All new accusations of academic misconduct made on or after August 23rd, 2021 will be resolved using the new Academic Integrity Code. The principles and procedures set forth in the new Code apply to all student academic work, whether in-person or virtual, and work conducted in labs, internships/externships, or clinical assignments. In schools or colleges that have an alternate academic integrity policy (Section III-E), such policy must not be less restrictive than the University policy and must be approved by the dean.

UAB updated the existing Code of Academic Integrity to facilitate the consistency of procedures across academic units, improve the documentation and reporting of findings of academic misconduct between academic units, and provide additional guidance to all members of the University community (including students, staff, teaching assistants, and faculty) about how to handle accusations of academic misconduct.

The Academic Integrity Code applies to all undergraduate, graduate, professional, and all other academic activities within the University. More specific codes, policies, and procedures will apply in some schools (e.g., professional schools).

Students play an important role in the promotion of academic integrity at UAB. Instructors depend on students to let them know if they suspect cheating on a course assignment. Students also serve on Hearing Panels, which are responsible for resolving the most serious cases of academic misconduct. Hearing panels will have one student member and two instructors/faculty members/course managers. The inclusion of students on Hearing Panels—characteristic of “Honor Codes” at other universities, is supported by research demonstrating that student leadership in protecting and promoting academic integrity results in less academic dishonesty overall. This beneficial result is the likely outcome of an institutional culture in which academic integrity is seen as a shared responsibility by students and faculty members, not an "us v. them" contest of evasion and detection.

Successful models of student leadership in academic integrity enforcement include the University of Virginia, Princeton University, the University of Maryland and (most recently) Harvard University. Student members of Hearing Panels should be encouraged to participate in educational programming for their peers, including college, school, and department orientation for new students.

The new Code makes several significant changes, including the appointment of one or more Academic Integrity Coordinators within each academic unit, the allowance of “resolution agreements” between Instructors and Students, a delineation between Conferences and Hearings, and a guide to evaluating the severity of academic misconduct and corresponding sanctions for students found responsible for academic misconduct. Importantly, students now play a prominent role in the promotion of academic integrity at UAB via student representation on Hearing Panels.

Academic Integrity Coordinators (AICs) responsible for administering the Code within their respective school or college, including maintaining and submitting records of proceedings and resolutions to a centralized reporting system. Appointed by the dean of their respective school or college, Coordinators receive reports of academic misconduct and determine the appropriate method of resolution available to students and faculty members, including Resolution Agreements, Conferences, and Hearings. Faculty members, instructors, students, staff, and other members of the University community are encouraged to consult with the Coordinator with questions they have about the Academic Integrity Code.

Resolution Agreements allow for instructors and students to resolve cases of academic misconduct prior to a Conference or Hearing with the Academic Integrity Coordinator. With the approval of the Coordinator, instructors may enter into a Resolution Agreement with a student so long as the student has no prior record of academic misconduct at the University and the student acknowledges responsibility for academic misconduct. As outlined in the Code, Resolution Agreements must contain certain information and instructors should consult with their unit’s Coordinator for guidance.

Yes. A record of the signed agreement by both the student and instructor will be retained by the instructor, student, and the Coordinator in accordance with UAB’s Records Retention Policy.

Sanctions in cases resolved between instructors and students may range from a written reprimand to a failing grade on an assignment or the course depending on the severity of misconduct (Section IV of the Code). Resolution Agreements cannot include suspension or expulsion as a sanction.

Yes. All Resolution Agreements completed between instructors and students must be promptly reported to the appropriate Coordinator by the instructor to allow the University to maintain records to establish the student history of academic misconduct.

No. For example, students may not wish to accept responsibility and instructors may wish to refer the case directly to the Coordinator for disposition.

A Conference is a meeting between the Coordinator and the accused student and is intended to resolve charges of academic dishonesty and identify appropriate sanctions when a Resolution Agreement is not an available option (i.e., the accused student has a previous finding of academic misconduct, or either the student or instructor do not with to enter into a Resolution Agreement). Instructors, students, and other parties with information relevant to the case may be invited as participants in the conference. Conference can be held electronically or virtually if the student or the Coordinator is not available for an in-person meeting.

A Conference will be used to resolved allegations of academic misconduct when the accused student has no history of academic misconduct and when a Resolution Agreement is not an available option (either the student or instructor do not wish to complete a Resolution Agreement). Cases in which the accused student has a prior finding of academic misconduct (including Resolution Agreements) cannot be resolved at a Conference and must be referred to a Hearing Panel.

A Hearing is a meeting between a Hearing Panel and the accused student intended to resolve charges of academic dishonesty when the accused student has a history of academic misconduct or when the sanction might result in sanction or expulsion. As in a Conference, both accused students and the Hearing Panel have a right to present evidence, supporting witnesses, and other information pertinent to the matter under investigation. Students, teaching assistants, instructors, and support staff who can offer information relevant to the case may be invited as participants in the Hearing. Questions of relevance; the role and availability of witnesses; the use of written statements; and the timely conduct of proceedings will be determined by the Chair of the Hearing Panel.

Unless an alternate academic integrity policy is applicable as described in Section III-E of the Code, the Hearing Panel will be composed of one student and two instructors/faculty members/course managers. In turn, these panelists will be drawn from the Academic Integrity Hearing Board. The Academic Integrity Hearing Boards of a school or college will be convened on an annual basis by deans or their designees either by appointment and/or election and will be composed of three students and four instructors/faculty members/course managers. The Chair of the Hearing Board will be designated by the Dean. The Chair of the Hearing Panel will be appointed by the Board. The Coordinator, or a designee, will also present for any deliberations of a Hearing Panel as a non-voting procedural advisor to the chair of a Hearing Panel thereby maintaining and enhancing the continuity of experience in managing the hearing process.

