Introduction
The Graduate Student Academic Grievance Committee hears all grievances involving the following: (a) grievances of a personal or professional nature involving an individual student and a faculty member; (b) the claim by a student that the final grade in a course was inequitably awarded; (c) cases where the grievance involves graduate student employment; and (d) graduate student academic dishonesty. In all unresolved cases, the committee makes its recommendations to the president through the provost. All proceedings of the committee are confidential.
Membership of this committee consists of the following: five faculty members involved in graduate education (one from each college) elected by the collegiate faculty for three-year terms, two graduate students nominated annually by the Graduate Student Government (GSG) and appointed by the provost, and one representative of the Graduate School serving in a nonvoting, advisory role. Each year the chair is elected from among the continuing faculty members. The terms of appointment begin with each fall registration.
Rules and Procedures
- Any complaint should first be taken for resolution to the faculty or staff member involved. If no resolution is reached, the graduate student should request the department chair and the dean or the immediate superior of the staff member to hear the complaint and act as a referee. The student, dean of the college, department chair, and faculty or staff member should make every effort to reach a solution.
- If the complaint remains unresolved, the student may bring it before the Graduate Student Grievance Committee by a written statement detailing the complaint. All complaints to be grieved must be delineated in the written statement. The statement must be delivered in a sealed envelope to the Office of the Dean of the Graduate School within 60 calendar days of the date the graduate student alleges to have been aggrieved, except in cases involving a protest of a final grade when the statement must be filed within 90 calendar days from the date on the grade report. A copy of the charge is to be given to the department chair or dean. The dean of the Graduate School (or the dean's designee) shall attempt to resolve the complaint. If no resolution is reached, then the dean of the Graduate School (or the dean's designee) shall advise the graduate student in assembling the necessary information for presenting his or her complaint to the Graduate Student Grievance Committee. The dean will forward the complaint to the chair of the Graduate Student Grievance Committee. Failure of the student to file a complaint within the designated time period will result in forfeiture of the right to file a grievance under this procedure.
- The committee will determine if the complaint
constitutes a grievance as defined by items (a) through (d) in
the first paragraph above (Introduction).
A) The committee may determine the complaint to be nongrievable. The student may appeal the grievability of an issue by requesting the Grievance Committee to forward the file to the president via the provost. This appeal must be filed in writing within 14 days. The president may elect to uphold the committee's decision or remand the case to the committee for a hearing.
B) If the complaint is found to be grievable, the committee will then attempt to gather all pertinent information in separate meetings with all individuals able to give information concerning the grievance. - The committee will formulate its findings in writing and seek to obtain signed approval for the recommended solution from all parties involved within 14 calendar days.
- If the committee cannot obtain a solution that is acceptable to all involved parties, the committee will provide an opportunity for a hearing on the grievance. Two weeks' notice will be provided to all parties in the grievance. Either party to the grievance may petition for a hearing on the grievance.
- The hearing on the grievance will be informal
and closed to the public. The chairperson of the committee shall
take whatever action is necessary to ensure an equitable, orderly and
expeditious hearing. Minutes of the meeting will be taken, and all parties
to the grievance will be given an opportunity to be heard. Each party
is responsible for having present at the hearing all witnesses who will
speak on his or her behalf. In addition, the chairperson may request the
presence at the hearing of any other person who has pertinent information
on the grievance.
Witnesses shall not be present during the hearing proceedings except when called upon to speak before the committee. The parties will be permitted to question all individuals present at the hearing and heard by the committee. If any witness is unable to be present at the hearing, the chairperson may, at his or her discretion, accept a written statement from that witness to be presented at the hearing. The parties shall be accorded the right to assistance of counsel of their own choice; however, the role of counsel shall be solely to assist the party, and counsel shall not be permitted to participate actively in the proceedings. - Upon conclusion of the hearing, the committee, meeting in executive session, shall reach, by a majority vote of those committee members present, a solution to the grievance. If the chairperson can persuade all parties to the grievance to accept the committee's solution within 14 calendar days, the matter of the grievance will be considered closed when the solution is effected.
