11.3. Policies

11.3.1. Scope of the Honor Code

Our honor code an academic one, based in our learning community. The Oglethorpe Honor Code applies to all students enrolled in any academic activities at the University.

This code is to serve as a guiding framework for all educational pursuits at Oglethorpe University. The primary purpose of this code is to maintain and sustain the academic community, by promoting community members to act honestly and with integrity. The goal of this code is to help community members stay within a community of academic honesty. The code also contains the pathway for reintegration for students who diverge from our academic honesty standards, ensuring that these students are aided by tools and strategies to succeed academically.

The preamble to the Honor Code describes the concept of academic integrity, but the Honor Code also describes academic dishonesty as any actions that are aimed at gaining unfair academic advantage. Academically dishonest practices can be further partitioned into subcategories (plagiarism, misrepresentation, unauthorized aid, facilitation, and interpersonal academic misconduct). Examples of academic misconduct listed below fall within one of those categories, but these categories and examples are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive.

Categories (and examples) of academic misconduct are:

1.3.1.1. Plagiarism

Plagiarism at its core is the failure to give credit for the use of another’s legitimate work, and/or to have the work perceived as your own.

Examples of plagiarism include:

Direct plagiarism, or copying word-for-word from a source without using quotations and proper attribution.
Paraphrasing plagiarism, or the act of paraphrasing someone’s work without acknowledging that the ideas are not your own.
Self-plagiarism, or using work that you previously submitted for another course without acknowledgement or permission.

1.3.1.2. Misrepresentation

Academic misrepresentation is an attempt to fulfill the requirements of a course with work other than one’s own work. We distinguish misrepresentation from plagiarism by the fact that one could not reasonably give credit to a source in a case of misrepresentation.

Examples of misrepresentation include:

Contracting with a person, website, or tool (either for free or via payment) to write an assignment for you (either in whole or in part) and submitting the paper as if it was your own.
Contracting with a person, website, or tool (either for free or via payment) to solve problems for you (either in whole or in part) and submitting the solutions as if they were your own.
Falsifying data, figures or sources in a laboratory report.
Providing a report of attending an event, visiting a site, participating in an extra-credit activity and the like when you were not actually present at the event/site/activity.

11.3.1.3. Unauthorized Aid

This category refers to any possession or use of unauthorized materials or assistance in an effort to fulfill course requirements. It is the student’s responsibility to ask the professor for specific guidance on what materials or assistance are in fact authorized and to communicate that information to any tutors or other providers of authorized aid.

Examples of unauthorized aid include:

Possession or use of unauthorized notes during an assessment.
Possession or use of unauthorized electronic devices during an assessment.
Unauthorized use of external source material.
Unauthorized use of “homework helper” sites.
Unauthorized use of generative artificial intelligence.
Unauthorized collaboration with other students.

11.3.1.4. Facilitation

In this category, a student is facilitating another student’s ability to commit academic misconduct.

While we do work and study in a collaborative space, it is the student’s responsibility to ensure that other students do not misuse their work.

Examples of facilitation include:

Knowingly permitting another student to copy your work.
Uploading assignments and/or solutions to a shared test bank, “homework helper” site, or group chat.
Signing in for a student at an event where attendance is a required part of a course.
Claiming that another student completed work for a group project that they did not do.

11.3.1.5. Interpersonal Academic Misconduct

In this category, we consider the unfair academic advantage that may result student-faculty and student-student interactions.

Examples of interpersonal academic misconduct include:

Lying (to a professor or to another student) for academic advantage. This could include lying to earn a particular grade or lying to avoid an academic penalty.
Colluding with other students in a collective effort to engage in academic misconduct.
Claiming credit for a group project to which one did not contribute.
Obtaining someone else’s work (with or without their knowledge) and submitting as one’s own.
Pressuring or coercing another student to aid in one’s engagement in academic misconduct.
Falsely accusing another student of academic misconduct.
Deliberately damaging the work of another student or otherwise putting another student in a position of academic disadvantage.
Lying to the Honor Council regarding one’s role or someone else’s role in suspected academic misconduct.

The honor code applies to all behavior related to academic endeavors in our community. Thus, it extends beyond the boundaries of courses and classrooms per se, and yet it does not extend out of the academic realm into the purely social one. In some cases, however, a potential Honor Code violation may also be considered a possible violation of the Code of Student Conduct and even of federal, local or state laws. Such incidents may be adjudicated and result in sanctions from each of those bodies separately.

