Academic Integrity Policy

I. General Policy Statement

Syracuse University aspires to the highest standards of integrity and honesty in all endeavors. This Academic Integrity Policy is designed to ensure that integrity and honesty remain central to the Syracuse University experience by setting forth clear ethical expectations for students in their academic endeavors; explaining these expectations in order to help students understand the key role they play in upholding academic standards for the Syracuse University community; promoting consistency of standards and practices across colleges, schools, and programs; encouraging reporting of suspected violations; and facilitating the resolution of cases as promptly as possible while providing thorough and fair consideration for students and instructors. For the purposes of this policy, instructors are defined as all full-time and part-time faculty, as well as graduate students and staff acting as instructors of record.

II. Reason for Policy/Purpose

 Education is a central goal of this policy, including affording students an opportunity to discuss and learn from academic integrity violations. Academic integrity furthers the University’s central mission to foster high-quality learning, teaching, and research, endeavors that are premised on individual intellectual and creative work and that require a commitment to the fundamental values of academic integrity identified by the International Center for Academic Integrity: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage. These values are essential to the overall success of any academic institution, including Syracuse University.

This policy is designed to cultivate an academic environment of honesty and integrity by ensuring that students adhere to certain ethical standards in their academic work. It addresses academic integrity standards that apply to students and governs the ways in which faculty, instructors, and administrators must handle suspected violations.[1]

This policy supersedes all previously issued or published policies, procedures, and written and online statements of Syracuse University with regard to academic integrity standards. Syracuse University retains the right to modify its academic integrity procedures with written notice to students facing suspected violations in circumstances where, in the University’s sole discretion, the procedures described in this policy are insufficient to meet the objectives of promoting academic integrity at Syracuse University. This includes, without limitation, when classes are not in session, during summer sessions, while an involved student is studying abroad or taking Syracuse University courses while not matriculated at Syracuse University, and when suspected violations involve collaboration by two or more students or involve multiple students. Syracuse University also retains the right to revise this policy from time to time based on assessment of its effectiveness and, with approval of the Vice Chancellor, Provost, and Chief Academic Officer, to modify procedures on a temporary basis in order to pilot and evaluate them.

III. Policy

A. Academic Integrity Expectations

 Syracuse University classifies academic integrity expectations in four broad categories. These categories are designed for educational purposes. Neither the categories themselves nor the examples of violations are exhaustive. Any action that improperly influences the evaluation of a student’s academic work, gives one student unfair academic advantage over another, or encourages the violation of academic integrity by others constitutes a violation of this policy.

Syracuse University sets general guidelines for university-wide academic integrity standards. In recognition that learning objectives vary across courses, the University also strongly encourages instructors to establish course-specific academic integrity expectations, particularly with regard to what forms of collaboration are allowed and prohibited. The course syllabus provides one vehicle to do so. It is the responsibility of all instructors to communicate course-specific academic integrity expectations to students. Any student who is uncertain whether an action they are considering would violate academic integrity expectations is responsible for asking the instructor or consulting the Academic Integrity Office (AIO) beforehand.

Although most violations of academic integrity expectations will be course related, the University has the authority and responsibility to respond to suspected violations in any context in which there is a threat to academic integrity at Syracuse University or any context involving Syracuse University students, courses, or programs.

Expectation 1: Credit Your Sources

Students must specifically cite or otherwise clearly acknowledge their use of other people’s ideas, information, language, images, and other original scholarly and creative output when they incorporate these materials – directly or indirectly – into their own academic work. Sources include scholars and published research, as well as fellow students and other individuals who must be credited whenever their ideas are incorporated into another student’s work. At minimum, proper citation requires using quotation marks to identify others’ verbatim language and providing in-text citations and bibliographic references to identify sources of direct quotation, paraphrasing, summarizing, or the borrowing of ideas and images. Sources must be credited regardless of whether those sources are published or copyrighted and regardless of whether they exist in print or online.

Sources must be credited not only in written work but also in oral and visual presentations, computer code, and other academic assignments, including any draft assignment submitted to an instructor, regardless of whether the draft will be graded.

