11.2.1. Filing a Report of a Suspected Honor Code Violation
The official process for resolving a suspected Honor Code violation starts when an Oglethorpe community member files a report at https://oglethorpe.edu/academics/honor-code/. Typically, reports are filed by Instructional Staff who have evidence that a possible violation has occurred in a course, but reports can be filed by any other Oglethorpe community member (student, staff, or administration) who has evidence of a possible academic violation. The Director reviews the report and the accompanying evidence and determines whether to proceed with a case. This often but not always involves consulting with the community member who filed the initial report. If the Director and the reporting community member agree to withdraw the report, then the Director discards the initial report; no record will be kept. Most frequently, however, the Director opens a new case. The decision as to whether to discard or open a new case should occur within ten academic business days of the community member filing the initial report.
11.2.2. Initial Consultation with Suspected Student
Within five academic business days of opening new case, the Director contacts the suspected student with the time and date for an initial consultation. (There will be at least three academic business days between contacting the student and the scheduled consultation.) The Director also assigns a confidential Peer Advisor from the student members of the Honor Council. The Director includes the name and contact information for the Peer Advisor in the initial communication, but only the suspected student and the Director are at the initial consultation. (If requested, the Peer Advisor may join. The student may also meet with the Peer Advisor anytime during the Honor Council process to discuss their options for resolution and ask additional questions about their case.) During the initial consultation, the Director communicates to the student relevant information they currently have regarding the suspected violation. The suspected student will also find out who filed the report during the initial consultation, unless the reporting community member was a fellow student. The suspected student may not take a copy of evidence from the initial consultation; however, they can request to review the evidence again over the next three academic business days.
Following the initial consultation, the suspected student has three academic business days to communicate whether they accept responsibility or do not accept responsibility for the suspected Honor Code violation. The student can communicate their choice either verbally or via email to the Secretary, to their Peer Advisor, or to the reporting community member, but the Director must receive written confirmation of the suspected student’s decision before moving on to the next step. If the student does not provide written confirmation their choice of “responsible” or “not responsible” within three academic business days of the initial consultation date, then this is considered to be a choice of “not responsible.”
In some situations, the suspected student may accept responsibility to the reporting community member or their Peer Advisor prior to their initial consultation meeting with the Director. In this case, the suspected student may decline the initial consultation with the Director. However, they must still provide written confirmation of their choice of “responsible” within three business days of the original initial consultation date.
11.2.3. Resolution Paths
If the student accepts responsibility, then the case typically proceeds to a Resolution Conference (see Sec. 11.2.3.1). If the student does not accept responsibility, then the case proceeds to a Academic Conduct Board (see Sec. 11.2.3.2).
On occasion, a suspected Honor Code violation involves more than one student. In this case, each student will receive an individual Initial Consultation and can enter their claim of “responsible” or “not responsible” independently. Resolution Conferences and Academic Conduct Boards, however, may be conducted simultaneously. The decision of whether to hold a single Conference or Board for cases involving multiple students is at the discretion of the Director.
11.2.3.1. Resolution Conference
A Resolution Conference is a facilitated, semi-structured conference between the suspected student and the reporting community member. In attendance are (a) the suspected student, (b) the reporting community member*, (c) the Director, (d) one student member of the Honor Council (excluding the Peer Advisor) and (e) one Faculty member of the Honor Council. Following confirmation of the student’s claim of responsibility, the persons above have no more than 15 academic business days to schedule and facilitate the Resolution Conference. The suspected student can request that a specific Honor Council member recuse themselves from the Conference, but the suspected student must communicate their recusal request no later than one academic business day before the Conference is scheduled to occur.
By the end of the Conference, all attendees must unanimously agree to an action plan for the student, including (but not limited to) any academic sanction associated with the Honor Code violation. The honor council members present at the conference will affirm or modify this sanction and action plan immediately after the conference. If modification is required, the Director will notify the student and faculty member within three business days of the resolution conference.