- If, after the conclusion of the hearing, the chairperson cannot obtain approval of the committee's recommended solution from all involved parties, the grievance will be referred to the president of the University via the provost, with the committee's solution as the recommended solution to the grievance. When grievances are referred in this manner, the president shall make the final decision on behalf of the University.
- The Graduate School shall keep in confidence all records pertinent to each grievance and pass these records to the Office of the Provost for filing. Records shall be available to succeeding chairpersons of the Graduate Student Grievance Committee.
- A majority of committee members shall constitute a quorum for transaction of committee business; at least one appointed faculty member and one appointed graduate student must be present.
- The Graduate Student Grievance Committee shall meet as often as necessary to dispense expeditiously with grievances brought before the committee.
- These rules and procedures can be amended by the Graduate Student Academic Grievance Committee. Such rule changes will not affect any case under consideration at the time of the change. Notification of any amendments to these rules and procedures should be given to the Academic Council.
Policy on Academic Misconduct
A university is a community of scholars dedicated to the inquiry into knowledge. It follows as a basic tenet that scholars will conduct themselves with integrity in academic pursuits. In instances where the academic standards may have been compromised, Clemson University has a responsibility to protect this process and to respond appropriately and expeditiously to charges of academic misconduct. Academic misconduct includes, but is not limited to, submission of fraudulent admission credentials, academic dishonesty, falsification of data in research and plagiarism in theses, dissertations or other final projects.
I. General
- Academic dishonesty includes giving, receiving or using unauthorized aid on any academic work.
- Plagiarism, a form of academic dishonesty, includes the copying of language, structure or ideas of another and attributing the work to one's own efforts.
- All academic work submitted for grading contains an implicit pledge and may contain, at the request of the instructor, an explicit pledge by the student that no unauthorized aid has been received.
- Academic dishonesty includes attempts to copy, edit or delete computer files that belong to another person or use Computer Center account numbers that belong to another person without the permission of the file owner, account number owner or file number.
II. Penalties
- A student guilty of the first offense of academic dishonesty typically will receive a grade of F for the course. In flagrant cases, the student may also be suspended for one or more semesters or may be permanently dismissed.
- A student guilty of the second offense of academic dishonesty will receive a grade of F for the course, will be suspended for one or more semesters and may be permanently dismissed. Suspension and dismissal require approval of the president of the University.
III. Procedures
Academic honesty is the individual responsibility of each student. Students should report violations of this policy either to the instructor of the affected course or to any member of the administration. When, in the opinion of an instructor, a student has committed an act of academic dishonesty, the following procedure must be followed:
- The instructor will inform the student in private of the nature of the alleged charge of academic dishonesty and will simultaneously request in writing that the department chair verify from the registrar if the incident is a first offense.
- When this information has been received, the instructor will notify the student in writing of the charge of academic dishonesty and the penalty recommended by the instructor and approved by the chair of the department in which the course is taught. The notification will further state that if the student regards the charge as unfair, the student has seven days from the date of receipt of notice to file a grievance with the Graduate Student Grievance Committee.
- If no grievance is filed by the student, the instructor will forward copies of the written notification to the dean of the college and to the registrar.
- Should the act of dishonesty not be in the college of the student's major, the registrar will notify the major department chair.
- A charge of academic dishonesty in a course must be made within 45 calendar days of the date printed on the grade report for the semester or session in which the course is completed. For grades that replace an original grade of I (incomplete), the 45 days begin the day the I is converted to the final grade.
Policy on Academic Misconduct for Former Students
It is possible that an act of academic misconduct will remain undiscovered until after a degree is awarded. In such a case, Clemson University reserves the right to revoke any degree based on new revelations about scholarly issues including, but not restricted to, admission credentials, course work, research, theses, dissertations or other final projects.
I. Submission of Fraudulent Admissions Credentials
The submission of fraudulent admissions credentials in the student's application or any other documents submitted for admission to Clemson University may result in initiation of action under the Policy and Procedure on Revocation of Academic Degrees.
