Student Rights & Responsibilities Academic Integrity Procedures

The procedures below outline how academic integrity concerns are identified, addressed, and resolved at TC3 to support implementation of TC3’s Academic Integrity Policy. The procedures emphasize clarity, fairness, proportionality, and timely resolution, while supporting student learning and maintaining consistency across academic and professional settings.

I. Roles & Responsibilities

A. Students

Students have the right to clear and well-communicated academic expectations; fair, consistent, and proportional treatment; access to support and resources that promote the development of academic and professional integrity; a transparent process with timely resolution of academic integrity concerns; and the opportunity to appeal an academic integrity finding or sanction in accordance with this policy. Students also have the right to participate in the periodic review of this policy through shared governance processes, including representation through the Student Government Association. Students are responsible for:

  1. Engaging honestly with all academic and professional learning activities.
  2. Seeking clarification when unsure about assignment expectations, appropriate use of sources, AI tools, collaboration, or citation practices.
  3. Maintaining professional conduct during clinical, fieldwork, internship, or applied learning experiences.
  4. Following course-, program-, and placement-specific integrity expectations as stated in syllabi, assignment prompts, handbooks, and professional guidelines.
  5. Documenting their writing or project development process when asked to provide drafts, version histories, notes, or other process artifacts.
  6. Completing required educational activities, reflective assignments, or meetings when resolving an integrity violation.

B. Faculty

Faculty play a central role in promoting academic integrity by establishing clear expectations and designing assignments and assessments that foster meaningful learning and reduce conditions that may encourage academic misconduct. They have primary responsibility for identifying and addressing academic integrity concerns in their courses. Faculty are responsible for:

1. Establishing and Communicating Expectations and Class policies

  1. Clearly communicating class policies and expectations in their syllabus, including statements on Academic Integrity and AI-use permissions. The College will provide sample syllabus language and resources to support faculty in developing course-specific AI-use statements.
  2. Providing guidelines for all submitted work, which may include documentation expectations and/or any limitations or permissions regarding AI- or collaborative tool-use
  3. Providing students with guidance on appropriate academic practices, including guidance on saving drafts, outlines, and other process artifacts that may be used to demonstrate development of submitted work.

2. Teaching and Supporting Academic Integrity

  1. Distinguishing between misuse of a source and plagiarism
  2. Offering instruction, feedback, and opportunities for skill development
  3. Referring students to academic supports for documentation and citation skills
  4. Informing students that completion of the College’s Academic Integrity Learning Module is a required sanction for first-time violations.

3. Addressing Integrity Concerns Consistent with this Policy

  1. Discussing academic integrity concerns confidentially with the student prior to making a determination
  2. Determining whether a concern constitutes a Non-Violation or an Academic Integrity Violation based on the evidence and student consultation
  3. Assigning appropriate and proportional sanctions
  4. Submitting Academic Integrity Violation Reports
  5. Maintaining documentation of relevant evidence
  6. Following procedures and timelines

C. Proposed Designated Academic Integrity Administrator (AIA)

The College will appoint a designated Academic Integrity Administrator (AIA) responsible for coordinating and overseeing the implementation of this policy. This will be an administrator already serving in another role (e.g. Associate Provost or Academic Dean). The AIA is responsible for:

1. Intake and Review

  1. Reviewing all Academic Integrity Violation Reports submitted by faculty for completeness and alignment with policy and procedures
  2. Checking institutional tracking systems for students’ prior academic integrity violations
  3. Determining whether Formal Resolution is warranted based on Academic Integrity Violation Report and any existing pattern of academic misconduct beyond the course

2. Communication

  1. Notifying students and/or faculty of next steps, as appropriate, in a timely manner
  2. Coordinating meetings, timelines, and documentation with faculty
  3. Preparing cases that escalate

3. Recordkeeping

  1. Maintaining confidential institutional records of academic integrity violations
  2. Tracking completion of required educational activities for low-level/first time violations
  3. Tracking repeated violations that may require escalation

4. Educational and Resource Support

  1. Providing and/or connecting faculty and students with resources, including library guides, AI literacy support, and best practices for designing assessments and assignments
  2. Supporting faculty in developing course-specific AI-use policies, including sample syllabus language, guidance on permissible and prohibited uses, and updates on emerging tools and practices
  3. Facilitating training related to academic integrity and process clarity

5. Policy Consistency and Assessment

  1. Supporting the Provost’s Office with consistent application of the policy across academic departments and programs
  2. Collecting and analyzing de-identified data from required Learning Module surveys to identify patterns in student-reported motivations for academic misconduct to inform prevention strategies and policy assessment
  3. Reviewing this policy and procedures on a biennial basis, or upon the direction of the Provost, in consultation with the Academic Policy Committee (formerly COAS) and the Student Government Association. Reviews will consider consistency of application, emerging trends in academic integrity and technology, feedback from faculty and students, and any recommended update. The AIA will prepare a summary report to support each review cycle.