11.3.2. The Honor Council

The Honor Council consists of Faculty representatives, student representatives, and a Director. This composition allows for allowing diverse campus perspectives to support an honest academic community.

11.3.2.1. Responsibilities of all Honor Council members

Honor Council members are responsible for upholding the Oglethorpe Honor Code by:

Participating in Honor Council training.
Reading and understanding the Honor Code.
Acting as an advisor or consultant for the campus community in regard to academic integrity and the Honor Code.
Responding to requests to participate in Honor Council proceedings.
Preparing for and actively participating in Honor Council proceedings.
Making decisions in Honor Council proceedings based on evidence and using the relevant evidentiary standards.
Recusing oneself from a proceeding if one is unable to assess the evidence objectively.
Understanding relevant options for sanctions and applying those sanctions equitably.
Maintaining confidentiality in all aspects pertaining to Honor Council proceedings.

11.3.2.2. Faculty Members of the Honor Council

11.3.2.2.1. Director

11.3.2.2.1.1. Qualifications

The Director must have prior Honor Council experience prior to appointment. Preference is given to senior, tenured Faculty, but non-tenured Faculty (either tenure-track or non-tenured-track with multi-year contracts) may apply.

11.3.2.2.1.2. Selection and Term

The Director is appointed by the Provost for a three-year term. All interested and qualified persons are invited to apply, with the final selection made by the Provost.

11.3.2.2.1.3. Responsibilities Specific to the Director

The Director’s specific responsibilities include:

Coordinating the selection/election of Faculty and student Honor Council members.
Training of new Honor Council members.
Providing information for all instructional staff and students regarding their rights and responsibilities pertaining to the Oglethorpe Honor Code.
Consulting with instructional staff on how to address a possible case of academic misconduct.
Receiving reports of possible academic misconduct.
Scheduling initial consultations with suspected students.
Scheduling and participating in all resolution conferences and academic conduct boards.
Communicating outcomes of conferences/boards to all relevant parties.
Maintaining records of proceedings (both in the form of hearing notes and audio recordings).
Regularly reporting academic misconduct data to the Faculty.
Making recommendations of changes to the Honor Code to the Faculty. (See Sec. 11.3.6)

11.3.2.2.2. Faculty Panelists

11.3.2.2.2.1. Qualifications

All full-time Faculty with service requirements in their contract are automatically considered eligible to serve on the Honor Council. Adjunct faculty with at least two years of satisfactory service (as determined by a supervisor) can apply to the Director to be added to the eligible pool of participants.

11.3.2.2.2.2. Selection and Term

Prior to the beginning of an academic year, all eligible Faculty may request to be excused from possible Honor Council service for the upcoming academic year. Reasons for being excused from service include (but are not limited to):

Having served a term on the Honor Council within the previous five years.
Intent to take a sabbatical leave or other leave of absence in the next two years.
Intent to retire in the next two years.
Having been at Oglethorpe for less than two years.

All excusal requests (and adjunct applications) are reviewed by the Director and two members of the Advisory Panel (see Sec. 11.3.2.2.3).

From the remaining eligible pool, the Director will randomly select six Faculty members to begin a two-year term of service on the Honor Council in the upcoming academic year. Terms are staggered so that while six new Faculty members are selected each year, six are continuing their service. Thus, a total of twelve Faculty members are actively serving on the Honor Council at any point during a regular semester.

11.3.2.2.3. Advisory Panel

The Advisory Panel is composed of Faculty panelists who have just completed the second year of their two-year term. They are no longer actively serving as panelists in Honor Council proceedings, but they may be asked to appear as a panelist in rare situations where the Director is unable to seat a panel with the existing Honor Council members. The primary function of the Advisory panel, however, is to serve as a body of Faculty members with experience on the Honor Council who can consult with the Director as needed. In addition to responsibilities outlined in other parts of the Honor Code (such as decision on whether to grant a new hearing in the case of an appeal, or assistance in the selection of Faculty panelists), members of the Advisory Panel are also asked to contribute recommendations for possible changes to the Code. (See Sec. 11.3.6.)

