All CLA faculty play an essential role in creating a classroom environment that reflects the values of honesty, responsibility, and fairness. As mentors and instructors, faculty are the primary touchstone of students to the academic world. As such, it is the responsibility for faculty to be familiar with Drew’s institutional policies, set clear expectations for integrity in the classroom, and serve as a good example to their students.

PLEASE NOTE:  The policies and procedures below apply to CLA students.  For policies and procedures relating to students of the Caspersen School of Graduate Studies and the Theological School, please refer to the catalogs for these schools.

What is Drew's Academic Integrity Policy?

Standards of honesty in the academic world derive from the nature of the academic enterprise itself. Scholars use writing both to record and create knowledge, and students are invited into the academic enterprise through an intellectual conversation that occurs primarily in writing. Through contributing to this academic conversation, students develop their intellectual skills. Since academic dishonesty violates the basic principles of the conversation, it cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. Accordingly, Drew University has established standards of academic integrity and procedures governing violations of them. These basic standards apply to all work done at Drew. Students are expected to study and comply with these principles. All members of the academic community are obliged, by that membership, to report instances of presumed dishonesty to the appropriate officials.

The full policy and associated procedures are posted in the catalog and can be viewed here.

Categories of academic dishonesty include: plagiarism, duplicate submission, cheating on examinations, and false citation.

Reporting Violations

Instructors should report alleged cases of violations of the Academic Integrity Policy using the Academic Integrity Violations-Faculty Form. The following considerations may apply to reporting alleged cases:

  • In cases where there is question as to whether a preponderance of evidence exists, instructors may wish to consult with the convenor of the Academic Integrity Committee for guidance in choosing the appropriate course of action.
  • New faculty may wish to consult with their department chair to review suspected violations and to assist in moving a viable case forward.
  • Students are expected to maintain the standards of the college by reporting to the instructor any violations of the policy they observe in their classes.
Courses of Action

The following constitute two potential courses of action in response to reporting an alleged violation:

  1. Alternative Resolution Procedure (ARP): The ARP applies to first offenses that are minor or unintentional for a student who admits responsibility for the violation. Violations by first-year students are generally managed through the ARP. Details on the ARP follow below.
  2. Academic Integrity Hearing: If the evidence suggests that the violation is more serious, was intentional, and/or the charged student is unwilling to admit to the offense, the Academic Integrity Committee may determine that an alternative Resolution is inappropriate.  When at least one of the following conditions apply, the convenor of the committee  will schedule an Academic Integrity Hearing:
    1. The nature of the case is more serious than would be warranted by an alternative resolution procedure or
    2. The student refuses to admit to a first offense that could otherwise be resolved through the Alternative Resolution procedure or
    3. The student fails to complete sanctions articulated in the alternative resolution forms or
    4. The violation is the second reported violation for the student.

While the faculty member may advise a specific course of action in the Academic Integrity Violations-Faculty Form,  the Academic Integrity Committee confirms the appropriate course of action. 

All procedures are managed by the administrative office of the Center for Academic Excellence (CAE).

Alternative Resolution Procedure

Step 1- The instructor contacts the student to alert them of the violation and that the case will be managed via an Alternative Resolution.

Step 2- If the student denies the allegation and refuses to engage in the AR process, faculty should inform the convenor as the case must go to hearing.

Step 3- Assuming the student admits to the violation, the instructor determines the sanction.

 Required Sanctions:

  • Successful completion of online course Understanding Academic Integrity.
  • For violations related to plagiarism: participation in a meeting, or workshop, with a writing specialist.

Potential additional Sanctions include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • No credit for the assignment
  • A failing grade on the assignment that cannot be dropped
  • Re-do of the assignment with grade penalty depending on the severity
  • An alternative assignment related to the course material

Step 4-After the faculty have discussed the violation with the student, they should inform the CAE administrative office, and an electronic template for the AR form will be shared with the instructor; the instructor completes the template and sends it back via email to cae-admin@drew.edu. 

Step 5- Once the template is received, the electronic signature process commences, whereby the student signs the AR form first, agreeing to the terms.

Step 6- Once the sanction(s) have been fulfilled, the instructor signs the AR and a letter from the Academic Integrity  committee is sent to the instructor and student, warning that future violations will have more serious consequences.  Failure to complete all sanctions will prompt the convening of an Academic Integrity Hearing.

Step 7- The letter and all documents associated with the case are stored for referral in the event of another reported violation.

Academic Integrity Hearings

Step 1 – The convenor contacts the student via email to confirm that the case must be reviewed at a hearing of the Academic Integrity committee.  The student is informed that they may invite a faculty or staff member for moral support only (not for student advocacy). Students with documented disabilities may request disability-related assistance to be present at the hearing. 

Step 2 –  The CAE administrative office coordinates scheduling with the instructor, the student , and committee members. The student is informed that if they do not respond to scheduling requests or if they are absent from the hearing and do not provide prior notice, the case will be adjudicated in their absence. Along with the student, instructor and the convenor, two committee members are requested to attend.  All relevant documents are made accessible to the attendees of the hearing.

Step 3- The hearing follows the process as outlined in the policy, and the outcome is communicated to the student during the hearing and via email. Any appeals are referred to the Dean’s Council. 

Step 4 – As necessary, sanctions that impact final course grades will be implemented by the Registrar’s office. 

Additional details hearing proceedings are provided in the Academic Integrity policy.

Sanctions for Academic Integrity Violations

At Drew, sanctions are imposed for demonstrated academic integrity violations. In the event of a violation that is positively determined to be a breach of academic integrity, penalties will be weighed in accordance with the seriousness of the offense.

Minor offenses:

  • Participation in and achievement of a passing score in an educational tutorial
  • No credit for the assignment
  • A failing grade on the assignment
  • Re-do of the assignment with grade penalty
  • An assigned paper or project related to academic integrity

More serious violations:

  • Failing grade in course
  • An assigned paper or project related to academic integrity
  • Dismissal or denied entry to departmental/university honors or merit-based program
  • Suspension for one or more semesters
  • In rare or extreme cases, or for multiple offenses, permanent expulsion from the University.
Appeals Process

Decisions of the Academic Integrity Committee may be appealed only if the original hearing overlooked specific evidence or committed procedural errors.

The Dean’s Council is the final appeals board for cases of violations of the academic integrity policy. The appeal, whether sought by the faculty member who brought the charge or by the accused student, must be submitted in writing to the Council. On the basis of the written appeal, the Council may decide to hear the case or to uphold the original decision if no evidence has been shown to have been overlooked and/or if no procedural errors have been shown to have occurred. Whatever its decision, the Council must provide reasons in writing to both parties. If the Council agrees to hear the case, it has the right to reverse the decision of an earlier hearing.

Only the five faculty members of the Dean’s Council will vote on such appeals. The Dean of Arts & Sciences or designee will remain in attendance during such hearings, and will have a voice but no vote.

When any member of the Council believes he or she should not hear the matter under appeal because of a possible conflict of interest, that member may be excused. In this event, the Dean of Arts & Science will appoint a temporary faculty replacement. The student is granted the same provision of faculty, disability-related support, or staff support  as for an integrity hearing.

During the hearing of the appeal, both the faculty member who brought the original charge and the student may be asked questions by members of the committee. and each will make an oral statement to the Committee and answer any questions.

Decisions will be based on a preponderance of the evidence and will be provided in writing to both parties.