II. Academic Dishonesty in Course Work
In the event that the act is alleged to have occurred within the context of a course and is consistent with the general definition of academic dishonesty presented in Sections I of the Policy on Academic Misconduct for enrolled students, the same procedures in that policy will apply except for academic misconduct listed in III below.
Graduate Students:
If the resulting penalty is either the assignment of a grade of D or F in a required graduate course, or the issuance of any grade that causes the student not to possess a cumulative B average in both graduate courses and in all courses, action under the Policy and Procedures on Revocation of Academic Degrees may be initiated.
Undergraduate Students:
If the resulting penalty causes the student to no longer have the necessary credit hours and/or course work for receiving a degree, action under the Policy and Procedures on Revocation of Academic Degrees may be initiated.
III. Falsification of Data and Plagiarism in Theses, Dissertations or Other Final Projects
Data falsification, plagiarism (as defined in the Academic Misconduct Policy) and other acts of academic dishonesty in a thesis, dissertation or other final project are serious acts of misconduct. Allegations of this type of misconduct may result in initiation of action under the Policy and Procedure on Revocation of Academic Degrees.
Grade Protests
A student wishing to protest a course grade must first attempt to resolve any disagreement with the instructor. In failing to reach a satisfactory resolution, the student may follow the procedure under "Grievances." All grade changes and grievances must be filed within 90 calendar days from the date on the grade report.
Academic Research
Policy on Research Ethics
I. Preamble
Research institutions have a critical responsibility to provide an environment that promotes integrity, while at the same time encouraging openness and creativity among scholars. Care must be taken to ensure that honest error and ambiguities of interpretation of scholarly activities are distinguishable from outright misconduct. To address all allegations of fraud or misconduct, definitions, policies and procedures must be in place to facilitate and guide such processes.
This policy is applicable to all researchers associated with Clemson University, including faculty, students and staff. If charges are brought against nonfaculty members of Clemson University, appropriate substitutions should be made for the role of the Faculty Senate officers and dean. If charges are brought against a former student that could result in the student's degree being revoked, those charges should be processed through the University's Policy and Procedure on Revocation of Academic Degrees rather than through this policy.
II. Definitions
-
Research
Research is used in a general sense (as opposed to scientific research) to yield a policy applicable to all academic disciplines in the University.
-
Misconduct
Dishonest deviation from accepted practices in conducting research activities.Fraudulent failure to comply with university, regulatory and funding agencies requirements affecting specific aspects of the conduct of research.
This definition includes:
Falsification of data - ranging from falsification or intentional misrepresentation of methods, materials or results to selective reporting of findings, such as the purposeful omission of conflicting data with the intent to manipulate the results;
Plagiarism - representation of borrowed work as one's own;
Misappropriation of others' ideas - the unauthorized and intentionally dishonest use of privileged information (such as that which might be gained during peer, paper or grant reviews), however obtained;
Malicious and public misrepresentation of a colleague's ethical research behavior;
Conflicts of interest that could influence the researcher's decisions or conclusions, or which could provide unfair gain to the researcher;
Other misuse of position as researcher for personal gain;
Exploitation (such as failure to credit work, misrepresentation of a research relationship, etc.) of students, or other persons, for research purposes.
This definition does not include:
Non-fraudulent failure or inadequacy of performance, incompetence or honest error;
Non-fraudulent breaches of contracts;
Employment discrimination, sexual harassment, violation of human subjects policy or animal welfare policy, or other forms of misconduct that are the concerns of different, distinctive administrative policies. -
Inquiry
Expeditious gathering and review of information to determine if an investigation is warranted. This is not a formal hearing, but a process designed to separate frivolous, unjustified or mistaken allegation from facts regarding the incident.
-
Investigation
A formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if an instance of misconduct has occurred.
-
Disposition
The Committee of Investigation shall only determine whether a breach of ethics has occurred and will not make recommendations relative to the nature or severity of the action to be taken.
If the investigation committee finds that the complaint was intentionally dishonest and malicious, the committee can recommend action against the accuser.
