XII.B.3.
  • The Chair will serve as Presiding Chair of the panel unless the Chair designates another Council member to serve in that capacity. The Chair/designee will appoint one member of the panel to operate the recorder and type notes during the proceeding.**** The Chair cannot appoint any member of the investigation team  to serve on the panel.*****

5. Rules of Evidence: Panels will be conducted in an equitable manner so as to provide fairness to the principal parties and all other interested parties. As Honor Code processes serve primarily as means of educating students, formal rules of evidence employed by the Courts of law do not apply to Honor Code proceedings. The panel can consider information that does not come from a first-hand source, although a finding of responsibility will not be premised solely on such information. Results from lie detector/polygraph tests are not permissible. 

6. Timeline: Panels will be conducted no sooner than a) one week from the time the student was originally informed of the allegation or b) 72 hours after the Respondent is formally notified of the PAC decision and the alleged violations, whichever time period is longer. The panel will not occur more than two weeks after this notification unless that Chair has granted an extension for good cause. Panels will not be conducted in conflict with religious holidays or practices of the principal parties and should be scheduled, to the extent feasible, to accommodate the schedules of the principal parties.

7. Location of the Panel: Panels will be conducted in an environment that provides an appropriate level of confidentiality. 

8. Requests for an Open Panel: The Respondent will enjoy the right to have the panel closed to the public unless the Respondent waives this right in writing at least 72 hours prior to the proceeding. The only persons permitted in a closed panel are the Honor Council members involved in the panel, the Respondent, witnesses during their portion of the proceeding, and, if chosen, the Respondent's student advisor, one silent supporter, and one immediate family member. The student advisor, silent supporter and family member will not serve as witnesses in the panel. A request for an open panel does not necessitate a change in its ordinary location. The Presiding Chair can close an open proceeding for the following reasons: a request is made by one or more students in a case were two or more students face alleged violations arising from the same incident; a Reporting Party can demonstrate that an open panel would violate their rights; or if the open panel results in disruption of the process or raises safety or security concerns. The Presiding Chair must announce the closing and the reasons for closing the proceeding on the record, and the Respondent can appeal on this basis if the Respondent can establish that this decision may have affected the outcome of the case.

9. Conduct of the Panel: The proceeding normally will consist of distinct phases: the "responsibility phase," during which the panel will consider evidence regarding whether a violation has occurred and the "sanctions" phase, during which the panel will consider information related to what sanctions/educational measures to issue.

• Where the Respondent is challenging the alleged violations, a finding of responsibility will require at least four of the five panel members deciding that the information presented establishes the Respondent's responsibility for the violations beyond a reasonable doubt. 
• The Presiding Chair will exercise control over the proceedings and the conduct of all persons participating in or observing the proceeding. The Presiding Chair also makes determinations regarding the relevance or admissibility of information and can limit questions that are repetitive or unlikely to produce new information. 
• The proceeding will begin with the Presiding Chair reminding all parties that the proceedings are confidential unless the Respondent has requested an open panel and the Chair has granted that request. 
• The Presiding Chair will read the alleged violations and ask the Respondent to indicate whether the Respondent is accepting responsibility for each violation.
• A member of the investigating team will present the results of the investigation and call witnesses as necessary to provide the panel with information required to make an informed decision. A member of the investigating team, the panel members, the Presiding Chair, and the Respondent and the Respondent's advisor will be permitted to question the Reporting Party and all witnesses.
• The Respondent will be permitted to present relevant information.
• A member of the investigating team, the Presiding Chair, and the panel members will be permitted to question the Respondent and any witnesses.
• Following presentation of all information, the Presiding Chair will remind the panel of the duty to evaluate carefully the evidence presented in order to determine whether a violation has occurred and that a finding of responsibility requires a vote of at least four of the five panel members finding proof beyond a reasonable doubt. All panel deliberations will occur in private, and the panel can consult the Presiding Chair or the Director or SARP with questions about interpretation of the Code, case precedent, or procedural matters.
• If the panel finds the Respondent responsible for at least one violation, it will conduct the sanctions portion of the proceeding during which the panel will determine the appropriate sanctions/educational measures for the violation(s). The panel will consider the gravity of the violation, the impact or potential impact of the violation on the community, and actions necessary to remedy the violation. The panel also may consider extraordinary circumstances present at the time of the violation that impacted the Respondent's actions and any aggravating factors such as a prior record of violation or the Respondent's failure to cooperate fully with the process. The sanction will require the support of at least four of five panel members. The sanctions phase usually will occur on the same day, although it can be postponed for good cause and scheduled as soon as possible (with the same panel composition) thereafter, but not more than seven calendar days unless approval is granted by the Director of SARP.
• Following the determination of sanction, the Presiding Chair will inform the Director of SARP of the sanctions in writing, including a statement affirming that the sanctions were supported by at least four of the five panel members. The Director will arrange for a Sanctions Delivery meeting with the Respondent and the Presiding Chair (if available) not more than three working days after the conclusion of the proceeding.
• The Panel Secretary will prepare a summary report of the proceeding, including the decision of the Honor Council. The Secretary will delivery the case file, the proceeding notes, and the panel's decision and rationale to SARP, typically by the end of the next working day. The record will consist of the audio recording of the proceeding and the tangible information presented. 