Expectation 2: Do Your Own Work

Any work a student submits for a course must be solely their own unless an instructor gives explicit instructions allowing collaboration or editing. This expectation applies to homework, as well as to other written, oral, and creative assignments. When collaboration or editing by someone other than the student is permitted or required, it is each student’s responsibility to adhere to any limits on editing or collaboration set by the instructor.

Examinations and quizzes of all kinds, including online, take-home, and in-class exams, must reflect only the work of the submitting student without assistance from other people or resources such as texts, websites, apps, or notes unless the instructor has specifically allowed their use. Instructors who allow collaboration or the use of written, online, or other resources during an exam or quiz are responsible for clearly communicating their expectations. Students are responsible for asking questions in advance if they are uncertain about these expectations. Having prohibited resources, as defined by the instructor in the oral or written assessment instructions, during an exam constitutes a violation, whether or not these items are accessed or otherwise used in completing the assessment. Dishonestly obtaining and/or sharing the contents of a quiz or exam not provided by the course instructor constitutes a violation, as does providing unauthorized assistance of any form to another student taking a quiz or exam.

Submitting work completed previously for another course or purpose constitutes a violation of this policy, as such double use of material deprives students of the opportunity to learn from the current assignment. Students seeking to submit the same work in more than one course or to submit work they have previously completed for another purpose or submitted to another organization or institution, including a high school, must obtain written approval from all relevant University instructors before submitting the work. This requirement applies to all course work regardless of format, including but not limited to art, music, film, design projects, computer code, oral reports, and other course output in addition to written assignments. An instructor may allow students to expand the scope of an assignment so as to legitimately submit it for two courses or requirements.

Students pursuing capstone projects eligible for submission to two programs, such as to Honors and to the student’s major, must confirm that both programs or courses will accept the same or substantially the same work and obtain written permission in advance from the relevant instructors or program directors.

This policy extends to the fast-growing realm of artificial intelligence (AI) and represents the importance of understanding, exploring, and evaluating emerging technologies. Generative AI refers to tools that use algorithms to generate new content or outputs (such as text, images, audio, video, code, etc.) based on the data on which they have been trained and in response to prompts from users (adapted from Briggs, C. & Briggs, R. (2024), The AI Conundrum, MIT Press).

The permitted use of AI may vary from course to course and assignment to assignment based on the specific learning outcomes of the course or assignment. While inappropriate use of AI tools is considered failure to do one’s own work, there are specific guidelines required of instructors submitting a suspected AI case to the AIO:

• An academic integrity incident report suspecting a student of inappropriate Generative-AI use cannot be submitted to the AIO with only AI detection results as proof of violation (i.e., reporting instructor must submit additional evidence beyond AI detection).
• Any incident report concerning use of AI must explain the course- and assignment-specific rules set by the instructor for use of AI, including relevant portions of any syllabus statements.
• Utilization of standard in-app features of a required software (e.g., Microsoft Word’s thesaurus or spell-check tools) are not considered unauthorized Generative AI.

Site-contained websites such as Purdue OWL and thesaurus.com are not considered Generative-AI tools. Permission to use these non-AI tools is still at the discretion of the instructor.

Expectation 3: Communicate Honestly

Students are expected to be honest in their dealings with instructors, staff, and fellow students and to represent themselves and their academic endeavors accurately. This expectation includes accurate reporting of participation in class, internships, and other academic activities, as well as honesty in requesting extension of deadlines and permission to reschedule assignments or exams due to illness or other extenuating circumstances. Honest communication also requires accurate presentation of research and research results, including avoidance of omissions or selective reporting of data that skew interpretation of findings.

The expectation of honest communication includes the handling and representation of all academic records, documents, and resources of all kinds, including library, computing, and electronic records and systems related to academic work and education. Students are expected to represent themselves, their own academic work, and the academic work of others honestly and to avoid falsifying, fabricating, altering, or destroying academic records or otherwise misrepresenting their own or others’ identity and records.

Expectation 4: Support Academic Integrity

Students are expected to support and promote high standards of academic integrity at Syracuse University. This expectation means avoiding actions that encourage or cover up violations by others. It also means asking questions of the relevant instructor or the AIO when academic integrity expectations are unclear to students.

