1.1 Yale-NUS College upholds the highest standards of integrity common to the academy. Honesty and academic integrity are foundational to our intellectual mission. Yale-NUS College students are expected to act ethically at all times, especially in the conduct of their academic work and in the exercise of their responsibilities towards other members of our learning community.
1.2 Key principles of ethical student conduct include the obligation to
(1) do one’s own work,
(2) not interfere with the work of others, and
(3) accurately and honestly represent the content of one’s own work while making proper attribution of the work of others.
These principles are more fully elaborated below.
- Students should never represent the ideas or language of others as their own – if another person’s ideas, words or work product are used by a student in a paper, in homework or in any other way, the original author must be properly acknowledged.
- Students should never damage or alter the work of other students, or interfere with the ability of other students to do their own work.
- Students should never give or receive assistance on examinations unless explicitly authorized in advance by the instructor.
- Students should never represent work completed for one course as original work prepared ‘new’ for another course.
- Students should not deliberately disregard course rules and regulations.
- Students involved in laboratory or non-laboratory research projects involving the collection of data should accurately report their data, and never alter or fabricate data for any reason.
1.3 One definition of theft is: representing someone else’s property as one’s own. This includes intellectual property.
A student has the obligation never to leave his or her readers with the impression that someone else’s ideas are due to the student, through failure to disclose sources carefully and honestly.
1.4 A student’s failure to conform to the College’s standards of academic integrity is taken very seriously, as dishonest conduct is a threat to our learning community. In fact, there are four interested parties in such matters:
- The College, which has an interest to ensure that its alumni bring credit to its reputation;
- The Instructor, who feels affronted that their efforts in constructing a worthwhile learning experience for their students have been disrespected;
- The student’s classmates, the integrity of whose efforts to succeed in the course by diligent hard work should not be taken advantage of; and
- The student, who in the short term is depriving themselves of a significant learning experience, and in the long term needs to adopt ethical codes of conduct that will bring them credit in their careers and more widely in their days beyond the College.
1.5 Consequently, the procedures outlined below have been established to ensure that suspected violations of academic integrity can be examined thoroughly but fairly, and in a consistent, orderly manner that protects the interests of the involved student(s) as well as the ethical standards of the Yale-NUS College community.
2.1 These procedures have been developed specifically for dealing with suspected violations of academic integrity. However, several aspects of these procedures additionally will be applied to other, non-academic disciplinary proceedings (e.g., the role of the Fact-Finder, the range of potential case outcomes and the role of the Assistant Dean).
2.2 Only a member of the Yale-NUS College faculty or NUS faculty (for purposes of this policy, ‘faculty’ is considered to include a person serving in an instructional capacity at the College, e.g., a tenured or tenure-track professor, a visiting professor, an outside lecturer, or a Assistant Dean teaching a course) can initiate an investigation of an academic integrity incident involving a student. A faculty member may do so in relation to a course for which they are instructor; in the event there is a concern about cheating at an institution other than Yale or NUS, faculty may consult as necessary with representatives from that institution in order to consider whether an investigation should be brought forward under this policy. The faculty member should consult first with the Chair of the Committee on Integrity and Discipline (hereafter known as CID). So far as is practicable the instructor should avoid discussing the case with the student, as the stress of such a discussion may give rise to misinterpretation, be damaging to goodwill, or be prejudicial to a subsequent hearing.
2.3 The Chair may also wish to have informal discussions with the Assistant Dean of the student’s residential college to gain additional potentially helpful insights regarding the student, the conduct in question and the standards of academic integrity that may be at issue. These conversations may help to achieve the following goals:
- Reveal what specific instructions or rubrics to students may have been breached;
- Assist the instructor in determining if a minimum threshold of evidence in regard to the suspected misconduct exists, consistent with other cases that have been reviewed;
- Assist the instructor in identifying the specific nature of the suspected misconduct in terms of the prevailing community standards of honesty and integrity;
- Afford an opportunity to discuss and explore with the Assistant Dean possible alternative approaches to the matter in question;
- Afford the Assistant Dean the opportunity to meet directly with the student suspected of academic misconduct to explore more fully the nature of the suspicion and the student’s perspective on the matter;
- Disclose whether, in the event of more minor infringements, there is opportunity for a possible disposition involving a penalty on the assessment concerned (where a rubric makes provision for this); and
- Reveal whether, in the event of more minor infringements, the student should be referred to the Writers’ Centre for guidance on proper citation and textual engagement practice.