In the event that allegations are not confirmed, the institution shall make full efforts to restore the reputation of the accused; the accused's recommendations to accomplish this should be accommodated insofar as is possible.
III. Procedures
-
Overall Structure
An allegation or complaint involving the possibility of misconduct can be raised by anyone. The allegation should be made in writing to the Faculty Senate president in a confidential manner. Accusations must be signed.
Charges must be filed within seven years of the date on which the event in question occurred. If the date of limitation is in question, the Faculty Senate president, the chair of the Faculty Senate Research Committee and the vice president for research shall determine whether the given event occurred within the specified time limit.
The Faculty Senate president and the chair of the Faculty Senate Research Committee should accept the accusation only after they are satisfied that its substance complies with this policy's definition of "misconduct." At this time, and at their discretion, they may consult with the vice president for research relative to the alleged research ethics violation.
A meeting should be scheduled to occur within 20 calendar days following acceptance of the accusation for the accused to appear before the president of the Faculty Senate and the chair of the Faculty Senate Research Committee for the purpose of hearing the charge(s) and being informed of who authored the charges. The accused will be asked to plead "guilty" or "not guilty" to each charge. If the accused pleads "guilty", the president of the Faculty Senate will report the facts to the vice president for research, who will, within 90 calendar days, prepare a report for the provost.
If the accused pleads "not guilty", or if the accused refuses to respond, an inquiry, the first step of the review process, should result. The vice president for research should be notified of the inquiry. In the inquiry state, factual information is gathered and expeditiously reviewed to determine if an investigation of the charge is warranted. An inquiry is not a formal hearing; it is designed to separate allegations deserving of further investigation from frivolous, unjustified or clearly mistaken allegation.
The vice president for research will inform the accuser of the disposition at the conclusion of the investigation stage.
During the initial meeting with the accused for the purpose of presenting charges, only the Faculty Senate president, the chair of the Faculty Senate Research Committee and the accused with his/her lawyer, if desired, may be present. During hearings by the Committee of Inquiry or the Committee of Investigation, only duly appointed members of the given committee and the committee's invited witnesses with his/her lawyer, if desired, may be present. - Inquiry
The vice president for research and the Faculty Senate president will appoint, within 10 calendar days of a response of "not guilty" to charges by the accused, a Committee of Inquiry of three faculty members with one individual appointed as chair.
For any specific allegation or set of allegations, the Committee of Inquiry will determine if an investigation is warranted. The Committee of Inquiry will submit a written report to the vice president for research and the Faculty Senate president within 30 calendar days of the formation of the Committee of Inquiry. - Investigation
If the Committee of Inquiry so recommends, the vice president for research and the Faculty Senate president will appoint within 20 calendar days a Committee of Investigation consisting of five faculty members, other than those serving on the Committee of Inquiry, to conduct a full investigation.
The Committee of Investigation, meeting in closed sessions, will review all materials, question relevant parties, and allow for all parties to present their views separately (without the presence of the other parties) to the committee.
The Committee of Investigation will prepare, within 90 calendar days, a report indicating whether ethics violations have occurred; the report may include estimation of one or more of the following:- the scope of the intentional dishonesty perpetrated by the accused;
- the degree of gain that might accrue to the accused because of the unethical behavior;
- the seriousness of harm intentionally perpetrated against other individuals.
The estimation shall be used in determining disciplinary action against the accused. In less serious cases, action may include a verbal reprimand, or, if conditions warrant, a letter in the offender's personal file. In more serious cases, action might include such sanctions as additional supervision of research activity, loss of merit pay or recommendation against promotion. In only the most serious cases should dismissal be considered.
The report will be submitted to the vice president for research and the Faculty Senate president, who will forward the report to the provost.
The provost will review the report and render a decision within 15 calendar days. Any recommendation that may constitute disciplinary action against a faculty member will be referred by the provost to the appropriate dean or other administrator as determined by the provost. The dean or administrator will decide the appropriate action within 15 calendar days.
