UC Berkeley School of Information Policy and Procedures Regarding Academic Misconduct by Graduate Students

Revised: December 4, 2024

Policy

The School of Information follows the policies of the University of California, Berkeley’s Graduate Division concerning probation, dismissal, and appeal of dismissal. These policies are described in the Guide to Graduate Policy. Its graduate degree program(s) have a mission to educate future academics for participation in peer-reviewed research, and/or to prepare students for their chosen profession. Thus, the School of Information has the obligation to graduate only those students who complete their academic work and demonstrate academic and professional integrity.

The School of Information has authority delegated by the Chancellor to impose discipline for the commission or attempted commission (including aiding or abetting in the commission or attempted commission) of academic misconduct by graduate students enrolled in its programs (as specified by University Policy 100.00, https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/2710530/PACAOS-100). ¹ 

“Academic Misconduct” within the meaning of this policy refers to all forms of academic misconduct including but not limited to cheating, fabrication, plagiarism, or facilitating academic dishonesty. For clarification purposes, it includes but is not limited to the following specific conduct:

Cheating: Cheating includes fraud, deceit, or dishonesty in an academic assignment, or using or attempting to use materials, or assisting others in using materials that are prohibited or inappropriate in the context of the academic assignment in question, engaging in prohibited collaboration, or misrepresenting one’s work completed for a prior course or assignment as new work.

Plagiarism: Plagiarism includes use of intellectual material produced by another person without acknowledging its source.

False Information and Representation and Fabrication or Alteration of Information: Furnishing false information, failing to identify oneself honestly, fabricating or altering information and presenting it as legitimate, or providing false or misleading information to an instructor, faculty member, or any other University official in an academic context.

Theft or Damage of Intellectual Property: Sabotaging or stealing another person’s work, improper access to, or electronically interfering with the property of, another person or the University, or obtaining a copy of an examination or assignment prior to its approved release.

Alteration of University Documents: Forgery of an instructor’s signature, submitting an altered transcript of grades to or from another institution or employer, putting one’s name on another individual’s work, or falsely altering a previously graded exam or assignment.

Disturbances in the Classroom or Lab: Disturbances in a classroom or lab that serve to create an unfair academic advantage for oneself or disadvantage for another member of the academic community.

The School of Information may bring charges against a former student, for alleged academic misconduct committed while a student.

For all allegations made under this policy, the School of Information will consult with the Graduate Division to determine appropriate jurisdiction. When an allegation made under this policy has connections to federal funding, it will be addressed by the Berkeley Research Misconduct Policies and Procedures to avoid any violation of federal regulations.

Inappropriate behavior that is not subject to this policy may be addressed separately by the Berkeley Campus Code of Student Conduct or other relevant policy.

Definitions

Student

1. The term "student" for the purposes of this policy means an individual for whom the University maintains student records and who:
   1. is enrolled in or registered with an academic program of the University;
   2. has completed the immediately preceding term and is eligible for re-enrollment, including the recess periods between academic terms; or
   3. is on an approved educational leave or other approved leave status, or is on filing-fee status.
2. This policy also applies to:
   1. applicants who become students, for offenses committed as part of the application process;
   2. applicants who become students, for offenses committed on campus and/or while participating in University-related events or activities that take place following student's submittal of the application through the student’s official enrollment; or
   3. former students for offenses committed while a student.

Days

The term “days” referenced throughout this policy is defined as calendar days. It excludes University-designated holidays and curtailment. Days elapse during this period, but deadlines can be extended by the School of Information based upon good cause, including without limitation the reasonable availability of the graduate student or others necessary to resolve a matter.

Procedures

Presumption of Non-responsibility

It is presumed that a graduate student alleged to have engaged in academic misconduct is not responsible for such violations unless the student admits responsibility or it is determined, through the process and procedures set forth in this policy, by a preponderance of evidence to have engaged in academic misconduct. The School of Information may not take any punitive action against the student pending resolution of the allegation, and must consult with the Graduate Division before implementing any measures that might impact the student’s academic experience.