New York State Education law 213-b makes illegal the sale of written assignments that the seller knew or should have known would be used for fraudulent purposes. This policy prohibits the sale or purchase of completed or partially completed work for fraudulent use, including in-kind purchases and sales that occur when a student provides or receives work completed by someone else in exchange for making their own completed work available or earns money by persuading other students to make their completed academic work available.

In sum, supporting academic integrity involves understanding academic integrity expectations, abiding by them, and encouraging others to do the same. Any action that threatens the integrity of academic pursuits at Syracuse University, including its courses, programs, and affiliates, constitutes a violation subject to reporting under this policy. Such actions also include violating the confidentiality of an academic integrity case, deliberately thwarting an academic integrity investigation, and lying to or misleading those carrying out an academic integrity investigation.

B. Communication and Reporting of Suspected Violations

 Syracuse University will communicate the University’s academic integrity expectations to students on a regular basis. Instructors are responsible for communicating course-specific academic integrity expectations in their syllabi. Students are responsible for learning university-wide and course-specific academic integrity expectations and for seeking clarification of expectations they do not fully understand from the course instructor or the AIO.

All members of the Syracuse University community are strongly encouraged to report suspected violations of academic integrity expectations to ensure that no student has an unfair advantage over others. Most violations will be course related and, thus, subject to reporting by instructors. The AIO will provide a mechanism through which instructors may report suspected violations.

Instructors are encouraged to discuss suspected violations with the student involved before reporting. Instructors must report to the AIO any suspected violation for which they seek to levy a grade penalty or penalize a student. Teaching assistants, students, and staff should report suspected violations to the relevant course instructor, to the school or college where the suspected violation occurred, or to the AIO. No suspected violation will result in any grade or non-grade sanction before an official report to the AIO is made, considered, and decided through the avenues of case resolution established under this policy.

Suspected violations will be reported promptly. Typically, this means no more than two weeks after the suspected violation took place or was discovered. Instructors seeking to report a suspected violation more than two weeks after its occurrence or discovery should contact the AIO to request an extension of the filing deadline. All suspected violations discovered during final course grading must be reported no more than two weeks after semester grades are due unless an extension is granted. However, suspected violations that come to light after a course ends or after a student graduates are also subject to this policy. If a student is found responsible for a violation after graduation and the sanctions imposed make the student ineligible to earn their degree, the degree may be revoked.

C. Implementation by the Schools and Colleges

The Dean of each school and college will appoint an Academic Integrity Coordinator, who will be responsible for implementing academic integrity policy and procedures on behalf of the school or college with support from the AIO. The Academic Integrity Coordinator’s responsibilities will include appointing and maintaining a school or college Academic Integrity Panel consisting of the following:

• The Academic Integrity Coordinator, who will oversee all school or college academic integrity cases and will, on behalf of the school or college, bring forward those cases not arising within a course;
• A sufficient number of faculty members (typically at least four faculty) to i) interview students suspected of academic integrity violations, ii) serve on school or college academic integrity hearing panels, and iii) chair academic integrity hearings occurring in other schools and colleges;
• A sufficient number of administrators (typically at least two administrators) to i) serve on school or college academic integrity panels and ii) chair academic integrity hearings;
• A sufficient number of undergraduate students and graduate students (typically at least three of each) to serve on school or college academic integrity panels; and
• An Academic Integrity Advisor, who will educate students about academic integrity expectations and offer advising about academic integrity policies and procedures to students suspected of

Academic Integrity Panel members will be appointed or re-appointed to their school and college academic integrity panel at the start of each academic year. The Academic Integrity Coordinator will be responsible for ensuring that a sufficient number of members are identified and appointed prior to the start of each academic year. The Academic Integrity Coordinator will also have responsibility for selecting the faculty interviewer and the faculty, student, and administrative members of panels convened to consider each academic integrity case.

The AIO will be responsible for training all school or college panel members, who will jointly constitute the university-wide Academic Integrity Panel.