(*Note: The reporting community member may elect to send answers to a detailed questionnaire in lieu of attending a Resolution Conference, but they are bound to any unanimous action plan decisions made by the other attendees.)
A Resolution Conference leads to a case being closed if all the following occur:
- The suspected student is present at the Conference, openly accepts responsibility, and agrees to make amends with the Community Member who filed the report.
- The Community Member accepts the student’s plea of responsibility and shares what the student can do to rebuild trust with the community.
- All attendees agree to an action plan for the student, including (but not limited to) any academic sanction associated with the academic misconduct.
- The student completes the action plan in the agreed upon timeframe.
Assuming that all of these conditions are met, the case is closed and the resolution documentation indicate that the student is “responsible”.
If any of those conditions are not met, then the Director consults with the two Honor Council members present at the Resolution Conference to determine how to proceed. This can include but is not limited to (a) resolving the case by assigning a higher academic sanction than originally agreed upon in the conference or (b) moving the case to an Academic Conduct Board.
In rare circumstances, the persons present at a resolution conference may determine that an Honor Code violation has not in fact occurred (even though the suspected student originally accepted responsibility). If the two Honor Council members and the reporting community member unanimously agree to this, then the case is dismissed and the resolution documentation indicates that the student is “not responsible”.
Students have the option of a Resolution Conference only if it is their first or second instance of recorded academic misconduct. If it is a second instance, the conference includes discussion of the prior instance and the action plan from the first resolution conference. A third (or higher) instance of suspected academic misconduct automatically proceeds to an Academic Conduct Board, even if the student accepted responsibility.
The suspected student may not appeal the results of a resolution conference.
11.2.3.2. Academic Conduct Board
An Academic Conduct Board is a facilitated, structured proceeding where the Honor Council members in attendance use questioning, witness testimony, and direct evidence to determine the likelihood that an Honor Code violation has occurred.
The suspected student will have at least three academic business days between notification of their academic conduct board date/time/location and the academic conduct board itself.
The following persons are present for the entire academic conduct board:
- the suspected student*,
- the Director, and
- at least five members of the Honor Council, including at least one student member (excluding the Peer Advisor) and at least one Faculty member.
*If the student fails to appear at the academic conduct board (after having been notified of the time, date, and location with at least three academic days notices), then the academic conduct board will proceed without the student present.
The suspected student can request that a specific Honor Council member recuse themselves from participating in the Academic Conduct Board, but the suspected student must communicate their recusal request no later than one academic business day before the Board is scheduled to occur.
The following persons are present for a portion of the Academic Conduct Board:
- The Community member who filed the report
- Any additional witnesses (called either by the reporting community member or the suspected student or the Director) who can contribute direct evidence as to whether the student did or did not engage in academic misconduct.
The suspected student is responsible for communicating with the Director about any witnesses they want to appear at the Academic Conduct Board. The suspected student should communicate any witness names (including contact information) to the Director no later than one academic business day before the Board is scheduled to occur.
The following persons are excluded from attending an academic conduct board:
- the Peer Advisor
- other Oglethorpe faculty or staff not directly involved in the case
- Parents, guardians, or friends (unless called as direct witnesses)
- Legal counsel or outside experts
This list isn’t exhaustive, but it communicates the need to include only those persons who have direct knowledge of the actions in question. It is at the Director’s discretion as to whether a person may or may not be present in an Academic Conduct Board. Any direct witnesses from outside the Oglethorpe community appearing at an academic conduct board is held to the standards of the Oglethorpe honor code; this includes confidentiality as described in Sec. 11.3.3. It is also at the discretion of the Director to restrict anyone from participating in the Academic Conduct Board (including the suspected student) if their behavior is disrupting the proceedings.
The suspected student and the Honor Council panelists appearing at the Academic Conduct Board will have access to all currently available evidence prior to the board. Every effort is made to collect and distribute all necessary evidence prior to the Board. However, additional evidence may be introduced during the Board if necessary.