Choosing Not to Participate

Graduate students may choose not to participate in the resolution of their charges. When a student chooses not to participate, the School of Information will resolve the charge in accordance with this policy without the student’s participation. Students may also choose to remain silent during any portion of this conduct process. No inference will be drawn from the decision of the student to remain silent.

Advisors

Graduate students may be accompanied by one advisor at any stage of the process, at the student’s own expense. The advisor may be an attorney or a person who is not an attorney that the student chooses to provide the student with emotional support and/or assistance. An advisor’s role in the student conduct process is to provide students with assistance in preparing for and participating in meetings and hearings. Graduate students are expected to participate for themselves/on their own behalf. Students may choose to have an advisor present. Advisors are not permitted to represent the student, speak on the student's behalf, ask or answer questions for the student.

Faculty Reporting of, or Resolution of, Suspected Academic Misconduct

Faculty members may either attempt to resolve suspected incidents of academic misconduct themselves or refer such suspected incidents to the School of Information for resolution.

Suspected academic misconduct by a graduate student is an extremely serious matter, and the School of Information therefore generally encourages faculty members to refer such matters to the School of Information for resolution rather than attempting to resolve the matter themselves. A faculty member may refer such matters to the School of Information within sixty (60) days of the date the faculty member knew or should have reasonably known of the alleged violation unless law or an external agency requires that information be withheld.

Faculty members wishing to attempt to resolve suspected academic misconduct themselves must first discuss the allegations with the Dean of the School of Information and with the Graduate Division to confirm that the student has not previously been found responsible for academic misconduct and to determine appropriate jurisdiction. If the student has a prior record of academic misconduct, then the faculty member must refer the matter to the School of Information’s conduct process. If there is no prior misconduct, then the faculty member may proceed to discuss the suspected academic misconduct with the graduate student directly and, if appropriate, others involved in the suspected academic misconduct. If the graduate student maintains that there was no academic misconduct and the faculty member determines that none occurred, then the faculty member may decline to pursue the matter further. If, upon discussion with the faculty member the graduate student admits that the suspected misconduct occurred, then the faculty member may impose, with the consent of the student and the Dean, an appropriate sanction. Sanctions imposed by faculty members without referral to the School of Information for resolution include, but are not limited to, requiring the student to resubmit assignments and/or retake exams. Faculty members cannot require students to withdraw from the university.

If the student does not admit to the academic misconduct, or if the student does not consent to the sanction proposed by the faculty member, or if the Dean does not approve the proposed sanction, then the faculty member may either decline to pursue the matter further or may refer the matter to the School of Information’s conduct process.

Grades are an assessment of a graduate student’s academic performance and should be determined based upon a faculty member’s assessment of academic performance. Faculty may take into account whether a student completed work through their own effort when completing an assignment or taking an exam. Grades may therefore be lowered based upon compromised academic performance associated with academic misconduct. Grades should not, however, be lowered as a punishment for academic misconduct.²

For example, a faculty member could believe that the appropriate grade on an exam is “pass” based upon the student’s knowledge, but that the student should be failed as punishment for suspected cheating with regard to a portion of the exam. “Fail” could ultimately be assigned to the student as a punishment through the School of Information’s conduct process; but if the student denies cheating and the faculty member decides not to refer the matter to the (academic units)’s conduct process, then the faculty member should assign the earned grade of “pass,” notwithstanding the suspicion of cheating.

Another example: If the instructions for an assignment specifically prohibited collaboration, and the graduate student nonetheless collaborated, a faculty member could assign a grade of “fail” not as a punishment but because the student failed to follow the instructions for the assignment. Alternatively, the faculty member could decide that part of the assignment completed appropriately (i.e., independently) warrants grading the entire assignment, and grades the assignment as if it were partially completed with a grade other than “fail.”

A faculty member may decide to postpone grading pending a conduct determination related to academic misconduct and a determination through the conduct process concerning whether or not the student completed an assignment or exam through the student’s own effort. When a faculty member reports alleged academic misconduct to the School of Information for resolution, a temporary notation of “RD” (Review Deferred) may be noted on the grade roster pending resolution of the allegation.