1. Upon Receipt of a report of a suspected violation involving five or more students, the Chair will have the option of employing the following plan for resolution of the cases in place of the ordinary resolution process.
   1. Initial Meeting
      1. The Presiding chair will send written initial notifications to all Respondents that will include all information that would be covered in an initial meeting, including the relevant information and options under this Large-Scale Resolution Process.
      2. If a Respondent, after receiving the letter, wishes to meet to discuss the report, the student can schedule a meeting with the Presiding Chair and a Procedural Advisor. 
      3. The investigation phase will begin automatically. 
   2. Investigation
      1. Within four working days of receipt, the Investigating Committee Chair (ICC) will complete a preliminary investigation to the extent the ICC deems warranted and will determine whether further investigation is necessary. The ICC also will provide the Respondent with the opportunity to submit any relevant information and/or the Respondent's explanation/narrative regarding the incident.
      2. If the ICC determines further investigation is necessary, the investigating committee will investigate the matter using its ordinary investigation procedures. 
   3. Panel Authorization Committee (PAC)
      1. After the IC completes its investigation, or determines that further investigation is not necessary, the Chair will appoint a three-member Panel Authorization Committee (PAC) to determine whether sufficient information exists to offer a Large-Scale Case Resolution to each student reported. 
         1. The PAC will determine which of the student cases will be eligible for the Large-Scale Case Resolution Process. 
         2. For those cases determined to be eligible for the Large-Scale Case Resolution Process, the PAC will develop a summary of the facts of the incident and the sanction to be offered to eligible Respondents. 
      2. If the PAC finds that there is insufficient information in any particular student's case, it will close the case with no violations. 
   4. Resolution Proposal
      1. The Presiding Chair will present the PAC's proposed agreement and sanctions/educational measures to a Panel composed of three members of the Council not previously involved in the matter. 
      2. If the panel concludes that the proposed agreement is acceptable, the Presiding Chair will have appropriate authorization to offer each Respondent the proposed agreement in writing. The Respondent will have 48 hours to indicate whether the student accepts the proposed resolution.
      3. By accepting the agreement, the student both agrees to accept responsibility for committing the violation(s) and accept the proposed sanctions/measures. For students accepting the agreement, the sanctions/measures will go into effect immediately upon acceptance. The Respondent will not have a right to appeal, and the agreement will be considered final. If the student rejects the proposed agreement or fails to respond within the 48-hour period, the Chair will refer the case for a Panel in accordance with the standard procedures outlined in Section X.
      4. Once a student opts not to accept the proposed agreement or fails to respond within the 48-hour period, the student no longer will be eligible for the Large-Scale Case Resolution Process. 

*Graduate and Professional students can opt to request the assistance of trained undergraduate student advisors if desired.

**Respondents must document in writing the reasons they believe a member is unable to fairly hear the case, and the Chair will promptly respond in writing the decision and, in the event of a denial, the basis for the decision.

***If the Vice President determines that consequential new information has arisen regarding a case that has been previously dismissed, the Vice President can refer the matter to the appropriate Council for a new investigation and, if warranted, a new proceeding.

****Panel notes are not a verbatim transcript. The notes and recording will remain the property of the University.

*****No member who has served on the investigation team will be appointed to the panel. If insufficient members from the Council are available for the panel, the Chair may appoint to the panel other members of the student body of the academic unit in which the Respondent is enrolled. These appointees must receive advance training from SARP prior to hearing the case. 