D. Proposed Academic Integrity Review Group (AIRG)

TC3 does not currently have a formal review group for academic integrity matters; this body represents a new structure proposed under this policy. The AIRG structure may be refined or adjusted as TC3 evaluates its implementation needs.

The Academic Integrity Review Group (AIRG) would be drawn from a small pool of trained faculty reviewers appointed by the academic Deans, in consultation with the Provost’s Office. The AIA would convene the AIRG in three-member panels (including the AIA) for Formal Resolution hearings only in cases involving serious academic misconduct where institutional sanctions beyond failing the course are being considered. The AIRG is not involved in routine or lower-level academic integrity cases. The AIRG is responsible for:

  1. Reviewing Formal cases in a focused hearing
  2. Evaluating evidence presented by faculty and students
  3. Issuing written findings and recommended sanctions in collaboration with the AIA
  4. Ensuring decisions align with policy, proportionality, and TC3’s philosophy

E. Academic Programs with Professional Fieldwork

Programs with clinical, licensure, accreditation, or fieldwork components have additional responsibilities:

  1. Communicating professional standards and expectations clearly to students.
  2. Providing orientation to ethical and professional behaviors required in placements.
  3. Consulting with the AIA when professional misconduct intersects with academic integrity.
  4. Determining whether program-level disciplinary action is warranted.
  5. Maintaining alignment with accreditation, licensure, and industry standards.

F. Provost Hearing (Final Appeal Authority)

The Provost Hearing serves as the College’s final authority for appeals of Formal Resolution decisions under this policy. The Provost Hearing panel is convened by the Provost (or designee) and is composed of the Provost (or designee), a Dean from a school other than the student’s program, and a faculty member trained on the procedures in this policy. The Provost will make a reasonable effort to select a faculty member from outside the student’s program.

The Provost Hearing panel is responsible for:

  1. Considering appeals based on procedural error, new material evidence, or disproportionate sanction.
  2. Reviewing the record of the case, considering the stated grounds for appeal, and consulting with the AIA, AIRG, academic program leadership, or other faculty as needed.
  3. Issuing a written decision within a reasonable timeframe.

Members of the Provost Hearing are expected to review case materials objectively, avoid conflicts of interest, and base decisions on the standards and procedures outlined in this policy. The Provost Hearing issues the College’s final determination.

II. Evidence Standards

Academic integrity decisions must be based on reliable, relevant, and fair evidence. TC3 uses a Preponderance of Evidence standard—whether it is more likely than not that misconduct occurred.

Faculty and students both have the right to present evidence, provide context, and request clarification.

Acceptable forms of evidence may include:

  • Direct textual comparison showing copying or unattributed similarity
  • Drafts, revision histories, or metadata demonstrating inconsistencies
  • In-class writing samples demonstrating inconsistency with submitted work
  • Student explanations or demonstrations of process
  • Proctoring logs, timestamp irregularities, or unauthorized materials used during exams
  • Fabricated data, invented citations, or implausible documentation

Evidence that requires corroboration includes:

  • Abrupt writing style changes inconsistent with prior work
  • Unusual assignment timing
  • Errors and formatting characteristic of generative AI
  • Proctoring anomalies

Note on the use of plagiarism and AI detection tools:

  • Plagiarism and AI detection tools (e.g. Turnitin) may be used only as supporting evidence; they may not serve as the sole or decisive basis for determining misconduct.
  • Students must be given the opportunity to explain their writing or show drafts.
  • Faculty should interpret detection tool results with caution, as these tools are known to produce false positives and widely varying results across different tools.

Note on faculty-communicated expectations:

  • In contested or appealed cases, faculty may be asked to provide evidence that course expectations relevant to the alleged violation were clearly communicated to students.
  • Acceptable documentation may include the course syllabus, assignment guidelines, course announcements, or other communications establishing relevant expectations.

III. Procedures

These procedures outline how academic integrity concerns are identified, addressed, and resolved at TC3.

Academic integrity concerns are resolved at the course level whenever possible, with faculty responsible for identifying, determining, and responding to concerns. When a case requires additional review or institutional involvement—such as when a student disputes the determination or sanction, when a pattern of academic integrity violations beyond the course level is identified, or when a faculty member requests support—the Academic Integrity Administrator (AIA) moves the case to Formal Resolution.

