|
Nicholas School Honor Code
The honor code followed in the Nicholas School of the Environment
(the “Nicholas School”) follows
the principles set out in the Duke Community Standard. Its
procedures draw on those developed by the Duke undergraduate
judicial system. You must sign to indicate your agreement
to abide by the Duke Community Standard and its application
in the Nicholas School before you may enroll.
The Duke Community
Standard
Duke University is a community dedicated to scholarship,
leadership, and service and to the principles of honesty,
fairness, respect, and accountability. Citizens of this
community commit to reflect upon and uphold these principles
in all academic and nonacademic endeavors, and to protect
and promote a culture of integrity.
To uphold the Duke Community
Standard:
- I will not lie, cheat, or steal in my academic endeavors;
- I will conduct myself responsibly in
all my endeavors; and
- I will act if the Standard is compromised.
Application of the Standard
in the Nicholas School:
The following sections provide additional information on
the elements of the Duke Community Standard and its application
in the Nicholas School. There is a paragraph specifically
for Nicholas School faculty at the end. As a Nicholas School
student, you are responsible for familiarizing yourself
with this additional information and acting accordingly.
Definitions:
Lying,
Cheating, Stealing. Definitions for these terms
used in the Duke Community Standard appear on page 13 of
the Bulletin of Undergraduate information and Regulations
here
>.
Plagiarism.
In addition to the brief discussion of plagiarism at the
preceding site, refer to the following Duke University Library
sites for more details on plagiarism and tips on how to
avoid it in your work, including how to take notes accurately
and how to cite sources, including electronic sources, appropriately:
http://library.duke.edu/research/guides/citing.
Here is a helpful
tutorial on plagiarism and how to avoid
it, with examples drawn from experiences of Duke students.
Academic
Endeavors.
The first part of the pledge that accompanies the Duke
Community Standard focuses on academic activities. In addition
to those that are obvious, other examples include, but are
not limited to:
1. Use of library, reading room, and other study
materials. Use them so that they will remain in
good shape and equally accessible for others (e.g., don’t
check out books needed for course reserves, don’t
remove reading room materials except briefly for copying,
observe copyright laws).
2. Use of computer labs and other university computer
resources. Use them so that they will remain useful
for others (e.g., observe the priorities for computer users
in the labs, don’t monopolize internet access, observe
copyright laws, don’t display objectionable computer
material in the labs). Protect your own work – don’t
allow others to view your on-screen work and don’t
dispose of preliminary drafts (e.g., tests, homework) in
the lab recycling bin.
3. Homework assignments and projects.
Be sure you are clear about what level of consultation or
collaboration with others is allowed. Do not use the same
or similar work for more than one assignment (e.g., for
papers in two courses) without explicit, prior permission
from both instructors.
4. Self-scheduled exams. Do not discuss
anything about self-scheduled exams (length, difficulty,
etc.) with other students until after the end of exam week
5. Mailboxes. Do not remove, or even look
at, what is in another person’s mailbox, whether faculty
or student, or what is in a folder or drop-box used to collect
student work.
6. Studying from old exams, homeworks, lab exercises.
Be sure that you understand which materials you may use,
and be sure they are equally available to all.
NOTE: If the instructor has not already
provided a place to do so, put this statement on any work
you turn in and include your signature, “I
have adhered to the Duke Community Standard in completing
this assignment.”
Non-academic
Endeavors.
The second clause of the Duke Community Standard extends
its reach to non-academic activities undertaken as a Nicholas
School student. These can include field trips, boat use at
the Marine Lab, internships, Duke athletic and cultural events,
use of the Hug Commons and student lounge, and mailboxes.
NS students are expected to observe all local, state and
federal laws and to conduct themselves in a manner that respects
use of Duke facilities and events by others. Clean up after
yourself, and look after the belongings and personal safety
of others – report suspicious activities, and
don’t prop doors open or admit unauthorized persons
to Duke buildings.
Creating
a Community of Integrity.
Creating a climate characterized by integrity in academic
and nonacademic activities is a joint responsibility of
students, faculty, and staff. In addition to abiding by
the terms of the Duke Community Standard yourself, you
have a positive obligation to act, as described below,
if you suspect the Standard has been compromised. Faculty
and staff also share responsibility for integrity, especially
(1) clarifying what is expected of students for academic
assignments, (2) explicitly referring to the Duke Community
Standard in classes, and (3) pursuing suspected cases
of violation. In addition to signing the Duke Community
Standard before enrollment, during orientation you must
attend a student-led discussion of the Duke Community Standard
as it applies to Nicholas School students.
Responding
to Suspected
Violations.
Your signature on the Duke Community Standard obliges you
to take constructive action if you witness, or know about,
behavior you perceive to be inconsistent with the Standard.