Members of the university-wide Academic Integrity Panel will be eligible to serve on any school or college academic integrity panel in any capacity for which they have been trained and appointed to serve within their own school or college. Academic Integrity Coordinators will have discretion to appoint panel members from outside their school or college to consider cases in their school or college when home school/college members are not available.

D. Resolution of Academic Integrity Cases

There are multiple avenues for case resolution, as described below. At minimum, students will receive notice outlining or describing their suspected violation, an opportunity to give their account of the case, and the option to request an appeal. No student may be penalized for a suspected violation by an instructor, school, or college until a final case decision is issued and the violation is upheld, according to the procedures described below. The AIO reserves the right to consolidate suspected violations by a single student when those violations take place in the same course or occur in close time proximity during the same semester.

The applicable standard for evaluating whether a violation occurred under this policy is “a preponderance of the evidence.” That is, a suspected violation must be proven by demonstration that is it “more likely than not” that the student’s actions constituted a violation. Students are accountable for violations even if they lack intent to deceive or were unaware that their actions constituted a violation.

All information regarding academic integrity cases will be provided to students using the official email address assigned to them by Syracuse University. Students are responsible for regularly checking their Syracuse University (syr.edu) email account. If a student fails to respond to notification regarding an academic integrity case, the case may proceed without the student’s response.

Upon receiving the report of a suspected academic integrity violation, other than those adjudicated at the Warning Level (discussed later in this policy), the AIO will work with the Academic Integrity Coordinator of the school or college where the suspected violation is alleged to have occurred to consider the case and bring it to resolution, using the processes outlined in this policy. These processes will include but may not be limited to the following:

• Initial evaluation of the evidence to ensure that it is complete and that the suspected violation falls within the parameters of this Academic Integrity Policy;
• Notification to the student of the suspected violation, including a brief outline or description of the suspected violation;
• Evaluation of the evidence that a violation occurred;
• Categorization of the violation as Level 1, 2, or 3, according to the Violation and Sanction Classification Rubric, described below; and,
• Selection by the school or college of an appropriate avenue for case

Each school or college will oversee suspected violations involving its courses, programs, or facilities. Consideration of cases in which a student is suspected of a violation occurring outside their home school or college will involve the Academic Integrity Coordinator of the home school or college, as well as the Academic Integrity Coordinator of the school or college where the suspected violation occurred. If an instructor reports a suspected violation but fails to provide related evidence within five business days of the initial report, the Academic Integrity Coordinator of the school or college where the case was reported will determine whether to move the case forward without complete evidence or to withdraw the case.

Academic Integrity Panel members will be selected so as to avoid potential conflicts of interest. For example, panel members should not be relatives or close friends of the student or the reporting instructor and should not be in a position of immediate authority over either of them. The Academic Integrity Coordinator of the school or college investigating the suspected violation will be responsible for ensuring that prospective panel members are aware of these requirements.

Pending resolution of a suspected violation, an accused student will not be allowed to drop or withdraw from the course and will not be given a grade for either the course or the specific work that is the subject of the suspected violation. Schools and colleges reserve the right to take other necessary measures to prevent ongoing academic misconduct while an academic integrity case is pending.

An accused student will not be allowed to initiate a leave of absence from the University while an academic integrity case is pending. The AIO will work with students facing medical, family, or other personal emergencies on a case-by-case basis to facilitate resolution of their case. Should a student take an inappropriate leave of absence to avoid having their case heard, the academic integrity case will proceed to resolution and sanction (where a finding of responsibility is made), even if the student withdraws, and any sanction will be noted on the transcript.

Violations will be classified by the AIO with assistance from the school or college in which the violation occurred, when requested by the AIO, according to three levels, each associated with a specific non-grade sanction and a recommended grade sanction based on the Violation and Sanction Classification Rubric. The three levels are the following:

Level 1 – School or college letter of reprimand, instructor grade sanction, and academic integrity seminar

Level 2 – Academic integrity probation, instructor grade sanction, and academic integrity seminar

Level 3 – Suspension or expulsion, instructor grade sanction, and academic integrity seminar

Instructors may administer a more severe grade penalty than the one recommended in the Violation and Sanction Classification Rubric only if they specify their intent to exercise this option on their syllabi. Grade sanctions will be instituted by the reporting instructor only after the AIO notifies the student and instructor of the final case resolution. No grade sanction shall be administered when the final resolution is that no violation occurred or that insufficient evidence exists to conclude that a violation occurred.

