Click here for the Daily Orange's inclusive journalism fellowship applications for this year


Schools and Colleges

Updated academic integrity policy aims to make reporting violations easier, clarify the process

Kiran Ramsey | Senior Design Editor

The new academic integrity policy reflects input from students and faculty who are overwhelmed with reporting requirements.

Syracuse University’s recent revision to its Academic Integrity Policy will make it easier for faculty to report academic integrity violations, but will also streamline and clarify the process for students.

The change, which went into affect Jan. 1, is intended to make the policy as fair, effective, consistent and efficient as possible, said Margaret Usdansky, director of the Academic Integrity Office.

The new policy creates three levels of academic integrity violations under a single charge of “Violation of the Academic Integrity Policy.” The major change is related to the resolution of academic integrity violations. A hearing is no longer the only method of settling infractions.

The revisions, according to the Academic Integrity Office website, also include increased faculty authority over grade-related sanctions, the establishment of academic integrity panels, making straightforward charges occur expeditiously and placing appeals processes and final decisions with the schools and colleges.

The process to revise the policy began as early as fall 2015, when Usdansky created a university-wide advisory committee of faculty, students and staff to review the policy. The committee, formally called the Academic Integrity Policy Review Advisory Committee, was composed of academic integrity coordinators from each school on campus.



After the revision proposal was created, the Graduate Student Organization and the Student Association gave their input. Feedback was also sought at faculty meetings throughout the university and at meetings of university deans, Usdansky said.

Usdansky said she then worked with other professors and deans to draft the revised policy in summer 2016. The College of Engineering and Computer Science, the David B. Falk College of Sport and Human Dynamics, the College of Visual and Performing Arts and the School of Information Studies piloted the revisions this past fall.

Ramesh Raina, a biology professor in the College of Arts and Sciences and co-chair of the Academic Integrity Policy Review Advisory Committee, said the goal of the new policy revision is to increase transparency between students, faculty and staff when it comes to academic integrity expectations.

He said that before the revisions, faculty and students could easily get overwhelmed by reporting requirements.

“People would get bogged down in the nitty gritty details so we took that and made it more streamlined and less difficult to navigate both in terms of the content,” Raina said.

Under the old policy, faculty would often avoid reporting. Then, after violations were reported, the process to resolve cases of violations would get dragged out, sometimes taking up to a semester long, Raina said.

The new policy helps avoid some of these issues by making violations easier to report, streamlining the process to resolve cases and making expectations of faculty and students more clear, he said.

“We wanted to make it a little bit more self-explanatory as to what kind of violation would lead to what kind of outcome and not to drag this on for a very long time,” Raina said.

Usdansky said the biggest changes to the policy are in the way cases are reviewed and considered.

“That approach — multiple avenues for case resolution — allows us more resources for complex and disputed cases, which is better for students and faculty alike,” Usdansky said.

Kandice Salomone, the associate dean of advising and career services in the College of Arts and Sciences and one of the coordinators on the Academic Integrity Policy Review Advisory Committee, said the changes help make the policy more of an education tool for students. Students can now better understand the importance of academic integrity for their education and future careers, she said.

Additionally, expectations relating to academic integrity are now clearer, Usdansky said. The focus points are “Credit Your Sources,” “Do Your Own Work,” “Communicate Honestly” and “Support Academic Integrity.”

Samuel Gorovitz, a philosophy professor and a member of the University Senate Committee on Academic Affairs, said he voted in favor of the policy revision and is glad the university is making academic integrity a priority.

He said he has dealt with academic dishonesty several times in the past, adding that one of his students was expelled from the university for a violation.

Gorovitz added that he hopes the new policy will help faculty be more comfortable with reporting violations and students feel more comfortable understanding their expectations, though he said there will likely be more revisions to the policy in the future.





Top Stories