2.4 The Chair may also consult with other members of the CID about the case, with the student’s name withheld, in order to achieve an outcome consistent with previous similar cases, or for discussion of relevant principles where there are no clear precedents. When the identity of the student becomes known to a member of the CID, they may, if considered appropriate, recuse themselves from involvement in the case to avoid conflict of interest.
2.5 Special circumstances regarding Yale-NUS College students taking courses at NUS
Yale-NUS College students taking courses at NUS (or within any of the NUS faculties or programs) are required to conform to the standards of academic integrity adopted by NUS, as well as those of the College; a Yale-NUS College student suspected of violating NUS standards of academic integrity may be held to account under NUS rules and procedures, and possibly those of the College as well.
2.6 Special circumstances regarding NUS students taking courses at Yale-NUS College
NUS students taking courses at Yale-NUS College are required to conform to the standards of academic integrity adopted by Yale-NUS, as well as those of NUS; an NUS student suspected of violating Yale-NUS College standards of academic integrity will be held to account under Yale-NUS College rules and procedures, and possibly those of NUS as well.
3.1 The Committee on Integrity and Discipline encourages instructors to file a complaint with the Committee for any perceived student violation of academic integrity, which would set in motion the process described immediately below. By a vote of the faculty, it was decided that should an instructor elect to forego the filing of a complaint with the Committee, s(he) may not impose any course related sanction (e.g. a grade reduction on the offending assignment or in the course as a whole) for the alleged violation.
3.2 If after the conversations referred to above it is felt appropriate to pursue the matter further, the Chair of CID will issue the student with a Letter of Notification, normally given to the student by the Assistant Dean. This indicates the assessment(s) in question and grounds for concern, and an overview of the process to be followed, including a reminder that the student’s written response to the Letter is required within three (3) days of receipt of the Letter from the Assistant Dean.
3.3 At this time, the Assistant Dean will explain the student’s rights in relation to the hearing that will be convened, including the right to have the Assistant Dean (or an alternate – not another student or parent) present as the student’s counsellor during the hearing, and to discuss the broad elements of the case, next steps in these procedures, and other questions the student may have. A student nominating an alternate counsellor must notify the Assistant Dean within 24 hours of having arranged for this replacement of the Assistant Dean. The role of the counsellor is to ensure that the process is fair to the student, and to aid the student to function more effectively in future in respect of matters relating to academic integrity.
3.4 The Letter of Notification will present the student with two options:
(i) a Predisposition Conference,
(ii) a Full Hearing before the full CID.
If choosing the former of these, the student retains the right to proceed to a Full Hearing if not satisfied with the outcome of the Predisposition Conference.
4.1 The meeting is Chaired by the Chair of CID (or his/her delegate), and attended by the course instructor, the student and the student’s counsellor. It is a relatively informal meeting whose proceedings are not recorded, and facilitates the student’s identity being revealed only to the small group of those present (with details of the meeting being disclosed to the CID in an anonymized form). It enables both instructor and student to present their understanding of the facts of the case in the presence of witnesses aiming to preserve a cordial and constructive atmosphere respecting the rights of all parties to a fair hearing.
4.2 The purpose of the meeting is to determine whether there is sufficient common ground between the accounts of the instructor and the student to allow a prompt resolution of the case, including the proposal of sanctions if appropriate.
This may entail a review of salient facts of the case, but where they are in dispute they are more properly dealt with by a thorough fact-finding preceding a Full Hearing.
4.3 At times during the meeting, the Chair may request certain participants to withdraw temporarily, save that whenever the student is present at the meeting s/he is to be accompanied by his or her counsellor.