The Academic Conduct Board process involves an opening statement from the suspected student, a verbal or written statement from the reporting Community Member, questions/discussion of the evidence, witness statements and questions, and a closing statement from the suspected student. Following the closing statement, the suspected student is excused.
The members of the Honor Council present at the Academic Conduct Board convene to discuss the evidence and testimony and vote on whether the suspected student is “Responsible” or “Not Responsible” for a violation of the Oglethorpe Honor Code. The decision carries by simple majority. (The Director will only vote in the case of a tie.) The panelists vote based on the “preponderance of evidence’ standard; that is, the burden of proof for a vote of “Responsible” is that the evidence indicates it is more likely than not that an Honor Code violation occurred.
If a student is found “Not Responsible”, then the case is dismissed.
If the student is found “Responsible”, then the Honor Council members present at the Academic Conduct Board must deliberate and vote on an appropriate academic sanction. At this time, the Director informs the panelists of any prior “Responsible” case outcomes, as this will impact the sanction options. (See Sec. 11.2.4 on Responsibility and Sanction Structure for more details.) The vote for a sanction carries by simple majority. (The Director will only vote in the case of a tie.)
The Director has three academic business days to contact the suspected student and the reporting Community Member with the panelists’ findings (including the sanction, if the student is found “responsible”).
Only Students who originally plead “Not Responsible” but were subsequently found “responsible” at their Academic Conduct Board have the right to appeal the decision with the Office of the Provost. See Sec. 11.2.5 (Appeals) for more details.
11.2.4. Responsibility and Sanction Structure
Academic sanctions occur both in the context of the action plan determined during the Resolution Conference and the decision made by the Academic Conduct Board. The Honor Council members participating in Conferences and Boards may apply any appropriate sanction, but it is common to see less severe sanctions in cases where students accept responsibility. For example, consider a case where the sanction involves a grade reduction on the assignment. A student who accepted responsibility may be offered the opportunity to redo the assignment for a 50% deduction, while a student who did not accept responsibility but was subsequently found responsible may receive a 0 on the assignment.
11.2.4.1. Escalating Sanction Structure
Sanctions for subsequent “responsible” claims or findings will result in more elevated sanctions, even if the subsequent offense is less severe than the prior offenses. This creates an escalating sanction structure, which could appear as follows:
| Appearance | Student Claim | Resolution Path/Decision | Sanction |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | Responsible | Resolution Conference | Revision of assignment w deduction |
| 2nd | Responsible | Resolution Conference | 0 on assignment |
| 3rd | Responsible | Academic Conduct Board agrees | F in course |
| 4th | Responsible | Academic Conduct Board agrees | Suspension/Expulsion |
or
| Appearance | Student Claim | Resolution Path/Decision | Sanction |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | Not Responsible | Academic Conduct Board finds “responsible” | 0 on assignment |
| 2nd | Responsible | Resolution Conference | 0 on assignment plus additional course grade deduction |
| 3rd | Responsible | Academic Conduct Board agrees | F in course |
| 4th | Responsible | Academic Conduct Board agrees | Suspension/Expulsion |
or
| Appearance | Student Claim | Resolution Path/Decision | Sanction |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | Not Responsible | Academic Conduct Board finds “responsible” | 0 on assignment |
| 2nd | Not Responsible | Academic Conduct Board finds “responsible” | F in course |
| 3rd | Not Responsible | Academic Conduct Board finds “responsible” | Suspension/Expulsion |
The above cases are just examples and not an exhaustive list of sanction options. Again, the Honor Council panelists may apply any appropriate sanction, and it is the responsibility of the Director to assure that equivalent circumstances (number of appearances and severity of the violation) are being sanctioned in equitable and consistent ways.