1. Identification and Notification of a Concern

When a faculty member observes or suspects conduct that may compromise academic integrity, they should carefully review the student’s work, gather relevant evidence, and consider the context of the assignment. Faculty should first determine whether the behavior appears to be a Non-Violation—such as unintentional misuse of a source or another good-faith misunderstanding—or a potential Academic Integrity Violation, in which the student’s actions may reflect intentional or reckless misrepresentation of academic work. Faculty may seek preliminary guidance from the Academic Integrity Administrator (AIA) if the distinction is unclear.

Before making a determination or assigning a sanction, the faculty member must attempt to communicate confidentially with the student to discuss the concern. They should contact the student within 72 hours of identifying the concern to schedule a consultative meeting.

2. Consultation with the Student

The consultation with the student is essential to equity and due process. It ensures the student understands the issue, has an opportunity to respond, and can clarify misunderstandings before a determination is made.

If a student does not respond to a request for a meeting within 72 hours, the faculty member should document the outreach attempts and may proceed with Determining and Reporting a Violation. The student’s lack of response will not prevent the case from moving forward, and the student retains the opportunity to respond during the resolution process if they did not participate earlier.

During this consultative meeting, the faculty member should:

  • Describe the concern clearly and neutrally, including the evidence prompting the review
  • Review the relevant assignment instructions and expectations, including rules regarding sources, collaboration, AI use, or examination procedures
  • Invite the student to explain their process, ask questions, or provide additional context
  • Discuss whether the issue appears to stem from misunderstanding, skill development, or potential misconduct

3. Determination of Violation

Following—or during—the consultation with the student, the faculty member determines whether the concern constitutes a Non-Violation or an Academic Integrity Violation, using the evidence standard outlined in this policy. Faculty determinations are made for the purposes of Course-Level resolution and reporting in accordance with this policy.

  • If they determine the concern is a Non-Violation, the Procedure ends, and no report is submitted.
    They may address the issue through instruction and/or referral to academic supports.
  • If they determine the matter is an Academic Integrity Violation, the faculty member takes the following steps:
    1. Assigns a sanction within the shared standards of this policy (see section II. Sanctions) and consistent with course expectations, and
    2. Notifies the student of their decision, either during or following the consultation, and provides the student with an opportunity to indicate whether they accept responsibility for the violation and the associated sanction.
    3. Confirms student’s response either during the consultation or through follow-up communication within 72 hours of notification.
      • If the student accepts responsibility, the case may be resolved at the course level, subject to AIA review of student’s academic integrity history.
      • If the student disputes the determination or sanction, the case will proceed to Formal Resolution after AIA review.
      • If the student does not respond within 72 hours, the faculty member should proceed with reporting the violation and note this on the reporting form.
    4. Submits an Academic Integrity Violation Report in accordance with this policy, as described in the section below.

4. Reporting a Violation

In all cases where the faculty member has determined a violation of Academic Integrity has occurred, they must submit an Academic Integrity Violation Report through the College’s designated reporting system (e.g., online reporting form managed by the Provost’s Office) within 72 hours of their determination. This report includes:

  • A description of the incident and its context
  • Whether the student accepts or disputes responsibility and/or the sanction, or did not respond
  • A brief summary of the consultation with the student
  • Whether the faculty member requests Formal Resolution

Supporting evidence is required only when the student disputes the determination or sanction, or when the faculty member requests Formal Resolution.

Faculty procedural responsibilities conclude at this stage, though they may be asked to provide additional information or participate in subsequent processes if the case proceeds through Formal Resolution.

5. Academic Integrity Administrator (AIA) Review and Resolution

Upon receiving an Academic Integrity Violation Report, the Academic Integrity Administrator (AIA) reviews the submission to ensure that procedures have been followed and checks the academic integrity violation history to determine if the case can be resolved at the course level or requires additional review.

The AIA’s review of prior violations is limited to identifying patterns of behavior across courses and does not replace faculty judgment regarding course-level determinations or sanctions. The AIA should complete this review within five (5) days of its receipt.

Course-level Resolution (Tracked, No Formal Record for first-time violations)

When a student accepts responsibility for a violation and the assigned sanction, the case may be resolved at the course level.

Course-Level Resolution may include both first-time violations and lower-level repeat violations within the same course. In all cases, sanctions should be consistent with communicated course policies and expectations.