4.4 Normally, when all parties indicate that they have no further statements to make, the Chair will ask the student to withdraw in order that the Chair, instructor and counsellor make consider what sanctions, if any, are most suitably proposed to the student.
4.5 In cases involving more than one student (for example, unauthorized collusion in an assessment), it may be that no sanction can be proposed until the other student(s)’ cases have been dealt with.
4.6 Actions available to the Chair include the following:
(i)Decision that the matter has been sufficiently investigated, and no sanction shall ensue;
(ii)Proposal of a grade penalty in consultation with the instructor;
(iii)Proposal of a Letter of Referral that refers the student to the Writers’ Centre representative on CID for appropriate work on issues of citation, plagiarism and ethics, with this representative to report to the Assistant Dean as to whether the work has been faithfully carried out;
(iv)Proposal of an institutional sanction, commonly a College Reprimand (see Section 7 below).
4.7 When a proposal of sanctions is announced to the student in the meeting, the student is given the opportunity to ask further questions. The student is reminded that they retain the right to request a Full Hearing rather than accept the proposed sanctions. For avoidance of uncertainty this will be followed by the Letter of Sanctions, an email from the Chair to the student detailing the proposed sanctions, reminding the student of the right to request a Full Hearing, and indicating that in order to exercise that right the student should reply with an email to the Chair within 72 hours of receipt of the Letter of Sanctions. If within those 72 hours the student fails to indicate to the Chair a wish to proceed to a Full Hearing, the sanctions stated in the Letter of Sanctions will be the end of the matter, and there will be no appeal possible for any sanctions that result.
5.1 A Full Hearing may result from the choice of the student or decision of the CID Chair. In preparation, the CID Chair will appoint a Fact-Finder to more fully investigate the facts associated with the case. The Fact-Finder’s role is to objectively and impartially develop and assess relevant evidence, from whatever source is considered suitable, to assist the CID to form a judgement on the matter.
5.2 The Fact-Finder may choose to meet with the student in question, but is not required to do so. The student may decline to meet with the Fact-Finder without prejudice, although in general it will be in the student’s interest to make known to the panel in advance of the hearing all information the student considers to be relevant.
5.3 At the conclusion of his or her fact-finding efforts, the Fact-Finder will present a written report of findings to the CID Chair, the Assistant Dean (and, if the student has selected a counsellor different from the Assistant Dean, to the counsellor) and the student. The purpose of this report is to provide the CID with as much factual information as possible (by way of background) regarding the circumstances of the case. To the extent that the Fact-Finder has made judgements regarding the credibility of certain evidence or individual testimony, remarks to this effect should be included in the report. The report should include as attachments all documents considered by the Fact-Finder to be relevant to a comprehensive evaluation.
5.4 It is expected that the Fact-Finder’s report will normally be submitted within ten (10) days from the time of his or her appointment, although in vacation this may take somewhat longer. If an extension of time is needed, the CID Chair will inform the student and Assistant Dean/counsellor accordingly.
5.5 Upon receipt of the Fact-Finder’s report, the CID Chair will arrange for the Full Hearing to take place at the earliest opportunity at which the CID Chair and a majority of the CID (known as the Hearing Panel, normally Chaired by the CID Chair), as well as the student, instructor and Assistant Dean/counsellor are reasonably able to attend.
5.6 Within 72 hours of being informed of the need for a Full Hearing, the student has the right to challenge the presence of up to two (2) members of the CID, to preclude their attendance at the Full Hearing, requesting their replacement due to a demonstrated conflict of interest. The student initiates such a challenge by submitting his or her concerns in writing to the Dean of Students, who shall, in consultation with the Vice-President (Academic Affairs), determine whether the student’s stated concerns warrant such replacement.
5.7 In certain cases, such as when the student and the instructor are in agreement as to all facts of the case and their interpretation, but the student claims that the sanctions proposed at the Predisposition Conference are unduly harsh, the CID Chair may decide that the services of the Fact-Finder or presence of the instructor are not required for the Full Hearing.