X. Sanctions/Educational Measures

A. Initial Level

The presumptive initial levels of sanction for each category of violation defined in Sec. VI are established by the Honor System Advisory Committee (see Appendix I) in consultation with the Councils. Those levels can be different for undergraduates and students in each graduate/professional program. 

B. Sanctions Phase

Following early resolution of a Level II violation or a finding of responsibility in an Honor Council proceeding, the panel will determine the appropriate final sanction(s)/educational measures to assign. It will consider extraordinary circumstances or aggravating circumstances by evaluating the facts and circumstances of the violation, the gravity of the violation(s), the harm/potential harm created by the act, and the student's prior record of Honor or Code of Conduct violations. The Council can assign any of the primary sanctions listed in the Sanctions section of the Student Handbook and any combination of secondary sanctions/educational measures including, but not limited to, loss or restriction of particular privileges, community service, an essay, restitution, or other reasonable sanctions.

C. Written Finding

All sanctions/measured decided by a panel must be accompanied by written findings that explain why the panel determined them to be appropriate. The panel must establish in this rationale any significant deviation from the initial presumptive sanction level in Appendix I (or, in the case of the Graduate Honor Councils, other such appropriate guidelines).

D. Grade Determination

1. An instructor can assign a grade consequence up to, and including, a failing course grade if the student either accepts a proposal for Early Resolution or is found in violation by the Honor Council. Following a proceeding, the Honor Council can recommend a grade consequence, but the instructor retains the final decision regarding the student's earned grade. If the student receives a failing grade as a result of an academic integrity violation, that grade will remain on the transcript even if the student has withdrawn, or has been withdrawn from the course, and regardless of whether the student retakes the course.
2. In some cases, the alleged misconduct can be found not to be a violation of the Honor Code, but instead can be considered a failure of the student ot understand or abide by the instructor's directions for the assignment. In such a case, the faculty member can assign a grade consequence proportionate to the violation of directions on the instructor's own authority independent of the Honor Code.

XI. Post-Panel Review Procedures

A. SARP Review

Upon receipt of an Honor Council's written finding of responsibility, the Director of SARP will commence a review of the case, including the case documents, panel notes, rationale of the panel, and, if necessary, the proceeding recording.

1. If the Director finds that the judgement and/or sanctions/educational measures were discriminatory or that material prejudicial procedural error occurred that significantly affected the outcome, the Director can set aside the judgment and, if the error can be corrected by referring the matter for a new proceeding, order that the matter be reconsidered.
2. If the Director finds that the sanction is impractical or cannot be implemented under law or university policy, the Director can modify the sanction.
3. Sanction Modification: The Director's decision to modify the sanction will be provided in writing to the Respondent and the Chair of the Honor Council; the student can appeal the division to modify the sanction. The Director will summarize the outcome of the case in an official letter to the Respondent. 

XII. Appeals Procedures

A. Timeline for Appeal: The Respondent must submit a written appeal specifying the ground(s) for appeal and the reasoning supporting the grounds to the Vice President for Student Affairs (VPSA) within five working days of receiving written notice from the Director of SARP/designee. The VPSA can grant reasonable extensions for good cause. 

B. Grounds for Appeal

Appeals are limited to the following grounds:

1. The judgement and/or sanction/educational measures violate university discrimination policy;
2. Violation of rights provided in Section V.A.;
3. Procedural error that significantly affected the outcome of the proceeding;
4. Insufficient information to support the finding of responsibility;
5. Excessive or inappropriate sanction; or
6. New or potentially exculpatory evidence discovered after the proceeding that is not merely corroborative and could not have been discovered by due diligence. 

C. Appeals of Permanent Dismissal

The Director will forward appeals of Permanent Dismissal to the Provost for a complete review and not require prior review by the Appeals Committee. 

D. Grounds for Appeal of Early Resolutions

1. For Level I violations resolved via Early Resolution: the Respondent cannot appeal the violation or the sanctions issued; however, the Respondent will retain the option of requesting a grade review in accordance with the policies established in the relevant Academic Catalog. 
2. For Level II violations resolved via Early Resolution: the Respondent can submit an appeal limited to the sanctions issues. The Respondent also can request a grade review in accordance with the policies established in the relevant Academic Catalog. 
3. Appeals of Council Resolutions: Respondents can appeal the outcome of their case on the basis and according to the procedures established in this section. The Director will refer all appeals of Honor cases automatically to the Appeals Committee. If the Committee finds the appeal merits further review, the Committee will refer it to the Provost/designee for review. The Provost's decision is final and cannot be appealed further. 