In these cases:

  • The faculty member’s determination and assigned sanction stand;
  • The AIA assigns the College’s Academic Integrity Learning Module as a required sanction for first-time violations;
  • The student must complete the Learning Module, including formally acknowledging responsibility for the violation and acceptance of the assigned sanction; and
  • The AIA tracks completion of the Learning Module for institutional purposes.

Assignment to the Learning Module does not constitute a formally recorded academic integrity violation; however, if the student commits a subsequent violation, prior assignment to this module will be visible to the AIA and will inform resolution pathway at that time.

Failure to complete the required Academic Integrity Learning Module may result in escalation to Formal Resolution.

Formal Resolution

Formal Resolution is designed to address cases where any of the following are true:

  • Disputed Cases. The student disputes responsibility for the violation or the assigned sanction;
  • Pattern Across Courses. A pattern of academic integrity violations beyond the course is identified; or
  • By Request. The faculty member requests support in resolving the case.

In these cases:

  • The AIA records the case in the College’s formal student conduct tracking system and notifies the faculty member that Formal Resolution has been initiated;
  • The AIA reviews the case, which may include requesting additional evidence and meeting with the faculty member and/or student;
  • The AIA issues a written determination that either upholds or overturns the faculty member’s initial determination and sanction within five (5 days) of their review.

Formal Resolution Hearing Option

The AIA may convene the Academic Integrity Review Group (AIRG) for a Formal Resolution Hearing if the case involves a potential sanction that extends beyond failing the course (e.g., suspension or dismissal from a program) due to the severity of the alleged violation.

A hearing may be used in cases involving, but not limited to:

  • Contract cheating or impersonation
  • Fabrication or falsification of academic records, data, or credentials
  • Repeated academic integrity violations
  • Misconduct occurring in clinical, fieldwork, or professional settings
  • Violations that raise significant concerns about academic or professional fitness

When a hearing is initiated:

  • The student is notified in writing that a hearing will occur;
  • The student is provided access to the evidence to be considered;
  • The student is given an opportunity to respond to the allegations; and
  • The AIRG reviews the case and submits findings and recommendations to the AIA.

Emergency Interim Removal

In cases where a student's continued presence in a clinical, fieldwork, or applied learning may pose a risk to the site, the appropriate Dean may implement an interim removal pending formal resolution.

This removal does not constitute a sanction and does not require completion of the Consultation, Determination, or Reporting steps before taking effect.

Effect of Withdrawal or Course Drop on Formal Resolution

A student's withdrawal from a course does not terminate an active Formal Resolution. The process will continue to completion, and if misconduct is found, the AIA will maintain a record of that finding. Course-level sanctions may still apply depending on the circumstances of the withdrawal; institutional findings and any applicable institutional sanctions remain in effect.

Notification and Documentation

Relevant program leaders or clinical supervisors are notified when the violation occurs in a professional or applied learning environment. No record is created for allegations not upheld following a dispute.

Students may appeal Formal Resolution decisions to the Provost for a Provost Hearing.

6. Timeframes Summary

All timeframes in this policy refer to calendar days, excluding College holidays, unless otherwise noted.

  • Identification → Notification: 72 hours
  • Consultation → Determination of Violation: 6 days
  • Academic Integrity Report → AIA Review: 5 days
  • AIRG Hearing (if convened): Scheduled within 5–10 days of review
  • Resolution: Within 5 days after review/hearing
  • Appeal to Provost: Within 5 days of decision
  • Provost Hearing Decision: Within 10 days

Timelines may be extended for end-of-term constraints, student availability, or documented extenuating circumstances.

IV. Sanctions

The goal of sanctions is to uphold academic standards, support learning, and ensure proportional and consistent responses to academic integrity violations. Sanctions are determined by the faculty member based on the nature and severity of the violation, as well as whether the behavior represents a first-time or repeated occurrence in the course. Sanctions should be clearly communicated and aligned with course expectations.

The following guidance establishes expected responses based on the nature, severity, and frequency of the violation. Sanctions A and B are typically assigned through Course-Level Resolution. Sanctions in Section C typically require Formal Resolution.

A. First-time or Lower-Level Violations

Typically addressed at the course level with an emphasis on learning and skill development. For first-time violations, students are required to complete the College’s Academic Integrity Learning Module as a condition of resolution. Faculty may assign additional sanctions based on the nature of the violation, which include:

  • Revision and resubmission of the assignment for reduced or partial credit
  • Targeted instruction on citation, source use, or academic practices
  • Written reflection or learning activity
  • Reduced credit on the assignment in question

If a zero on the assignment results in a student failing the course, the faculty member must consider requesting elevation to Formal Resolution.