5.8 Inevitably, a Full Hearing involves more people than present at a Predisposition Conference, so that it is not possible to preserve the same degree of confidentiality as occurs at a Predisposition Conference.
6.1 When the Hearing Panel convenes, the following procedures and considerations are applicable. The Chair of the Hearing Panel is responsible for ensuring that all relevant information is received, that the proceedings are conducted in a civil, fair and equitable fashion, and in accordance with the procedures and considerations outlined in this section, and for resolving any disputes that may arise in this respect.
6.2 An audio recording is to be made of the entire proceedings before the Hearing Panel, excluding (i) deliberations of the committee following the close of the hearing, and (ii) any part of the proceedings that, in the judgement of the Chair of the Hearing Panel, should not be recorded in the interests of fairness or personal privacy. Upon resolution of the case, the recording is erased.
6.3 At the outset of the hearing, the Chair shall
(a) describe the procedures by which the hearing will be governed, including the order in which presentations of information and/or the taking of testimony will occur,
(b) review the concerns with the student as they were represented in the Letter of Notification,
(c) remind all persons present that all decisions are to be based solely on the information presented at the hearing (Important Procedural Note: as the Fact-Finder’s report is not in and of itself considered evidence, it is incumbent upon the Hearing Panel and the student to offer and/or elicit testimony with regard to the content of that report sufficient to render relevant information a matter of record in the hearing), and
(d) review the standard of judgement to be applied in relation to formal fact-finding by the Hearing Panel, which shall be ‘clear and convincing’[1] evidence of all facts material to the suspected misconduct, measured against the presumption of innocence of the student involved.
6.4 Following the Chair’s recitation of the governing procedures, the concerns, the character of relevant evidence and the standard of judgement, the Chair shall invite the student to explain the relevance of any additional documents that s/he wishes to introduce to the hearing (beyond those attached to the Fact-Finder’s report), and the anticipated relevance of information to be shared by persons that the student has recommended be invited to appear before the Hearing Panel; the student can make reference to his or her written explanations in support, previously provided to the CID Chair and made a part of the hearing record. Once the student has completed his or her explanation and responded to any questions from the Hearing Panel, the Chair shall, in consultation with the other members of the Panel, decide which of the student’s proffered documents shall be made a part of the Hearing record, and which additional persons will be invited to share information before the Hearing Panel.
6.5 Once the Chair has decided which additional documents and/or persons to admit to the hearing, the Chair shall invite the Fact-Finder to present the case (if, as noted earlier, the Chair has determined that such a presentation is desired). After the Fact-Finder presents the case, if applicable, or to initiate the fact-finding portion of the hearing if the Fact-Finder does not present the case, the Chair shall invite the student to share any additional information that he or she believes should be taken into account by the Hearing Panel that is not otherwise represented in the Fact-Finder’s report. It is expected that the student will take this opportunity to respond directly to the material findings of fact set forth in the Fact-Finder’s report, whether to admit, explain or dispute them. Where applicable, the student should make reference to any documents and/or information to be presented by additional persons that the Chair of the Hearing Panel has agreed to invite to appear before the Panel.
6.6 Once the student has finished responding to the Fact-Finder’s report, the Panel shall invite to appear and share information (in sequence, not together) each of the additional persons suggested by the student and approved by the Chair of the Hearing Panel. The student shall have the opportunity to ask questions of each such person, as shall the Hearing Panel; once the Panel completes its questioning the student will have the option of additionally questioning each such person in order to clarify points raised through questions from the panel. The Chair shall have the prerogative of stopping any testimony that is, in the judgement of the Chair, irrelevant to the issues under consideration.
6.7 Once questioning has been completed regarding additional persons appearing before the Panel on the suggestion of the student, the student shall be invited to question the Fact-Finder regarding any specific findings or observations stated in the Fact-Finder’s report. The Hearing Panel will have the prerogative of questioning the Fact-Finder at this time as well, but will be limited at this time to submitting questions only in response to areas of inquiry opened up by the student (as noted in section (ix) below, the Panel will have an additional opportunity to question the Fact-Finder regarding the content of his or her report).