11.3.2.3. Student Members of the Honor Council

11.3.2.3.1. Student Panelists

11.3.2.3.1.1. Qualifications

The student members of the Honor Council are students who embody the principles of academic integrity, leadership, and Oglethorpe community engagement. At a minimum, student members of the Honor Council must meet the following qualifications:

Sophomore standing or higher
Academic good standing
Financial good standing
Financial aid good standing
Conduct good standing
No prior “responsible” outcomes from an Honor Council proceeding

11.3.2.3.1.2. Selection and Term

Each spring semester, a notice will be sent to all students inviting them to either apply for a position on the Honor Council for the subsequent academic year or to nominate a peer(s) to serve. All full-time faculty members and all current honor council members will also be invited to nominate students for a position on the honor council for the upcoming academic year. The Honor Council Director will inform nominees and encourage them to apply for membership.

In addition to verifying that they meet the minimum requirements listed above, applicants must also write and submit to the acting Director an essay on why they would like to serve. A three-person review group (consisting of the Vice President for Student Affairs, the Director, and a member of the Advisory Panel) will review the applicants’ materials. This review group may, by unanimous consent, strike an applicant if there is a compelling reason to believe that the student cannot meet the responsibilities of Honor Council membership. In order to maintain confidentiality, the stricken student may still appear on the ballot but will not be eligible to serve.

Voting takes place under the Office of Student Life. Once voting is complete, the resulting vote totals are shared with the Director (but not yet the community at large). The top 12 eligible candidates are elected to the honor council for the subsequent year. In the case of a tie for 12th position, the Vice President for Student Affairs and the Director will randomly select the winner from among those tied. The names of the next several vote recipients will be retained in the event that any of the selectees are unable to complete their term of service. The Director will now provide the community with the list of selected students, but only the names (and not the vote totals or vote ranking) of those elected will be divulged.

All student terms are for one academic year.

11.3.2.3.2. Peer Advisors

A peer advisor is student member of the Honor Council selected by the Director to serve as a liaison for students suspected of academic misconduct. Responsibilities specific to the Peer Advisor role are:

Providing accurate information to the suspected students about honor code and honor council processes, terminology and timelines.
Providing accurate advice to the suspected student concerning his/her/their rights under the code. (See Sec. 11.1.3.2)
Providing accurate information to the suspected student concerning their responsibilities under the code. (See Sec. 11.1.3.3)
Receiving a suspected students claim of “responsible” or “not responsible” following the initial consultation and communicating that information to the Director.

A Peer Advisor may not do any of the following:

Advise a suspected student on how they ought to plead.
Serve as an advocate for the suspected student in a proceeding.
Serve as a witness for the suspected student in a proceeding.
Serve as a panelist any hearing involved in adjudication of the suspected student’s case.
Offer an opinion to the suspected student on the likely outcome of their case or on the likelihood of potential sanctions.

11.3.2.4. Removal of Honor Council Panelists

11.3.2.4.1. Removal From A Specific Proceeding

A panelist has the right to decline service on a specific proceeding if they do not believe that they can be impartial as regards the suspected student. The panelist may simply decline the invitation to the proceeding.

If a member of the Honor Council has substantive reason to believe that another panelist participating in a proceeding may not be impartial as regards the suspected student, they should contact the Director as soon as possible. If this concern comes to the Director’s attention before a proceeding, the Director will consult with the panelist and determine whether they should participate in the proceeding. If the concern comes to the Director’s attention during or after a proceeding, the proceeding need not stop or the resulting decision vacated. However, the reported concern will be included in the information provided to the Provost in the case of an appeal.

11.3.2.4.2. Removal From Honor Council Service

If any Honor Council member no longer meets the minimum qualifications for service, then they are no longer eligible to complete their term.

If there is substantive evidence that an Honor Council member is not upholding the trust and responsibility of service on the Honor Council (by, for example, breaching confidentiality), then a panel of no less than three members of the Advisory Panel will meet with the Director and the Honor Council member to determine whether or not the member may continue to serve. The decision carries by majority and is not subject to appeal.

11.3.3. Confidentiality

All business and activities of the honor council are confidential. Those within the bounds of confidentiality include all honor council members (not just those who served on a given case), honor council Director, administrative staff, academic support staff, and student life, staff athletic staff, faculty and program administrators, reporting party, reported student, witnesses, persons interviewed prior to or during an honor council case, community members harmed during an honor code violation, and the University counsel.

Confidentiality remains at the discretion of the reported party while an honor code case is open and after it has closed. In cases with multiple students, confidentiality is only at the discretion of the individual regarding their own case details and outcomes. In other words, reported students may not divulge any information about other reported students involved in their honor code case.

Should anyone outside the bounds of confidentiality receive information which is considered confidential, they will automatically be bound by confidentiality.