All students found in violation of this policy, other than those who have cases resolved as Warning cases (discussed below), must successfully complete academic integrity training sponsored by the AIO in order to register for subsequent semesters and to be eligible for removal of any temporary transcript notation. Records of prior established violations will not be considered in evaluating evidence to decide whether a new violation has occurred but will be considered in determining appropriate sanctions for a subsequent violation that is upheld. A second violation will typically be classified as Level 3 with a minimum sanction of suspension.

In some circumstances, there may be a violation of this policy that falls below a Level 1 violation, and in those circumstances, the case will be classified as a Warning case. A Warning case, which consists of an instructor’s grade sanction and Letter of Notice to the Academic Integrity Office, does not require classification from the AIO or the Academic Integrity Coordinator from the violation school or college prior to engaging in that process, but it does require classification as a Warning by the reporting instructor.

E. Avenues for Case Resolution

Avenues for case resolution will include the following:

1. Warning: This avenue allows for resolution of the lowest-level cases through a conversation between the student and the reporting instructor where they agree on the relevant grade sanction. The resolution between the student and instructor is then documented with the AIO. Students who resolve a case through the Warning process will not be required to take the academic integrity seminar.

   Reported violations will be eligible for Warning resolutions by the school or college under the following circumstances:

   • • The violation is determined to be below a Level 1 violation by the reporting instructor, and
     • The violation is worth less than 10% of the overall grade

   If the student and reporting instructor are not able to reach an agreement at a Warning meeting, the case will proceed to a faculty interview (chosen from a pool of faculty interviewers or the Academic Integrity Panel from the school or college). The student will have an opportunity to meet with the faculty interviewer and present relevant evidence and facts. The faculty interviewer may also meet with the reporting instructor to gather relevant evidence and facts.

   If the faculty interviewer and Academic Integrity Coordinator designate the case as a Warning, Level 1, or Level 2 and determine that a violation occurred, their decision will become final, and the case will not be eligible for consideration by a hearing panel. Students retain the right to request an appeal, as described below in Section F.

   If a student is found responsible for a second case that warrants a Warning notice, they must complete the Academic Integrity Seminar and the second Warning notice will be classified as a Level 1 violation.

2. Expedited (Waiver or Faculty Interview): The expedited resolution avenue allows for resolution of Level 1 and 2 cases with approval of the Academic Integrity Coordinator of the school or college where the suspected violation was reported.
   1. 1. Waiver: This avenue allows for resolution of Level 1 and 2 cases by students signing a form accepting responsibility and assigned sanctions. The waiver process is not available to students who have a prior Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3 violation on record and previously went through the academic integrity process. A student with a previous Warning will be permitted to engage in the waiver process.

         Students whose cases are processed via waiver will receive notice of the suspected violation. Following this notice, students will have the option to waive further process and accept responsibility for the violation and the proposed sanction(s). Students whose cases are resolved through a waiver process retain the right to request an appeal, as described below in Section F.

      2. Faculty Interview: This avenue allows resolution of Level 1 and 2 cases with a single faculty interviewer who serves as a hearing officer. Faculty interviewers may also hear Warning cases only in the instance where the student contests during the initial meeting with the reporting instructor.

         Reported violations will be eligible for Faculty Interview case resolution by the school or college under the following circumstances:

         • Students opt or request to participate in an interview with a faculty interviewer serving as hearing officer by contesting any part of the waiver, including the grade sanction.
         • A student has a previous Level 1 violation. In this case, the student would complete the faculty interview and, if found responsible, be required to complete the Academic Integrity Seminar as a sanction (in addition to other possible grade sanctions).