6.8 Following any questioning of the Fact-Finder by the student, the Panel shall be at liberty to question the student based on his or her responses to the Fact-Finder’s report, or any other documents admitted to the Hearing record, or any information supplied to the Hearing Panel by persons other than the student and the Fact-Finder.
6.9 After the Panel has concluded its questioning of the student based upon his or her responses to the Fact-Finder’s report and other information referenced in section (viii) above, the Panel shall invite to appear those other persons that the Panel on its own authority previously determined to be necessary to the proceedings, and will invite them to share relevant information. The Panel shall question each such person as necessary to elicit information relevant to the issues under consideration, and the student shall, in turn, have the opportunity to question each person to similar effect.
6.10 After the Panel has concluded its questioning of any additional persons that it previously determined should be invited to appear and share information, the Panel will have the opportunity to question the Fact-Finder regarding the content of his or her report. 6.11 Once the Panel has completed its questioning of the Fact-Finder, the student will have the opportunity to ask follow up questions, but only to the extent necessary to generate new information relevant to the proceedings.
6.12 After all questioning has been completed, the Chair shall invite the student to share any final comments. Once the student finishes speaking (if s/he chooses to do so), the Chair shall ask the student if he or she would like the Assistant Dean (or the student’s counsellor, if the student has selected a counsellor different from the Assistant Dean) to speak on behalf of the student. If the student responds in the affirmative, the Assistant Dean (or other counsellor) may speak on behalf of the student. If the student responds in the negative, the Assistant Dean (or other counsellor) will not be allowed to speak on the student’s behalf.
6.13 Once the Assistant Dean (or counsellor) has finished speaking, if applicable, and answered any follow-up questions from the Panel, the Chair shall declare that the Hearing is concluded and the Panel shall retire for closed deliberations to determine whether the student has engaged in academic misconduct in relation to the concerns raised, and in what particulars. In making this determination, the Panel shall rely solely on the information presented during the hearing (the “record”), whether in testimonial or documentary form, and shall not have regard to any information regarding prior instances of misconduct by the student.
6.14 If the panel determines that insufficient evidence exists in the record to conclude that the student engaged in academic misconduct as suspected, all records associated with the concerns and the Hearing shall be destroyed except to the extent those records represent documents maintained in the due course of College business, e.g., examinations, papers or other assignments.
6.15 If the Panel determines that the student has engaged in academic misconduct, the Panel shall then determine the sanction(s) to be applied in accordance with Section 7 below. In deliberating on the sanction(s) to be applied, the Panel can take into consideration any instances of prior academic misconduct on the part of the student, which information shall be made available through the CID Chair. All records relating to a case in which misconduct has been determined to have occurred, including any sanctions imposed or disposition on appeal, shall be on permanent file with the CID, having due regard to confidentiality in those cases where sanctions are internal only to the College.
6.16 Following the Panel’s decisions as above, the Chair shall recall the student and the student’s counsellor, to present the Panel’s decisions.
6.17 Within ten (10) days from the date on which the student was orally advised of the Panel’s findings and proposed sanctions (if any), the CID Chair shall issue a written report setting forth the Panel’s key findings and reasons for the proposed sanctions. The Chair shall make copies of the written report available immediately to the student, the Assistant Dean (and the student’s counsellor, if the student selected a counsellor different from the Assistant Dean) and the Dean of Students.
Mathew Bender, The Law of Evidence in Virginia, 1-5: The term “clear and convincing” is an intermediate standard, being more than a mere preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not mean unequivocal. The “clear and convincing” standard requires that measure or degree of proof, which will produce in the mind of the reviewer of the facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established.
