Intellectual Honesty

In accordance with the Trinity College Student Integrity Contract, students are expected to abide by the highest standards of intellectual honesty in all academic exercises. Intellectual honesty assumes that students do their own work and that they properly credit those upon whose work and thought they draw. It is the responsibility of every student to make sure that they are fully aware of what constitutes intellectually honest work in every examination, quiz, paper, laboratory report, homework assignment, or other academic exercise submitted for evaluation in a course at Trinity.

Examples of intellectual dishonesty include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Multiple submission of the same or similar work without prior written permission of the instructor(s). Examples include:

a. Submitting the same work, or substantially the same work, for more than one course without the prior permission of all instructors involved.

b. Submitting the same work, or substantially the same work, as that submitted by another student without the prior permission of all instructors involved.

c. Submitting the same work, or substantially the same work, as was used in a previous course or at another school without the prior permission of all current instructors involved.

2. Unauthorized collaboration. Collaborating on any academic work without the prior permission of the instructor(s) is dishonest.

3. Unauthorized possession and/or distribution of an examination.

4. Consultation of unauthorized materials during an examination.

5. Failure to comply with an instructor’s specific instructions with respect to academic honesty. Students who are uncertain about the terms of academic integrity for any particular course or assignment should ask the instructor for explicit guidelines.

6. Falsification or misrepresentation of one’s own academic record or that of anyone else.

7. Falsification or misrepresentation of data, information, or quotations.

8. Preparing work for another student.

9. Use of another person’s work. Examples include:

a. Copying from another student’s exam, paper, lab report, or homework assignment.

b. Submitting, as one’s own, work that someone else did.

c. Plagiarism.

To avoid intentional plagiarism, a student must be honest and careful. To avoid unintentional plagiarism is more difficult. The student must remember that “plagiarism means presenting, as one’s own, the words, the work, or the opinions of someone else.”1 To ensure that due credit is given to others, the student also should keep in mind that whether quoting directly or paraphrasing the words of another person or using “the sequence of ideas, the arrangement of material, the pattern of thought (or the observations and opinions) of someone else,”2 they should be sure to acknowledge the debt (to a book, a newspaper, a columnist, an instructor, a relative, a fellow student, etc.) in a footnote or a parenthesis or should refer precisely to the source in the body of the paper, speech, or examination.

Students sometimes find it difficult to avoid plagiarizing unintentionally when they paraphrase material from a printed source. To illustrate this difficulty, let us take a passage from H.L. Mencken’s The American Language:

The American, probably more than any other man, is prone to be apologetic about the trade he follows. He seldom believes that it is quite worthy of his virtues and talents; almost always he thinks that he would have adorned something far gaudier. Unfortunately, it is not always possible for him to escape, or even for him to dream plausibly of escaping, so he soothes himself by assuring himself that he belongs to a superior section of his craft, and very often he invents a sonorous name to set himself off from the herd. Here we glimpse the origin of a multitude of characteristic American euphemisms, e.g., mortician for undertaker, realtor for real-estate agent, electragist for electrical contractor . . . so on.3

If the student were writing a research paper on some aspect of the American language and wished to use Mencken’s explanation of the origin of the euphemisms for professional occupations but wished to draw examples from another source, they might write thus:

As Mencken says, “The American, probably more than any other man, is prone to be apologetic about the trade he follows.”4

The student who wishes to quote even more from Mencken is quite free to do so, as long as the student uses quotation marks to indicate the places where Mencken’s exact words appear and acknowledges the source in a footnote.

Often, however, the student will prefer to paraphrase and in doing so may run into difficulty. The most important point to remember is that paraphrasing means putting into different words and phrases the material expressed in the printed source. The following “close paraphrase” is not a satisfactory paraphrase:

As Mencken says, the American believes that he would have adorned something gaudier, so he soothes himself by inventing a sonorous name to set himself off from the herd.5

Technically, this is plagiarism, despite the reference to Mencken; a student who has written this sentence would have been using verbatim the words of the source without fully acknowledging the fact—even if the student had used a footnote reference to the text (as should be done even with a paraphrase). To paraphrase correctly, a student must restate the original material in their own diction and style. An acceptable paraphrase might read:

Mencken explains the origin of these professional euphemisms as lying in the American’s vanity; the American feels that he is really better than his profession, but since he cannot escape it, he tries to make it at least sound worthy of him.6

This sentence, which assumes that the student already has been talking about these euphemisms, accurately embodies the ideas that Mencken expressed, but it is a true paraphrase rather than an unacknowledged quotation. It still requires a footnote; whether Mencken is mentioned by name or not, the student is indebted to him for an idea and should acknowledge the debt.7

Information on Procedures in Academic Dishonesty Cases

A faculty member may not impose a grade penalty for academic dishonesty without notifying the student and reporting the student to the chair of the Jury Pool (if proceeding to First Violation Resolution Process) or to the Office of Student and Community Life (if proceeding to a formal hearing). A suspected violation must be reported in a reasonable period of time (normally within 30 business days of the date when the alleged violation is discovered).