11.2.4.2. Suspension or Expulsion
In very rare circumstances, the Honor Council will consider suspension or expulsion as a sanction when a student is found responsible for violating the Oglethorpe Honor Code. This sanction is only considered for a student who has had multiple “responsible” outcomes or has not responded to prior interventions. Suspension or expulsion are never considered as a sanction for a first “responsible” outcome.
Suspension or expulsion sanctions can only be applied in the structure of an Academic Conduct Board. If the escalating sanction structure described above (or the severity of the charge) means that suspension or expulsion is a sanction option, then the Academic Conduct Board panelists will include Faculty members only. This Academic Conduct Board votes on a more rigorous burden of proof, i.e. “clear and convincing evidence.” That is, a panelist should vote “Responsible” if the evidence indicates that it is substantially more likely than not that the Honor Code violation occurred.
Most commonly, suspension or expulsion is not considered until a student has had at least two prior “responsible” claims or findings, although a student may be considered for suspension or expulsion with only one prior “responsible” claim or finding. In order to determine whether suspension or expulsion is a sanction option after one or two prior “responsible” claims/findings, the Director will consult with at least two members of the Advisory Panel (see Sec. 11.3.2.2.3). If the Director and the Advisory Panel agree that suspension or expulsion are viable sanctions in the current case, then the Director will convene a Faculty-only Hearing Panel. (Note: A Faculty-only Hearing Panel is not compelled to assign suspension or expulsion as a sanction if they find the student responsible. However, a student cannot receive a sanction of suspension or expulsion unless their case was heard by a Faculty-only Conduct Board.)
A student who has three or more prior “responsible” claims or findings is automatically considered for suspension or expulsion in their current case. The Director need not consult with the Advisory Panel before convening a Faculty-only Hearing Board.
All suspension and expulsion sanctions are reviewed by the Office of the Provost.
11.2.5. Appeals
A student who wishes to appeal the results of an Academic Conduct Board must contact the Office of the Provost within five academic business days following notification of the Hearing Board decision. Only students who originally claimed “not responsible” but were found “responsible” for an Honor Code violation are eligible to file an appeal.
Appeals may be granted only under the following circumstances:
- If the honor council deviated substantially from the rules and procedures laid out in the honor code in determining the case. Substantial deviations are of sufficient magnitude to call into question the fundamental fairness of the proceedings or which may have influenced the outcome of the case.
- If there is new evidence that could affect the case’s outcome.
Following submission of an appeal, the Office of the Provost may dismiss the appeal if it does not adequately address the requirements listed above. The Office of the Provost will communicate this decision to the Director, and the Director will contact the student.
If the Office of the Provost does not dismiss the appeal, then they will communicate this decision to the Director. The Director will then contact the members of the Advisory Council to review the appeal. A review requires at least two members of the Advisory Council. The Director will provide all persons reviewing the case with all case documentation (including notes taken during the hearing and audio records, as requested).
If the members of the Advisory Council conducting the review determine that a new hearing is warranted, then the Director will arrange for five or more members of the Honor Council who were not involved with the original case to sit on the new Academic Conduct Board. The Director will not inform the panelists participating in the new Academic Conduct Board that they are hearing an appeal case, and the new Board will follow all the same procedures as the initial Board. If the new Academic Conduct Board finds the student “not responsible”, then the case is dismissed. If the new Academic Conduct Board finds the student “responsible” and applies a sanction, then the suspected student may not appeal further.
11.2.6. Requirement of Case Resolution
Once a case is on file, it remains on file until it is resolved. For example, if a case is filed before the “W” (withdrawal) deadline for the semester, the student may not attempt to circumvent the resolution process by withdrawing from a course. If a case is filed after the “W” deadline for the semester, the student must also proceed through a resolutions path even if they are earning an “F” in the course (outside of any sanction that might by applied by the Honor Council). Additionally, students who plan to transfer from Oglethorpe before their case is resolved are also responsible for completing the appropriate resolution path before the University will release their transcript.