Members of the honor council who violate confidentiality requirements are subject to sanctions imposed by the honor council (see Sec. 11.3.2.4.2). Non-honor council Oglethorpe students who appear to have dishonored confidentiality may be charged with violating the code of student conduct, as described in Sec. 11.3.1. Faculty and staff who appear to have violated confidentiality requirements may have letters of reprimand filed with the Office of the Provost and/or the faculty or staff member’s direct supervisor on behalf of the honor council.

11.3.4. Timelines for Case Resolution

11.3.4.1. Academic Business Day

Throughout the Procedures (see Sec. 11.2) of the Oglethorpe Honor Code, timelines for case resolution frequently reference an “Academic Business Day”. This is defined as a day of week (not including weekends) during the Fall or Spring semester.

11.3.4.2. Cases Originating at the End of a Fall or Spring Semester

New cases submitted in the last days of the semester are not likely to be resolved before grades are due. If a case can’t be resolved in the semester in which it was initiated, then the professor will assign a grade of “I” until the case it resolved at the beginning of the next Fall or Spring semester. (In some situations, a case filed at the end of the Spring semester may be resolved over the Summer semester. This, however, is not a guaranteed timeline, as it depends on the availability of Honor Council panelists to participate in the proceedings at a time of year in which the Honor Council is not in full operation.)

For cases which roll over into the next regular (fall or spring) semester, complete adjudication must be within 25 academic business days of the start of that new semester. If the suspected student is no longer enrolled at that time, they will be given the opportunity to return to campus for the resolution process or participate remotely, in which case matters progress in the same way they would if the student were enrolled. If the student elects to not return to campus, or is unable to return to campus, then the resolution proceeds in absentia.

11.3.4.3. Cases Originating in the Summer

The term of the Honor Council panelists does not include the summer semester. However, if sufficient panelists are available, cases initiated in a summer semester course may be resolved before grades are due. Cases initiated in a summer semester but which cannot be fully resolved at that time will be heard in the following fall semester. As above, the professor will assign a grade of “I” until the case can be resolved.

11.3.4.4. Modification of the Published Timeline

There may be times when the suspected student has a substantial vested interest in ensuring that a case is fully adjudicated by the end of a given semester, even if the case was submitted in the last days of the semester. In cases such as these, the student may request to have their case expedited. If the suspected student has requested and agreed to an expedited resolution process, then they cannot use the accelerated timeline as ground for an appeal.

Additionally, despite best efforts, the Director may not be able to accommodate all cases in the published timeframe. If the Director can demonstrate a reasonable cause for the delay, then the extension of the published timeline would also not be grounds for an appeal.

11.3.5. Official Communication

All official honor council business will be conducted according to the University’s communication policy, which states that “The Oglethorpe University e-mail system is the University’s official mode of electronic communication to and among faculty, staff and students.” (Oglethorpe Bulletin, Sec. 3.6.1) Persons who miss an Honor Code-related event because of their failure to check their Oglethorpe email are solely responsible for any consequences.

11.3.6. Honor Code Review and Modification

As described in the Director duties (see Sec. 11.3.2.2.1.3), the Director will make regular reports to the Faculty regarding academic misconduct cases on campus. Ideally, this report will appear annually at the end of an academic year. It is the responsibility of the Director to provide data available since the last report.

The Director is also responsible for soliciting changes to the Honor Code. The honor code is owned by the Oglethorpe University community, as a collaborative effort between the students, faculty, and staff who maintain its academic integrity. Therefore, any member of the community may make recommendations for changes to the Director. However, the honor code’s administration and operation falls to the faculty to support the integrity of the academic program, and therefore all changes must be voted on by the Faculty. That said, the faculty should consult with students and non-faculty personnel before any modification of the honor code is voted on.

The honor code should undergo a systemic revision or reaffirmation no less than every five years. However, the Director or the Provost may propose to re-evaluate the code at any time that the Oglethorpe community or broader academic landscape suggests a need to revisit the code’s policies and procedures. Any modifications to the honor code are to be implemented starting the following academic year at the start of the fall semester.

11.3.7. Disclaimer

In the event that any provision of the honor code is deemed to be in conflict with federal, state or local laws or regulations, all other portions of the code remain in force. The offending portion of the code is automatically not enforceable from such point forward, and the faculty will seek to modify the honor code so as to remove any such conflict as soon as possible thereafter.