Notice of Conduct Charges

If an incident is referred to the School of Information and the School of Information determines that the allegations, if proven to be true by a preponderance of the evidence, would constitute academic misconduct, then the School of Information will notify the student of the charge(s) by delivery of an Alleged Violation Letter to the student. The Alleged Violation Letter will include:

• A detailed description of the alleged facts supporting the charge(s) and nature of the alleged Policy violation, including the provision(s) of this policy that have been allegedly violated;
• Membership of the committee responsible for investigating the allegation(s) and conducting the hearing (“Committee”);
  • The Committee (standing or ad hoc) will be appointed by the Dean of the School of Information or the Assistant Dean of Student Experience in their absence. It shall have (an odd number of three or more) senate or non-senate faculty, at least one of whom is not affiliated with the School of Information³, and at least one which is non-senate faculty. A member of the Graduate Division will assist the Committee as a procedural advisor.
  • The graduate student has five (5) days to challenge, in writing, the membership of any member of the committee, based on bias or conflict of interest, to the Dean of the Graduate Division. The Dean of the Graduate Division will determine whether to replace the challenged member(s) with a qualified substitute;
• A specific statement of the sanction(s) that may be applied;
• A proposed timeline for the completion of the academic misconduct process;
  • The Dean of the School of Information or the Assistant Dean of Student Experience may extend the timeline for good cause upon notice to all parties involved in the process;
• A copy of this policy.

Response to Charges

The graduate student may, but is not required to, respond to the allegations via email within seven (7) days of receipt of the Alleged Violation Letter. If the graduate student admits that the alleged academic misconduct occurred, then the subsequent hearing process will resolve the issue of what sanction is appropriate for the academic misconduct.

Resolution of Charged Cases

If the graduate student does not accept responsibility for the charged misconduct or does not respond to the charges, then the charges will be resolved by a hearing.

Investigation and Formal Hearing Processes

It is generally the responsibility of the Committee to collect testimony, documents, and other information regarding the alleged academic misconduct from faculty members, other students, and other relevant witnesses. The Committee is not required to conduct the hearing at a single date and time, and the hearing may instead be conducted in the manner that is typical for the preparation of academic committee reports in the School of Information. The hearing may therefore consist of a series of personal interviews and the collection of relevant documents from the student and other interested parties. Except in exceptional circumstances, the Committee is expected to personally interview the charged graduate student regarding the allegations, if the graduate student consents to be interviewed. The Committee shall not make any inference regarding responsibility for the charges or lack thereof from the charged graduate student declining to be interviewed.

The charged graduate student may present any information that the student believes should be considered. The Committee may require that the student’s presentation of information be provided in writing, rather than in the form of an interview or oral account. The Committee should generally interview witnesses whom the charged graduate student makes available to be interviewed, except that the Committee may decline to interview witnesses offered to speak only to the general character of the graduate student or who have no percipient knowledge of the facts being investigated. If the Committee chooses not to consider any information or not to interview any witness offered by the charged graduate student, the Committee shall explain in its final record of decision why it chose not to consider such evidence.

The charged graduate student shall have ten (10) days to review a written summary of all evidence considered by the Committee and to respond to all such evidence in writing before the committee publishes its final record of decision.

The Committee’s decision will be based only upon information developed through its investigation.

The hearing will generally be conducted in the form of an investigation and/or entirely by exchange of writings; except that when resolution of the allegations depends upon the credibility of a witness or witnesses, and the appropriate sanction for the academic misconduct could include suspension or dismissal, the hearing shall include live testimony by that witness or those witnesses and the graduate student shall be entitled to pose questions to that witness or those witnesses. The witness(s) and the charged graduate student shall have the option to participate in the live hearing in person or virtually.