Procedures of Fair Process to be Followed in Academic Dishonesty Cases:

1. A faculty member who believes that there has been plagiarism or other academic dishonesty should contact the Office of Student and Community Life to ascertain whether this is a first violation. If so, and if the faculty member decides to offer the student the option of the First Violation Resolution Process, they shall confront the student with the charge.

2. If the student admits committing the violation, chooses the First Violation Resolution Process, and signs the faculty member’s account of the violation, the faculty member shall contact the chair of the Jury Pool who will schedule a meeting of the student, the faculty member, a representative of the Office of Student and Community Life, and either the chair, the vice chair, or another member of the Jury Pool designated by the chair or vice chair. The meeting normally will be scheduled within 10 business days of the student and faculty member agreeing to the First Violation Resolution Process.

3. Prior to the meeting, the faculty member will discuss precedents regarding proposed grade penalties with the member of the Jury Pool who will be in attendance; the final decision will rest with the faculty member. The maximum sanction that may be imposed under the First Violation Resolution Process is failure of the course. At the meeting, the student will sign a statement admitting responsibility and accepting the proposed penalty. The statement will be forwarded to the Office of Student and Community Life as a record of the student’s first offense.

4. In the case of a student ineligible for the First Violation Resolution Process, or who is not afforded the opportunity for it, or who declines it, a faculty member intending to impose a grade penalty for academic dishonesty must submit a letter of complaint with supporting documents to the Office of Student and Community Life. A hearing normally will be scheduled promptly. Notification of the hearing and a list of the members of the Hearing Panel will be given to the faculty member and the accused student. (See Procedures in Cases of Academic Dishonesty for hearing procedures governing student conduct.)

5. A copy of the charge and specifications will be provided to the accused student, who is expected to attend the hearing. The accused student may be accompanied at the hearing by an adviser. The hearing adviser, who must be a current faculty, staff, or student member of the Trinity community, may give the student advice in the course of the hearing but may not speak at the hearing on the student’s behalf or otherwise function at the hearing as defense counsel might in a legal proceeding.

6. The faculty member will be expected to attend the hearing and may be questioned.

7. Ordinarily, the hearing panel will first hear the faculty member bringing the charge. They may make a statement, after which they will be questioned by members of the hearing panel and then by the accused student. Next, the accused student may make a statement, after which they will be questioned by members of the hearing panel and then by the faculty member.

8. The faculty member and the accused student may call material fact (not character) witnesses, who may be questioned by members of the hearing panel and by parties to the case. The witnesses will be heard in an order determined by the Chair. Normally, each witness will be present at the hearing only when giving testimony. The chair of the panel will inform each witness not to discuss the case outside of the hearing. It is the responsibility of the person seeking witness testimony to advise them of the time and place of the appeal. Should a witness not appear when summoned, the panel will proceed without the benefit of their input.

9. At the conclusion of the hearing, the faculty member will make a closing statement affirming or revising the grading penalty they intend to impose should the student be found responsible for the violation.

10. In cases where more than one student has been charged with academic dishonesty, all the accused students may be present when any one of their number is addressing the hearing panel.

11. Academic dishonesty hearings are closed, and the proceedings are kept confidential.

12. Any member of a hearing panel or an appeal panel who is party to a case shall disqualify themselves for that case.

13. A student found to have violated the academic honesty policy of the Student Integrity Contract may be assigned a penalty in addition to the one proposed by the faculty member from one of three penalty categories—censure, suspension, or expulsion—depending on the severity of the offense. The penalty categories are described below:

a. Censure: The penalty when the act of academic dishonesty involves cheating on a quiz or an examination, the limited use of unattributed sources (written or oral) in a paper, or other dishonest acts of comparable magnitude.

b. Suspension: The penalty for repeated cheating on one or more quizzes or examinations, for extensive plagiarism, or for other dishonest acts of comparable magnitude. This penalty also will be imposed for an offense in a course after the instructor has warned the student in writing or when a student who already has been censured for academic dishonesty commits a second censurable offense.

c. Expulsion: The penalty when a second penalty of suspension is warranted.