Although there are no disciplinary sanctions associated with
failure to act, you are, nonetheless, expected to take action—to
do something—as a responsibility of membership in the Duke
Community.
The university recognizes that it is not always
easy to act in these situations, but several alternatives
are available; these are not mutually exclusive.
- Speaking directly with the individual exhibiting the
behavior, both to gain clarity about the situation and
to inform the individual about the concern.
- Publicly calling attention to the behavior as it is occurring.
- For incidents involving social behaviors, alerting fellow
students, NS staff, the Director of Professional Studies
or other university staff. The information provided will
give staff an opportunity to address the matter informally
or through appropriate formal channels.
- For cases involving academic integrity, alerting the
instructor that cheating may be occurring in the course.
This alert can be in any form, including anonymous notification,
and the reporting student will not be identified. The information
provided will allow the faculty member to consider corrective
measures, in consultation with the Director of Professional
Studies, and to address the topic with the class or suspected
student(s).
- Directly alerting the Director of Professional Studies,
who will confer with the faculty member involved, if an
academic issue, or with the reporting student(s), strategizing
next steps. Maintaining the confidentiality of the source
is possible, but may limit the extent of action that can
be taken.
You are welcome to discuss suspected violations of the NS
honor code with the Director of Professional Studies at any
stage.
Resolving
Violations
Nicholas School procedures for resolving suspected violations
follow the criteria established by the Academic Integrity
Council in its guidelines for graduate and professional
schools (June 2003 draft).
The way suspected violations are resolved depends on their
severity and the student’s disciplinary history. Once
a suspected violation has been brought to the attention
of the DPS, s/he will decide whether any further investigation
is possible and warranted (e.g., some allegations are brought
in such a vague way that there is no way to investigate
further, and the matter must be dropped). If there is going
to be a further investigation, the DPS will notify the person
suspected of the violation. The DPS also will also review
the disciplinary record of the person suspected to see if
there are any previous violations that would preclude a
“one-time faculty/student resolution” (see
below).
One-Time
Student-Faculty Resolution. When the suspected
violation is “minimal,” such that it would not
put the student at risk of probation, suspension or expulsion
(e.g., inadvertent omission of a citation or improper citation,
minor misunderstanding about collaboration or use of materials
on an assignment), and when the student has not committed
any previous violations, it may be possible to resolve the
situation at the level of the faculty member in charge of
the course and the student. The first, and essential, stage
in this process is for the faculty member to discuss the
situation with the Director of Professional Studies (DPS)
to determine (1) that the suspected violation is in fact
“minimal,” and (2) that the student has not
previously been accused of any violations. The DPS serves
as a “clearinghouse” for honor code violations,
so that (1) there is consistency in defining what violations
are “minimal,” (2) the consequences for various
types of violations are consistent, and (3) repeated violations
by the same student in different courses don’t go
unnoticed. When these conditions are met, the instructor
may impose consequences for the violation (and inform the
DPS what those consequences are). These could include receiving
failing grades on the assignment or the course, repeating
one or more assignments, and/or completing a separate assignment
intended to inform the student about academic integrity
(e.g., a paper analyzing the consequences of failure to
cite sources properly) .
If the instructor does not want to use this option, s/he
may refer the case to the next level right away. If the
student does not agree with the resolution proposed by the
instructor, s/he may appeal to the DPS to reconsider the
case at an administrative hearing (see below). In resolving
a case at that next level, if the allegation is found to
be unwarranted, the instructor may not penalize the student
in terms of grades.
The DPS will keep a record of any one-time faculty-student
resolution, but that record will not become part of a student’s
file unless there is a second violation.
Administrative
Hearing. If the suspected violation is not “minimal,”
if there have been previous violations, if the instructor
chooses not to resolve the case, or if the student disagrees
with the instructor’s proposed resolution, the case
goes to an administrative hearing. (If the violation is
severe enough to put the student at risk of suspension
or dismissal, and if the accused student denies the accusation,
s/he may ask to bypass the administrative hearing level
and go directly to an ad hoc judicial panel, as explained
below.) Alleged non-academic violations are handled by
administrative hearing.
The DPS and the Director of Enrollment Services will hear
from the student accused of the violation and the person
making the allegation and review any relevant documents
(e.g., comparing works alleged to have been copied). Although
usually these proceedings will take place face to face,
it may sometimes be necessary to receive information by
phone or email to resolve the case in a timely way (such
as before the beginning of a new term). The DPS and Director
of Enrollment Services will jointly decide whether there
is clear and convincing evidence of the alleged violation.
If so, they will jointly determine consequences proportionate
to the violation and consistent with the resolution of similar
violations. Consequences may include probation, suspension,
dismissal or expulsion, and/or assignments intended to educate
the student about academic integrity. Consequences may include
recommendations to the course instructor involving grades
for one or more assignments or for the whole course, but
final authority for these rests with the instructor.