1. Upon receipt of a properly filed and timely appeal, the Vice President for Student Affairs (VPSA) will send the Respondent the list of Appeals Committee members and instructions that the Respondent can raise objections to any member of the Committee who the Respondent believes has a conflict of interest to review the case. The Respondent will be required to state the reason for conflict of interest with specificity, and the VPSA will determine whether there is indeed a conflict that would prevent the member from fairly reviewing the appeal.
2. The VPSA will promptly notify the Appeals Committee members of the name of the Respondent, the Reporting Party, and material witnesses in order to permit the members to recuse themselves from serving on the panel if the member has a real or presumed conflict of interest. 
3. The VPSA will appoint a four-member panel, composed of one faculty member, one administrator, and two students from the Respondent's academic unit, to review the student's appeal. Should temporary Appeals Committee members be required, the VPSA can make the necessary appointments. 
4. The Appeals panel will review the Respondent's appeal letter, the case file, and any other records it deems advisable
5. The panel will render its decision within five working days from the time the Respondent submitted the appeal unless the VPSA authorizes a reasonable extension for good cause.
6. The Appeals panel will determine whether the Respondent has made a claim that has potential merit, and if so, the panel will submit its brief rationale to the VPSA to be included among the materials for review by the Provost.
7. If the Appeals panel finds "no merit," the appeal will be denied, and the decision will be final, and no further appeal can be submitted.

F. Provost Review

1. The Provost can order a new proceeding take place if the Provost finds the matter can be corrected via a new proceeding. The Provost has discretion to order that the new proceeding take place before a new panel if the Provost concludes that the previous panel cannot re-consider the matter fairly.
2. If the Provost finds that the sanctions imposed are excessive or inappropriate, or not permitted by law or university policy, the Provost can lessen the sanctions as appropriate. 
3. If the Provost concludes that a re-consideration via a new proceeding cannot remedy the issue, the Provost can dismiss the case. 
4. The decision of the Provost is considered final, and no further appeal can be submitted. 

XIII. Amendments

A. Approval of Processes for Review

The Honor System Advisory Committee must approve each governing body's procedures for approval or rejection of any proposed Code changes.

B. Amendments to Core Provisions of the Code

Sections I-III, V-VII, X and XIII are considered core provisions of the Code. Proposals to modify core provisions can be submitted to the Honor System Advisory Committee from any Council or any member of the university community and should be accompanied by an explanation and/or rationale. Preliminary approval of core provisions requires the assent of at least 7 of the 10 voting members. Following preliminary approval, the Director of SARP will forward the proposals to the governing bodies of each Council which will have at least one month to consider and vote upon the recommendations. All six governing bodies must approve proposed recommendations, and, if so, the Director will submit the proposals to the President who will render the final decision. Proposals that do not garner the approval by all six governing bodies or the President will be returned the Honor System Advisory Committee for reconsideration, and the Committee will have the option to amend the proposals and resubmit them to the governing bodies. The governing bodies will be granted at least two weeks to reconsider any previously rejected proposal.

C. Amendments to Procedural Provisions of the Code

Sections IV, VIII, and IX as well as the Appendices are considered procedural provisions. Procedural provisions can be received and approved by the HSAC with the assent of at least 7 of the 10 voting members. No further review is required. 

D. Amendments to Council Bylaws

Each Honor Council will maintain Bylaws governing the internal operation of the Council, the qualification of members and their manner of selection and removal.

Councils will submit changes to its Bylaws to the Honor System Advisory Committee. The Committee will review the proposed changes and, in a timely fashion, indicate whether it approves of the changes or has reservations with them. If a majority of Committee members indicates reservations, the committee will convene to discuss the proposed changes. By a majority vote, the Committee can accept, reject, or revise and return the proposals to the Council for reconsideration. 

Honor Code Appendix I: Levels of Undergraduate Violations- Cheating

*Table is adapted from Tufts University's Academic Integrity Policies

 Honor Code Appendix II: Levels of Undergraduate Violations- Lying and Stealing

*Determination of the level of violation is made by SARP in consultation with the Chair of the Honor Council; a written rationale for that determination is made available to the Respondent.