         If the faculty interviewer serving as hearing officer and Academic Integrity Coordinator designate the case as Faculty Interview only, this decision will become final, and the case will not be eligible for consideration by a hearing panel. Students whose cases are decided through the Faculty Interview process retain the right to request an appeal, as described below in Section F.

3. Hearing Panel: This avenue allows resolution of the most serious suspected violations of academic integrity with potential to result in a student’s suspension or expulsion from Syracuse University. The hearing process begins with notice of the allegations to the student and a Faculty Interview.

Hearings will be held under the following circumstances:

• The student has a prior Level 2 or 3 violation on record or two Level 1 violations and previously went through the academic integrity process;
• The student has a suspected violation classified as Level 3 by the faculty interviewer and Academic Integrity Coordinator;
• The director of the AIO determines that a case merits consideration by a hearing panel due to complexity of the evidence;
• The faculty interviewer and Academic Integrity Coordinator agree that a Level 1 violation or higher occurred but cannot agree on the level and the non-grade sanction; or,
• If, after a Faculty Interview occurs, the faculty interviewer and Academic Integrity Coordinator request more information or if one party believes that no violation occurred and the other requests more information, the reporting instructor will be contacted and provided with three business days to submit any additional evidence they may have. If no evidence is provided, the case will be overturned and dismissed. Should additional evidence be provided, the student will have three business days to respond to it. If the reporting instructor provides more information, the faculty interviewer and student will schedule a second interview to discuss the new documentation, after which the faculty interviewer will render a decision.
• The instructor who reported the suspected violation requests a hearing because they disagree with the finding by the school or college Academic Integrity Coordinator and faculty panel member that insufficient evidence exists to conclude that a violation occurred.

Students whose cases go to a hearing will receive notice of the suspected violation. Following this notice, students will participate in an interview with a trained faculty interviewer assigned to their case. If the faculty interviewer and Academic Integrity Coordinator agree that the case meets the criteria for a hearing (listed below), the case will move to a hearing panel. Following the decision by the hearing panel, the student has the right to appeal, as described below in Section F.

Hearing panels will consist of a minimum of three members, with at least one faculty member, one student, and one administrator. Reasonable efforts will be made to ensure that student panel members are matriculated at the program level (undergraduate or graduate) of the student whose case is under consideration and that doctoral students are included on any panel hearing the case of a doctoral student. All hearing panelists will be members of the University-wide panel, and their selection will be approved by the Academic Integrity Coordinator of the school or college where the suspected violation occurred and of the student’s home school or college if these differ. Hearings will be chaired by a trained faculty or administrative panel member. All decisions by academic integrity hearing panels will be determined by majority vote.

The student whose case is being considered has the right to be accompanied by an advisor of their choice, who must be a Syracuse University faculty member, student, or staff member. The support person may not address panel members or participate in the hearing but may provide advice to the student in a quiet, non-disruptive manner.

All academic integrity proceedings are confidential and closed to persons not involved in the matter. All academic integrity coordinators, advisors, and panel members are expected to maintain the confidentiality of academic integrity proceedings. In accordance with applicable law, hearing results are confidential. This policy prohibits academic integrity coordinators, advisors, and panel members from violating the confidentiality of any academic integrity proceeding. Any member of the University community may confidentially consult with the AIO regarding a suspected act of academic dishonesty.

F. Appeals and Final Decisions

All students, except those who accepted an outcome under the Waiver process, are entitled to request an appeal. Students may request an appeal of a decision that they violated academic integrity policy. Students may also request appeal of related non-grade and grade sanctions. Students have seven business days after receipt of a school or college decision to submit a written request for appeal to the AIO, and any appeal must be based on (i) the emergence of new, previously unavailable evidence or (ii) failure to follow required procedure. Students must show that the new evidence or failure to follow procedure was significant enough to likely alter the case outcome. The AIO will review all requests for appeal and determine whether they meet one of the above standards. Appeal requests that are granted will be considered by an appeal panel whose members have had no prior involvement in the case. The AIO will appoint members of the appeal panel subject to approval by the school or college Academic Integrity Coordinator.