Standard of Proof

The School of Information bears the burden of proving the charges. The standard of proof for all hearings is a preponderance of evidence. A preponderance of evidence is defined as “more likely to be true than not.” In order to make a finding that a graduate student engaged in academic misconduct and impose a sanction, the Committee must determine by a majority vote that the misconduct occurred and the sanction is appropriate.

Consideration of Information

The Committee may consider any information that is the sort of information upon which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs. The Committee is not restricted to considering only evidence admissible under the strict rules of evidence of a court of law. Specifically, the Committee may consider hearsay.⁴ The Committee will not consider information that it determines has been obtained by fundamentally unfair means.

Prior Conduct Record

The Committee will take into account the graduate student’s prior academic misconduct record maintained by the School of Information or another campus office, if any, for the purpose of determining an appropriate sanction. Prior misconduct generally may not be considered as evidence that a graduate student engaged in a different incident of suspected misconduct, but prior misconduct may be considered in determining the presence of further misconduct when the allegations of misconduct are highly similar or otherwise logically related. Prior academic misconduct may also be considered in determining an appropriate sanction.

Record of the Live Hearing

The Committee will make an official audio recording of any live hearing, a copy of which shall be made available to the charged graduate student for review but not retention, upon request. The student may, at the student’s own expense, use the services of a professional stenographer during the hearing. In some instances, the recording may have to be transcribed before it can be released (see Berkeley Campus Policy Governing Disclosure of Information from Student Records).

Hearings Committee Proceedings Generally Closed to the Public

In order to protect the privacy of the charged graduate student, any in-person or virtual Committee proceedings are closed to the public. If any live hearing is held, then the graduate student may request an open hearing by submitting a written request to the Committee within a reasonable time in advance of the scheduled hearing date for any hearing that is held to be public. The request must include a waiver of confidentiality to the hearing body. If the request for an open hearing is denied, then the Committee will provide a rationale for the denial in writing.

Committee Decision

The Committee shall determine, based on the evidence presented during the hearing, whether it is more likely than not that the charged graduate student violated this policy with respect to each charged violation. If the hearing body determines that it is more likely than not that the student violated this policy, then the Committee shall also determine the appropriate sanction. A non-exhaustive description of permissible sanctions is set forth in the attached Appendix I. The Committee’s decision will be documented in a report that includes a summary of the student’s actions and a determination of whether the student has been found responsible or not with regard to each alleged act of academic misconduct.

Recommendation to Revoke Degree Previously Conferred

If the Committee determines that a graduate student has committed an act of academic misconduct or fraud affecting the acquisition of the student’s degree, the School of Information may forward a recommendation that the degree be revoked to the Dean of the Graduate Division. The Dean of the Graduate Division will comment upon the request and forward it to the Committee on Courses of Instruction of the Academic Senate. A Notice of Intent to Recommend Revocation of Degree will be sent via email to the charged student with the written statement of decision. The Committee on Courses of Instruction makes the final decision as to revocation of the degree. This determination is not appealable.

Appeal

Other than revoked degrees, the graduate student may appeal the decision of the Committee to the Dean of the School of Information on the grounds set forth below. Determinations to dismiss based upon violations of this policy, if upheld by the Dean of the School of Information, may further be appealed to the Dean of the Graduate Division.The appeal must be made in writing within ten (10) days after the emailing of the written notification of the decision(s) being appealed. The Dean of the School of Information will respond in writing within a reasonable time period, not to exceed 20 days.

Suspension of Sanctions Before and During the Appeal

The filing of a timely appeal suspends the imposition of sanctions until the appeal is decided, but interim action may be taken as determined by the Dean of the School of Information in consultation with the Graduate Division. Grades or degrees may be withheld pending conclusion of the appeal.

Basis for Appeal

An appeal must be based on newly discovered evidence that was not available at the time of the hearing that could affect the outcome or significant procedural error that affected the outcome.