All cases that might result in suspension or expulsion (including any possible second offense) as determined by the Coordinator will be referred to a Hearing Panel. Academic Integrity Coordinators may also refer complex or contested cases to a Hearing Panel for adjudication.

The Academic Integrity Code includes a Guide to Evaluation Severity of Academic Misconduct and suggested sanctioning grid (Section IV) of the Code. This section provides guidelines (not mandates) for Instructors, Coordinators, and Panelists in evaluating the severity of academic misconduct and in considering the appropriate sanction to impose under the UAB Academic Integrity Code.

Academic misconduct cases shall be resolved in the school or college that is the home for the course in which the alleged misconduct occurred. In the example above, the School of Public Health would be responsible for handling the allegation of academic misconduct.

A student charged with academic misconduct will not be allowed to withdraw from the course. If the student is found not to have engaged in academic misconduct, the academic hold will be released by the Coordinator. The student can either remain in the course or withdraw from that course even if the withdrawal period has expired. If the student is found responsible for academic misconduct, they will not be allowed to withdraw from the course at any time. A grade of “Incomplete” will be assigned by action of the Coordinator through the Registrar. At the end of the semester, the “Incomplete” will be replaced with the student’s earned grade (which may be “F”) or the grade per sanction.

You should report your suspicions to the instructor of the relevant course. If you are uncertain of the relevant instructor, or otherwise do not wish to report to the instructor directly, you may report your suspicions to the Academic Integrity Coordinator of the school in which the suspect act of academic misconduct occurred. This may take the form of an online report, which will be used to by the Coordinator in your school or college to determine the next steps.

The procedures outlined in the Code afford you with procedural and substantive fairness; that is, you will be provided a fair a reasonable opportunity to defend yourself and the sanctioning process will be guided by recommendations so as not to be unduly arbitrary or biased. The specific rights afforded to you are outlined in the Code, including but not limited to a specific notice of charges, a right to inspect the case file prior to and during a conference of hearing, and the opportunity to appeal a finding of responsibility by a Hearing Panel.

The new code is a way to provide assurances to students that the grades they received in their class reflects their honest academic efforts. Your fellow students have an interest in academic integrity because it ensures fairness in grading, protects the reputation of their degrees, and helps ensure that their future colleagues will act with honesty and integrity.

Even more fundamentally, the new Code is a tool to develop and preserve trust between students, faculty, and the broader community. No matter one’s area of study, acting with integrity and the preservation of trust with one’s colleagues is key to long-term success. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic illustrated the importance of trust in public health. When public health representatives recommend to the public that they get vaccinated or how to safely interact with loved ones, these recommendations are only as effective as the amount of trust placed in public health by individuals and communities. When that trust is violated—as it was with the Tuskegee Syphilis Study—the damage can last for generations. Nancy Kass, a leading public health ethicist, has recognized trust as the most important asset of public health: “the most important asset that public health can have is the public's trust that work is being done on its own behalf.”—Kass NE. An ethics framework for public health. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(11):1776–1782.

The new Code means for students that UAB wants to help you develop the habit of honest work because we know that habits formed now will stay with you beyond graduation and shape your professional and personal lives.

The most important resource to help you avoid academic misconduct is your instructor. We recognize that there will not always be easy answers about what constitutes academic misconduct. Together, students and instructors create the shared expectations about how to do your work. These expectations may vary from instructor to instructor and it is your responsibility to understand and abide by each instructor’s expectations for doing honest work.

You should first discuss the suspected academic misconduct with the student(s) involved. The purpose of this preliminary meeting is to correct any errors or misunderstandings about the apparent academic misconduct. If you determine during this preliminary meeting that no academic misconduct occurred, the matter will then be closed, and no disciplinary record created. However, if after the preliminary meeting you believe that academic misconduct occurred, you should submit an online report. This report will be used to by the Coordinator in your school or college to determine the next steps, including whether a student-instructor Resolution Agreement is authorized based on the student’s history of academic misconduct and the interest of both the accused student and instructor of completing a Resolution Agreement. If the student has a prior record of academic misconduct or if the possible sanctions include suspension or expulsion, the matter is automatically referred to the Coordinator and a Resolution Agreement is not an option.

Cases involving multiple students will normally be heard together if more than one student is alleged to have jointly engaged in one or more acts of academic misconduct. These cases will only be combined with the written consent of the students. Students who seek a separate conference or hearing must provide a written justification for their request, sent to the Academic Integrity Coordinator at least five business days before the scheduled proceeding.

If related cases are not heard jointly, the Academic Integrity Coordinator conducting the Conference or the Chair of the Academic Integrity Hearing Panel conducting the hearing may consider all relevant statements, materials and other evidence presented at an earlier proceeding in any subsequent proceeding related to the same case.

Some faculty members might be inclined to impose a sanction for academic misconduct on their own initiative. Doing so may deny procedural fairness to students and prevents consistent and credible record keeping. By resolving a case in accordance with the established procedures of the Code, you will be following a process that has been reviewed and approved by the University’s legal counsel for legal sufficiency and campus wide consistency. Failure to adhere to the procedures established by the Code you are not following procedures reviewed for legal consistency and may be inconsistent with practices followed by your college.

The University of Alabama at Birmingham expects all members of its academic community to function according to the highest ethical and professional standards. It will be important that you review and become familiar with the University’s Academic Integrity Code.

Accusations of academic misconduct cannot be dropped by the referring party once referred to the Coordinator. This prohibition is intended to protect faculty members who, on occasion, may be pressured by outside parties to drop charges for reasons unrelated to the original accusation. Faculty members always remain free to confer with Academic Integrity Coordinators and to recommend modifying or dropping charges if new evidence is acquired.