14. Within the penalty categories of censure and suspension, the hearing panel shall determine the length of the censure or the suspension; the conditions, if any, under which a censure may be removed from the student’s permanent record; the conditions under which a student on suspension may return; and any other factors it may deem relevant to the penalty for the case heard.

15. The record of each hearing shall consist of a written summary and a recording of the entire hearing that shall be kept on file in the Office of Student and Community Life until the matter is concluded and no further appeal is possible. In the event of an appeal, these materials will be made available to the appellant, the faculty member who brought the case, and the academic dishonesty appeal panel hearing the case.

16. The Office of Student and Community Life shall inform the faculty adviser after a student has undergone a First Violation Resolution Process. Where a First Violation Resolution Process is not involved, the Office of Student and Community Life shall notify a student’s faculty adviser when it receives a letter from a faculty member alleging that the student has violated the academic dishonesty policy. The Office of Student and Community Life shall inform the adviser of the result after a decision is rendered in a student’s academic dishonesty case by a hearing panel or appeal panel.

Composition of Panels

The faculty Jury Pool has been established to staff the faculty portion of academic dishonesty and social misconduct hearing panels and the faculty portion of academic dishonesty and social misconduct appeal panels.

1. The Jury Pool chair and/or vice chair shall select the Jury Pool members for academic dishonesty hearings and appeals and, if necessary, designate a Jury Pool member to attend a First Violation Resolution Process meeting.

2. Academic dishonesty hearing panels consist of two students drawn from the Honor Council and three faculty members drawn from the Jury Pool. Chaired by a faculty member, they hear cases of academic dishonesty brought against students.

3. Academic dishonesty appeal panels consist of two faculty members drawn from the Jury Pool and one student drawn from the Honor Council. Chaired by a faculty member, they consider appeals from students found to have violated the academic integrity and intellectual dishonesty policy of the Student Integrity Contract.

4. A Jury Pool member who sits on a hearing panel may not serve on an appeal panel convened to consider the same case in question.

5. When classes are out of session, hearing and appeal panels will consist of three members of the Jury Pool.

6. The designated dean shall be a nonvoting participant on all hearing and appeal panels. The dean of student and community life is charged with implementing the panels’ decisions.

Deliberations and Findings

1. A majority vote of the members of the hearing panel shall determine whether the accused student has violated any College regulations or policies regarding intellectual honesty. The hearing panel will use the standard of “preponderance of the evidence” (i.e., whether it is “more likely than not” that a violation has occurred) to make its decision.

2. If the panel finds that the student has violated regulations or policies regarding intellectual honesty and has assigned one of the three penalty categories—censure, suspension, or expulsion—the penalty category for academic dishonesty will be recorded on the student’s transcript. Permanent censures, suspensions, and expulsions are recorded on the student’s permanent record (transcript).

3. The dean normally will notify the student of the panel’s decision within five business days of its findings.

4. The dean may modify these procedures at their discretion to fit particular situations as long as any modification presents no advantage in favor of, or any bias against, any party to the complaint.

5. Normally, the Honor Council shall function only during those periods of the academic year when classes are in session. At other times, the dean may choose to hold a complaint in abeyance until classes resume or to have the case heard by a panel, which may be modified as necessary.

Procedures for Appeal in Cases of Academic Dishonesty

1. Basis for Appeal

a. Respondents who have been found to have violated a College regulation and have received a sanction(s) of censure, suspension, or expulsion may appeal the outcome if the student believes they have grounds (as defined below) to appeal the decision of the original hearing panel. They must submit their petition to the designated dean in writing within five business days of the initial decision. The appellant’s petition must indicate the grounds for an appeal and outline the evidence supporting the claim. The decision may be appealed only on the basis of one or more of the following grounds:

i. Discovery of new factual information that was not known or available at the time of the adjudication and the presentation of which would have affected the original outcome. Omission of factual information that was known and available to the appealing party is not a valid ground for an appeal;

ii. Material procedural error that rendered the adjudication fundamentally unfair;

iii. Abuse of discretion in the issuance of a sanction, meaning that the imposed sanction was significantly disproportionate to the offense; or

iv. Evidence of bias in the adjudication.

b. Upon receipt of the letter of appeal, the dean will review the appeal and determine whether the request meets the criteria for appeal. If the dean determines that there is no basis for an appeal, they will inform the appellant of the decision, along with a rationale for denying the appeal. If the dean determines that reconsideration is warranted, they will assemble an appeal panel who will (a) rehear the case in its entirety, (b) conduct a limited-basis rehearing that would focus on the new information presented, or (c) review the penalty. The appeal panel may not change the penalty category; however, should the appeal panel conclude from its deliberations that probable cause exists to believe that the penalty assigned by the original hearing panel is from an inappropriate penalty category, it may refer the case back to the original hearing panel for reconsideration with its grounds for resubmission.