7.1 In determining sanctions, the Hearing Panel should take into account the following:
(1) the severity of the offence, which shall involve an assessment of the degree to which the student’s conduct deviates from and/or injures the integrity of the learning community at Yale-NUS College;
(2) precedent established through other academic misconduct cases;
(3) the attitude of the respondent subsequent to the issue of the Letter of Notification, and the credibility of his or her account of the behaviour in question notwithstanding the fact the panel has determined that misconduct occurred; and
(4) the student’s overall academic integrity record, including any prior instances of adjudicated or acknowledged academic misconduct.
7.2 Institutional and course-grade sanctions may be imposed. Changes in a course grade shall be proposed by the faculty member raising the concern of misconduct and approved by the CID, providing that the Hearing (or Predisposition Conference) has resulted in a finding of academic misconduct. If the Hearing results in a finding of no academic misconduct, there can be no course-grade consequences as a result of suspected academic misconduct.
7.3 The CID may, at its discretion, also impose one of the following three institutional sanctions:
- Reprimand. This shall constitute an internal disciplinary record only, and the student can accurately represent that s/he has no disciplinary record when applying to schools, jobs or other opportunities; however, an internal disciplinary record can be considered in other misconduct proceedings involving the student (academic or otherwise), if those proceedings involve a determination of appropriate sanctions.
- Suspension. This shall constitute a permanent disciplinary record, which in practice means that the College will retain a permanent record of the suspension and report that it has occurred if queried by potential employers, educational programs, scholarship boards, etc. The suspended student is required to leave campus immediately (within 3 days of being advised of the suspension), thus ending the current semester without benefit of any final grades or credits being awarded; a suspension may, in addition to lasting the duration of the current semester, extend to an additional one (1) or two (2) additional semesters. A student may be suspended for a first offence if, in the opinion of the CID, the academic misconduct warrants such a sanction.
- Expulsion. This shall constitute a permanent disciplinary record, which in practice means that the College will retain a permanent record of the expulsion and report that it has occurred if queried by potential employers, educational programs, scholarship boards, etc. The expelled student is required to leave campus immediately (within 3 days of being advised of expulsion) and is not eligible to re-enrol in the future. A student may be expelled for a first offence if, in the opinion of the CID, the academic misconduct warrants such a sanction.
7.4 At the discretion of the Hearing Panel, financial penalties may be assessed in addition to any of the sanctions listed above, including fees for tuition, housing, or reimbursement for destruction of property.
8.1 A student found to have engaged in misconduct, and being subjected to sanctions by the Hearing Panel and/or some form of grade change or other consequence imposed by the faculty member who raised the concern of misconduct (in consultation with the Chair of CID), may appeal the finding of misconduct and/or the proposed sanctions and the instructor’s grade change to the Executive Vice-President (Academic Affairs) of Yale-NUS College. The student must initiate the appeal within ten (10) days of receiving the written report of findings from the Chair of the Hearing Panel. The student initiates the appeal by submitting a written request to the Office of the Executive Vice-President (Academic Affairs), with copies to the Chair of CID, the Assistant Dean and the Dean of Students, outlining the student’s bases for objecting to the decision and/or proposed sanctions.
8.2 The review of the appeal by the Executive Vice-President (Academic Affairs) shall be limited to the information contained in the hearing record as well as the written decision of the Hearing Panel. The Executive Vice-President (Academic Affairs) shall have the following options:
- Affirm the decision and the sanctions;
- Remand to the Hearing Panel for further deliberations, taking into account questions or concerns expressed by the Executive Vice-President (Academic Affairs) following review, with the student having the option of appealing the Panel’s decision on remand;
- Modify the institutional sanctions.
8.3 The decision of the Executive Vice-President (Academic Affairs) shall be final. The Executive Vice-President (Academic Affairs) shall not have the option of changing any course grade sanctions imposed by the faculty member raising the concern of academic misconduct.
9.1 At any stage in proceedings for academic misconduct, the CID and/or the Hearing Panel may consult with the Dean regarding the interpretation of these procedures and the impacts of different potential outcomes (including both institutional and instructor’s sanctions) on the student and the student body. The Dean shall serve only in an advisory capacity, and only as specified in this section.