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 within seven days of receiving written notice from the Dean of Students/designee. The Vice President may grant reasonable extensions for good cause.
B. Grounds for Appeal. Appeals are limited to the following grounds:
1. The judgment and/or sanction violate university discrimination policy;
2. Violation of rights provided in the Code in Sec. V.A.;
3. Procedural error that significantly affected the outcome of the hearing;
4. Insufficient evidence to support the finding of responsibility;
5. Excessive or inappropriate sanction; or
6. New or potentially exculpatory evidence discovered after the hearing that is not merely corroborative and could not have been discovered by due diligence.
C. Appeals of Permanent Dismissal are directed to the Provost for a complete review and do not require review by the Appeals Committee.
D. Grounds for Appeal of Early Resolutions
1. For Level I violations resolved informally, the Respondent may not 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 Course Catalog.
2. For Level II violations resolved informally, the Respondent may request an appeal limited to the sanctions issued. The Respondent also may request a grade review in accordance with the policies established in the relevant Course Catalog.
E. Appeals of Council Resolutions. Respondents may appeal the outcome of their case on the bases and according to the procedures established in this section. All appeals of honor cases will automatically be referred to the Appeals Committee. If the Committee finds merit in the appeal, it will be referred to the Provost for review. The Provost’s decision is final and may not be appealed further.
F. Appeals Procedures
1. Upon receipt of a properly filed and timely appeal, the Vice President for Student Affairs/designee will send the Respondent the list of Appeals Committee members and instructions that the Respondent may raise objections to any particular member of the Committee whom 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 Vice President/designee will determine whether there is indeed a conflict that would prevent the member from fairly reviewing the appeal.
2. The Vice President/designee 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 perceived conflict of interest.
3. The Vice President/designee 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 Vice President may 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 seven days from the time the appeal was filed unless the Vice President 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 Provost to be included among the materials for review.
7. If the Appeals panel finds “no merit,” the appeal will be denied, and this decision will be final, and no further appeal may be submitted.
G. Provost’s Review
1. The Provost may order a new hearing take place if he/she finds that the matter may be corrected upon rehearing. The Provost has discretion to order that the new hearing take place before a new panel if he/she concludes that the previous panel cannot re-hear the matter fairly.
2. If the Provost finds that the sanctions imposed are excessive or inappropriate, or not permitted by law or university policy, he/she may lessen the sanctions as appropriate.
3. If the Provost concludes that a re-hearing cannot remedy the issue, he/she may dismiss the case.
4. The decision of the Provost is considered final, and no further appeal may be submitted.