Final Determination of Appeal

The Dean of the Graduate Division will make the final determination of all cases appealed under this policy other than degree revocations. Except in cases where the appeal is based upon newly discovered evidence, the Dean will review the report of the Committee and will not consider information that was not part of that record. The Dean may approve, reject, or modify the decision and/or sanction appealed, or require that the Committee reconvene and consider amending its decision with regard to any specific finding or conclusion as directed by the Dean. Where the appeal is based upon new information, the case may be referred back to the Committee for further consideration. The action taken will be communicated to the graduate student in writing.

Academic misconduct determinations, including but not limited to sanctions, are not subject to any other process or procedure of the School of Information, including without limitation policies pertaining to suspension or dismissal.

Appendix I: Sanctions

When a graduate student is found in violation of University policies or campus regulations, any of the following sanctions or combination thereof may be imposed. Any sanction imposed should be appropriate to the violation, taking into consideration the context, previous violations, and seriousness of the violation.

Warning/Censure

Written notice or reprimand to the student that a violation of specified University policies or campus regulations has occurred and that continued or repeated violations of University policies or campus regulations may be cause for further disciplinary action. A warning may be issued in instances of deliberate and serious violations as well as for repeat, non-egregious violations.

Non-Reportable Warning

A warning could be in the form of a non-reportable warning, which is notice that subsequent violations will result in more serious sanctions. A non-reportable warning may be issued when the student’s action formally constitutes a violation, but the circumstances and degree of severity of the action do not warrant the creation of a conduct record. Once issued, records of non-reportable warnings are maintained only for in-house reference in case of subsequent violations.

Reportable Warning

A warning could be in the form of a reportable warning, which is notice that subsequent violations will result in more serious sanctions, maintained as part of the student’s conduct record.

Disciplinary Probation

A status imposed for a specified period of time during which a student must demonstrate conduct that conforms to University standards of conduct. Conditions restricting the student's privileges or eligibility for activities may be imposed. Misconduct during the probationary period or violation of any conditions of the probation may result in further disciplinary action, normally in the form of Suspension or Dismissal. Disciplinary probation will typically be issued in response to more egregious violations and recurring serious violations to communicate to the student that further violations will most likely lead to temporary or permanent removal from campus.

Suspension

Termination of student status at the campus for a specified period of time with reinstatement thereafter certain, provided that the student has complied with all conditions imposed as part of the suspension and provided that the student is otherwise qualified for reinstatement.

Suspensions will typically be issued in cases of extraordinarily serious first-time violations and for subsequent violations of a serious degree after a warning or disciplinary probation has been administered. Violation of the conditions of Suspension or of University policies or campus regulations during the period of Suspension may be cause for further disciplinary action, normally in the form of Dismissal.

Dismissal

Termination of student status for an indefinite period. Readmission to the University requires the specific approval of the Chancellor of the campus to which a dismissed student has applied.

Dismissal will typically be used in cases that cannot be appropriately addressed with a suspension because the recurring nature of multiple violations or the extraordinary caliber of a single violation demonstrates that the student does not deserve an opportunity to return to campus. Readmission after dismissal may be granted only under exceptional circumstances.

Revocation of Awarding of Degree

Subject to the concurrence of the Committee on Courses of Instruction of the Academic Senate, revocation of a degree obtained by fraud or other academic dishonesty. Such revocation is subject to review on appeal by the Chancellor.

Other

Other disciplinary actions, such as monetary fines, community service, or holds on requests for transcripts, diplomas, or other student records to be sent to third parties, as set forth in campus regulations.

Records Hold

A hold may be placed on transcripts and/or diploma(s) or other records as a sanction and/or until a student satisfies the terms and conditions of any sanction imposed.

Deferral or Withholding of Degree

An academic degree may be deferred when disciplinary proceedings are pending or when a student's full compliance with disciplinary sanctions is pending, or withheld when academic dishonesty or fraud affected the acquisition of the student's degree (see Recommendation to Revoke Degree Previously Conferred, section II.D.2.f of the Berkeley Campus Code of Student Conduct, for further information regarding this procedure).

Stay of Sanction

The imposition of any sanction may be held in abeyance pending future conduct.

Other Actions

Other appropriate action, including, but not limited to, additional academic assignments.