2. Procedure for Appeal Panel

a. The dean will give the appellant fair notice of the appeal panel meeting, where they will have the opportunity to address the panel to clarify points raised and to answer questions. The panel also may call the complainant. Should the complainant or respondent not appear when summoned, the panel may conduct the proceeding without the benefit of their input.

b. The appellant may be accompanied at the proceeding by an adviser. During the appeal meeting, the adviser may confer with the appellant but may not participate directly in the proceeding. All advisers must be members of the College community (i.e., current student, faculty, or staff). It is the appellant’s responsibility to inform their adviser of the parameters of the adviser’s role and the time and place of the appeal.

c. In cases where more than one student has been charged with academic dishonesty, the panel reserves the right to question each student individually without the other student(s) present.

d. One or more representatives of the original hearing panel shall summarize the findings and rationale of the original proceeding for the appeal panel.

e. The complainant, appellant, and/or appeal panel may call material witnesses. Each witness shall appear before the panel only when giving testimony and may be questioned by members of the panel. The appeal panel reserves the right to determine which parties they will hear. It is the responsibility of the person seeking witness testimony to advise them of the time and place of the appeal. Should the witness not appear at the appeal meeting, the panel will proceed without the benefit of their input.

f. Academic dishonesty appeals are closed, and the proceedings are kept confidential.

g. The dean may modify these procedures at their discretion to fit particular situations as long as any modification presents no advantage in favor of, or any bias against, any party to the complaint.

3. Deliberations and Findings

a. After review of relevant materials or after rehearing the case, the appeal panel will determine by majority vote that the original decision and sanction be upheld or that the decision and/or sanction be modified, and it will forward its findings to the dean for implementation.

b. The dean normally will notify the appellant of the appeal panel’s decision within five business days of its findings.

c. If the case is reviewed or reheard by an appeal panel or hearing panel, that decision is final.

Normally, hearings and appeals function during the academic year (i.e., until the last day of classes of a given semester). At other times, the dean may choose to hold a request for an appeal in abeyance until classes resume or to permit the request to go forward and be reviewed by an appeal panel, which may be modified as necessary.

Additional Information

1. The respondent may write a response to the charge and submit it, along with any other relevant materials that they want to be considered, to the dean. This written response is due within five days of being notified of the complaint.

2. Should the complainant or respondent not appear for the hearing, the panel will reserve the right to conduct a hearing without the benefit of their input.

3. The confidential recording of the hearing is the property of the College and may not be copied or reproduced without the permission of the dean or their designee. In situations where a decision of the hearing panel is granted an appeal, the appellant may request to review the recording. If the request is granted, the dean will arrange for the respondent to review the recording in the Office of Student and Community Life. The College will not provide a written transcript of the hearing to the appellant.

4. Withdrawal from the College will not constitute grounds to dismiss any charges that are brought against a student. In cases in which a student withdraws from the College before the adjudication process is complete, the College may proceed to adjudicate the complaint and/or place a notation on the student’s record indicating that the student withdrew with charges pending. The dean reserves the right to place a notation of pending charges on the student’s transcript until the process is complete.

5. We recommend that students take advantage of the various resources available to them, including their faculty advisers, parents/guardians, counseling, and other support systems.

6. The designated dean shall select the Honor Council members for hearing or appeal panels.

7. If the complainant or respondent has reason to believe that a member of the panel cannot hear the case fairly and objectively, they should notify the dean in writing in advance of the hearing, citing the reasons for the challenge, and an alternate shall be seated, if possible, if the objection is warranted.

8. When classes are out of session (i.e., after the last day of classes of a given semester), hearing and appeal panels will consist of three members of the Jury Pool.

9. Should too few members of the Jury Pool and/or Honor Council be available to constitute a normal panel, the Jury Pool chair and dean will consult on selecting appropriate panelists.

1Genevieve B. and Newman P. Birk, Understanding and Using English (4th ed.; New York: Odyssey Press, 1959), p. 696.

2Birk and Birk, Understanding and Using English, pp. 696–697.

3H.L. Mencken, The American Language: An Inquiry into the Development of English in the United States (4th ed.; New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1936), p. 284.

4Mencken, The American Language, p. 284.

5Mencken, The American Language, p. 284.

6Mencken, The American Language, p. 284.

7The regulation on intellectual honesty is taken from the Manual for English 101: Freshman English (fifth edition; Trinity College, Hartford, Conn. 1965), pp. 5–7.

Section I. Academic Policies