If the student believes the administrative hearing failed
to consider relevant information, violated fair procedures
in some other way, or imposed consequences inappropriate
to the offense, s/he may appeal the decision to an ad hoc
judicial panel (see below).
The DPS will keep a record of the hearing and the resolution
of the case, which will become part of the student’s
file. If there has been a previous one-time resolution between
the student and a faculty member, it will become part of
the student’s file as well.
Ad
Hoc Judicial Panel. Appeals from the administrative
hearing stage will be heard by an ad hoc judicial panel
composed of at least four members, including at least two
Nicholas School students and at least two Nicholas School
faculty or staff members. The DPS will be present to help
maintain continuity and consistency of procedures from
one level to another and from one case to another, but
will not be a voting member of that panel. The student
members will be selected by the honor code representative(s)
from the Nicholas School Student Council (NSSC). The faculty/staff
members will be selected by the DPS. The student suspected
of the violation may object in writing if s/he believes
any member of the proposed panel has a conflict of interest
that could jeopardize a fair judgment. All members of the
panel and the accused student should be notified at least
48 hours in advance when and where the hearing will be
and what evidence will be presented. Any of the judicial
panel members or the student may ask for evidence to be
presented. The accused student may consult others for advice
at his/her discretion and may bring a member of the Duke
community (student, faculty or staff member) to the hearing
as an advisor (but the advisor does not speak to the judicial
panel or any witnesses). The panel will attempt to decide
whether a violation took place and what the consequences
should be by consensus; where consensus is not possible,
a vote will determine the outcome (thus, a 3-1 or 4-0 vote is necessary to reach a
conclusion). Consequences may include recommendations to
the instructor regarding grades (not binding on the instructor;
see above). A record of the judicial hearing will be kept
by the DPS and made part of the student’s file.
Confidentiality.
Information shared in the course of any of these ways of
resolving alleged violations is confidential; student records
of disciplinary actions will be maintained in accordance
with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Information
about honor code violations will be shared in these circumstances:
(1) A student accused in writing of a violation that will
be investigated further has a right to know that s/he has
been accused. (2) Information about honor code violations,
their disposition and consequences may be shared, with any
identifying information removed, for the purposes of (a)
educating students and faculty about honor code violations,
(b) ensuring consistency in responding to honor code violations,
and (c) reporting on honor code violations to the University
or to facilitate research on academic integrity. When the
student population is small, special care must be taken
in describing honor code violations so that identity cannot
be readily deduced from the details of the case.
For
Concurrent Degree Students:
The Nicholas School will share information about honor
code violations involving concurrent degree students (both
those that are resolved by one-time faculty/student interaction
and those that result in school-level actions such as probation,
suspension or dismissal) with the student’s other
degree program. The Nicholas School will ask the other
school to observe the same guidelines regarding confidentiality
of information and student records as are observed here.
The Nicholas School will ask other degree programs to reciprocate
by sharing information on honor code violations by concurrent
degree students with the Nicholas School. When sanctions
imposed by one degree program could affect the concurrent
degree student’s status in the other program (e.g., probation,
suspension, dismissal), the Nicholas School will coordinate
with the other degree program to ensure that the sanction
has the intended effect.
For
Nicholas School Faculty:
Faculty
Responsibilities. Faculty help create a community
of integrity by: (1) including the Duke Community Standard
in course syllabi; (2) discussing academic integrity, responsible
citation of sources, etc,. in class and when advising students;
(3) clarifying, in writing, expectations about who or what
students may consult in completing each assignment, (4)
providing the statement “I have adhered to the Duke
Community Standard in completing this assignment”
and a signature line on all assignments, including exams;
(5) creating conditions that minimize the temptation to
cheat (e.g., not allowing last-minute changes in paper
topics, altering exam questions from year to year); (6)
being alert to possible violations (e.g., plagiarism, suspiciously
identical student work); and (7) following up on suspected
and reported cases of academic integrity violations.
Proctoring of exams is not required, but is left to the
discretion of the instructor. When deciding whether to proctor
exams, consider the size of the class and the type of exam.
Respond to suspected violations that you observe or those
that are reported to you by students by alerting the Director
of Professional Studies. The next step depends on whether
this is a first-time offense and on the severity of the suspected
violation (see above under “Resolving
Violations”).
You as the instructor have authority over how an academic
integrity violation affects grading for the course in which
the violation occurred (e.g., failure on assignment where
violation occurred, failure of course). When there is going
to be an administrative hearing or a judicial panel hearing
of the suspected violation (see above), you may choose to
wait for the resolution of that hearing before deciding
on the grade consequences of the violation. If the alleged
violation is found to be without substance, you may not
impose a grade consequence.
updated 8-9-07
For more information, contact Emily
Klein
|