Subject to the resolution options set forth in Section E, final resolution of an academic integrity case occurs in one of three ways:

1. An academic integrity panel renders a decision upholding or overturning the case, and the student does not submit a request for appeal by the appeal deadline; or

2. An academic integrity panel renders a decision, the student submits a request for appeal, and the AIO determines that the standards for appeal have not been met; or

3. An academic integrity panel renders a decision, the student’s request for appeal is granted, and the appeal panel renders a decision, which is approved by the Associate Provost for Academic Programs or their designee.

Final case decisions will be issued on behalf of the school or college Dean in coordination with the AIO so as to convey the importance that the school or college places on academic integrity and the significance of the violation and sanction(s).

In most cases, students found in violation of the academic integrity policy will not be allowed to drop or withdraw from the course or courses that led to the violation report.

G. Record Keeping and Reporting

The AIO will compile and maintain centralized records of all reported cases determined to constitute a violation of academic integrity policy. Students with no academic integrity record and students with an established academic integrity violation who have successfully completed all resulting sanctions and requirements will be considered in good standing with the AIO. Students in the process of completing sanctions or requirements, students who have failed to complete sanctions or requirements, and students whose cases have resulted in temporary or permanent transcript notations will be considered to have an active record with the AIO.

1. Record Retention

Academic integrity records will be retained for at least seven years from the resolution of the most recent incident in the student’s file or until one year after the student has graduated from the University, whichever period is longer. Records of students who are suspended, expelled, or otherwise withdrawn due to an academic integrity violation will be retained indefinitely.

2. Internal Reporting of Records

Summary case information will be provided to University offices for internal use on a need-to-know basis when necessary to maintain the University’s academic integrity interests. This information will be released in accordance with Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 C.F.R. Part 99) (FERPA) and will include the existence of any violation that has been upheld, student standing (good standing or active record), the approximate date and type of violation (e.g., plagiarism of a midterm essay, use of cell phone during a final exam), violation level (1, 2, or 3), resulting sanctions and requirements, and whether and when these requirements were satisfactorily completed. Cases that have been overturned will not be reported internally. Students with an overturned case and students who have never had a case will be reported as in good standing with the AIO.

3. External Reporting of Records

Employers and graduate schools may require students to release their standing and case information as a condition of employment or matriculation. This requirement may also apply when students seek to transfer to another undergraduate institution or to participate in courses, programs, or internships sponsored by another institution. No information about any student case will be reported externally in the absence of a signed FERPA waiver from the student permitting release of their academic integrity record unless such release is legally required. However, Syracuse University reserves the right to provide an updated transcript to any institution to which a student has transferred, where the student transferred prior to resolution of their academic integrity case.

IV. To Whom Does This Policy Apply

Select all that apply:

☒ Students     ☒ Faculty     ☒ Staff      ☐ Visitors/General Public      ☒ Other: Instructors, including part-time instructors, adjuncts, and graduate students serving as teaching assistants or teaching their own courses.

The academic integrity expectations and standards established by this policy apply to students in all Syracuse University-sponsored courses and programs, regardless of whether the student is matriculated and regardless of whether the course takes place on campus, online, or off campus, including course- and program-related internships and SU Abroad programs. These standards apply equally to behavior that occurs within a course, such as plagiarism within a midterm essay, and academic behavior outside the course context, such as altering a transcript or mispresenting academic accomplishments in pursuit of employment. Faculty, instructors, staff, and students who report a suspected academic integrity violation or serve on a panel considering a suspected violation must follow the standards and procedures established by this policy.

The College of Law may choose to adopt an alternative academic integrity policy. Any academic integrity policy specific to the College of Law will apply solely to students enrolled in the College of Law whose suspected violation occurs in a College of Law course or otherwise directly involves the College of Law, such as violations involving College of Law admissions or transcripts. Suspected violations by College of Law students involving other Syracuse University schools or colleges and suspected violations by non-law students involving the College of Law will be considered under this policy. If a question of jurisdiction arises, the AIO will determine whether the University policy or the College of Law policy applies to a suspected academic integrity violation.

Approved by Provost: July 8, 2025

[1]The Faculty Manual addresses the academic integrity standards that apply to faculty.