If disciplinary action taken against a faculty member constitutes a grievable action under either Faculty Grievance Procedure I or Faculty Grievance Procedure II, the faculty member may file a grievance in accordance with the appropriate procedure. Disciplinary action against other individuals associated with the University are subject to applicable grievance procedures. - Guiding Principles
Maximize confidentiality and protect the reputations for both the accused and accuser during the full process.
Assure the respondent a fair hearing and access to reports.
Minimize the number of individuals involved in the inquiry and investigation phases.
Individuals chosen to assist in the inquiry process should have no real or apparent conflicts of interest bearing on the case in question. They should be unbiased and have appropriate background for judging the issues being raised.
Consultation of University legal counsel is probably necessary.
Appropriate funding agencies should be fully informed in writing at both the outset and conclusion of an investigation.
All detailed documentation of the committees of Inquiry and Investigation shall be maintained by the Office of the Vice President for Research for at least three (3) years and must, upon request, be provided to authorized personnel.
Appropriate interim administrative actions will be taken by the vice president for research at the outset of the inquiry stage to protect supporting funds and to ensure that the purposes of the project are being met.
Executive Interpretation
Definitions
II. B. The Research Ethics Policy clearly restricts action to matters of research ethics; it does not address such things as simple ineptitude, non-fraudulent breach of contract or malpractice covered by existing policy (see exclusions under section II). Note the following:
The definition includes malicious and public (suggesting that neither maliciousness nor publicness, alone, is sufficient) misuse of the research ethics policy itself (reference section II. E.).
Exploitation of others includes misuse of colleagues, such as intentional and malicious failure to credit the work of another, deliberately misleading other individuals to obtain research goals, etc. It does not include benign activity that seems to, or may actually, exploit.
This policy should not be construed to include any activity that is benign in intent (not malicious, deliberately misleading, etc.).
II. E. It is the responsibility of University faculty to protect its research integrity by condemning unethical research activity, by investigating credible charges of unethical research brought against the faculty's peers, by taking steps to restore the reputations of peers that are charged unjustly or in error, by assessing the damage done by an unethical peer if appropriate (see section III. C.), and by seeking sanction through University administrative authorities against those who violate ethical research practices. Appropriate administrative personnel alone have the authority to deprive one of property or liberty interests (within legal constraints). Consequently we feel that the assessment and pursuit of sanctions against an individual should not be a matter addressed by this policy.
III. A. Charges which do not fall within the purview of this policy (see section II. B.) should not be forwarded to a Committee of Inquiry. The processes of Inquiry and Investigation threaten an academician's most cherished professional possession - his or her reputation. That reputation should not be threatened without clear cause, thus charges that do not involve "Research Ethics" as defined by this document should be pursued through other channels. For these reasons, the president of the Faculty Senate and the chair of the Faculty Senate Research Committee, upon receipt of the charges, should confirm that the charges comply in substance with this policy's definitions before any action is initiated. This is not to say that the president of the Faculty Senate and the chair of the Faculty Senate Research Committee should judge the legitimacy of the charges or the facts of the case.
Because the vice president for research has an overall view of University policy and activities that may be valuable at this stage of the process, the president of the Faculty Senate and the chair of the Faculty Senate Research Committee, at their discretion, may consult with the vice president for research prior to rendering a decision about whether the charges should go forward under this policy.
It is in the interest of the accused and the University to provide an opportunity to the accused to abbreviate the procedures outlined in this policy. Specifically, the accused need not be subjected to the trauma of a peer investigation if indeed he/she would prefer to admit guilt and be subjected to appropriate administrative sanction.
III. B. A Committee of Inquiry is responsible for determining whether the facts in the case are contentious (sufficient uncertainty exists to prevent a determination of innocence without extensive investigation), or that there is a probability that the accused's position is or is not credible.