B. Repeated or More Substantial Course-Level Violations

Typically addressed at the course level with increased consequences to reflect repeated behavior.

Sanctions may include:

  • Zero or failing grade on the assignment
  • More significant grade reduction in the course
  • Additional or alternative assignments
  • Combination of assignment penalties and required educational activities

C. Patterns of Behavior or More Serious Violations

Typically addressed through Formal Resolution.

Sanctions may include:

  • Failure in the course
  • Removal from a clinical or field placement
  • Program probation or dismissal (requires a Formal Resolution Hearing)

Transcript notation occurs only when required by institutional sanctions, such as dismissal from the College.

D. Factors Considered

Sanctions may consider:

  • Severity and nature of the violation
  • Student’s academic integrity history
  • Professional or program requirements
  • Educational level and developmental context
  • Intent or recklessness
  • Student responsiveness during the process

V. Appeals

Students have the right to appeal the outcome of a Formal Resolution when they believe the decision was made in error or the sanction is not proportionate to the violation. Appeals ensure fairness, due process, and alignment with institutional standards. Appeals may be submitted only after a formal decision has been issued by the Academic Integrity Administrator (AIA). Because Course-Level Resolutions are a faculty-led response that a student may decline by disputing their determination, only Formal Resolution outcomes may be appealed.

A. Grounds for Appeal

A student may appeal a Formal Resolution decision on one or more of the following grounds:

1. Procedural Error

A material procedural error occurred that significantly affected the outcome.

Examples include:

  • Failure to follow required steps in the policy
  • Insufficient opportunity for the student to present evidence or respond
  • Bias or conflict of interest that reasonably impacted the decision

2. New, Relevant Evidence

Substantive new evidence became available after the conclusion of the formal process and could reasonably affect the outcome.

This evidence must:

  • Not have been available earlier despite due diligence
  • Be directly relevant to the allegation

3. Disproportionate Sanction

The sanction imposed is not aligned with the severity of the violation, the student’s integrity history, or institutional standards.

B. Submitting an Appeal

To initiate an appeal, the student must submit a written appeal to the Office of the Provost within five (5) days of the AIA sending the formal decision.

The appeal must:

  • State the specific grounds for appeal
  • Provide a clear explanation supporting the appeal
  • Include any new evidence, if applicable
  • Include relevant documentation or context

Appeals submitted after the deadline may be considered only when the student demonstrates documented extenuating circumstances.

C. Review by the Provost Hearing Panel

Appeals of Formal Resolution decisions are reviewed by the Provost Hearing panel. Upon receipt of a timely appeal, the Provost (or designee) will convene the Hearing panel and ensure that panel membership complies with the composition requirements outlined in this policy.

A student involved in an appeal process may request to have a representative who is a TC3 employee present during the Hearing. This request will be reviewed and is subject to approval at the discretion of the Provost.

The Provost Hearing panel will conduct a fair and impartial review, which may include:

  • Examining the written appeal and supporting documentation
  • Reviewing the original case materials
  • Consulting with the AIA or AIRG Chair if clarification is needed
  • Meeting with the student or faculty member when appropriate

(Such meetings are at the panel’s discretion and are not guaranteed.)

The panel does not re-investigate the case or rehear testimony except as necessary to clarify procedural concerns or evidentiary issues raised in the appeal.

D. Possible Outcomes

After reviewing the appeal, the Provost Hearing panel may decide to:

  • Uphold the original decision: The finding and sanction remain unchanged.
  • Modify the sanction: Sanction modifications shall be limited to ensuring consistency with institutional standards and may not substitute the panel’s academic judgment for that of the faculty. If the sanction is inconsistent with policy (e.g., disproportionate, not aligned with sanction guidelines), the panel may reduce or adjust the sanction. The panel may not impose a harsher sanction than originally issued.
  • Overturn the finding: If the evidence does not meet the threshold for misconduct, the finding may be reversed.
  • Remand the case for reconsideration: If procedural error or missing information warrants additional review, the case may be returned to the AIA or AIRG with instructions.

E. Notification of Decision

The Provost will issue a written decision within ten (10) days of receiving the appeal, unless extenuating circumstances require additional time.

The written decision will:

  • Summarize the basis of the appeal
  • Describe the review conducted
  • State the final determination
  • Detail any revised sanctions or further steps

Copies will be provided to the student, the faculty member, the AIA, and relevant program leadership.

F. Finality of the Appeal

The decision of the Provost Hearing panel is final and concludes the College’s internal review process.