A driving concern of the Committee of Inquiry is the protection of all involved and particularly that of the accused. Toward this end, a Committee of Inquiry should balance the need for information upon which to make a decision against the need for confidentiality, with the balance in favor of confidentiality. The merit of charges cannot always be made on the strength of charges alone; thus, to adequately protect the accused against a potentially damaging investigation, the committee may need to expand its inquiry beyond the charges and accompanying documentation. At the same time, it must be realized that the likelihood of trauma and damage to reputation increases as the scope of an inquiry grows. The pertinent question is, how far should a Committee of Inquiry go to protect an unjustly charged individual against a more extensive investigation given the need to limit the scope of knowledge about the charges? The answer is that the Committee of Inquiry should limit its efforts to the minimum needed to establish that the facts in the case are contentious, or that there is a probability that the accused's position is or is not credible. Certainly the accused should have the opportunity to respond to the charges before the Committee of Inquiry.
The Committee of Inquiry may need to seek clarification from the accuser and may even need to resolve doubts by seeking evidence from another source. At all times, however, the Committee of Inquiry should seek to confine the extent of knowledge about the charges leveled, and consequently should cease its inquiry as soon as it can conclude that the charges may or may not be grounded (not that the charges are or are not true). Strategies may include strictly limiting the number of individuals approached about the matter, limiting witnesses to individuals who have prior knowledge of the charges, or soliciting documentation from involved parties.
In addition to determining probability of ethics violation, the Committee of Inquiry should clarify the charges brought against the accused. This involves throwing out charges that are frivolous or ungrounded, and identifying those charges that may be grounded.
A subsequent Committee of Investigation, because its investigation is more thorough, need not, of necessity, be bound to the scope defined by the Committee of Inquiry, but should give credence to its recommendations.
III. C. The Committee of Investigation is responsible for determining whether an ethics violation has occurred relative to the situation addressed by the charges. Such violation need not be limited to the specific charges, but should be related to the incidents addressed by those charges. The person who brings charges may be aware of only some of the ethical violations associated with a given incident; thus an investigation needs the freedom to note problems relative to that incident which it may uncover during the course of investigating the charges.
The Committee of Investigation, like its predecessor, is concerned with protecting the integrity of the parties involved. Consequently, it too should balance the need for information upon which to make a decision against the need for confidentiality. In this case, however, the balance should favor the gathering of information. It is important that this committee be correct in its decision than it is to limit the scope of knowledge about the investigation. The committee should, of course, cease operation when it has enough information to make a just decision, but should not jeopardize justice in the name of confidentiality.
Policy and Procedure on Revocation of Academic Degrees
Preamble
Academic institutions have a critical responsibility to provide an environment that promotes integrity, while at the same time encouraging openness and creativity among scholars. Care must be taken to ensure that honest error and ambiguities of interpretation of scholarly activities are distinguishable from outright misconduct. This policy is applicable to fraudulent or other misconduct in obtaining an academic degree which is so egregious that a mechanism for revoking an academic degree, either graduate or undergraduate, must be undertaken. The Clemson University Board of Trustees has the sole authority to revoke any degree previously awarded.
Definitions
As used herein, the following terms shall apply:
When the degree holder was an undergraduate student:
"Dean" shall mean the dean of the academic college where student was enrolled.
"Committee of Investigation and Recommendation" shall be composed of the members of the standing University Undergraduate Continuing Enrollment Appeals Committee. An undergraduate student will be appointed to the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation by the president of the student body within 10 calendar days of notification by the president of the Faculty Senate. Any member of the Continuing Enrollment Appeals Committee who is a faculty member in the department that awarded the degree involved shall not be a member of the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation for that particular investigation. If there are fewer than three non-disqualified faculty members, the president of the Faculty Senate shall appoint additional faculty members to bring the number of faculty committee members up to three. If the president of the Faculty Senate is from the same department that awarded the degree involved, the president-elect of the Faculty Senate shall appoint the additional member.
When the degree holder was a graduate student:
"Dean" shall mean the dean of the Graduate School.
"Committee of Investigation and Recommendation" shall be composed of the members of the standing University Graduate Admissions and Continuing Enrollment Appeals Committee, except for the associate dean of the Graduate School who shall not be a member of the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation. A graduate student will be appointed to the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation by the president of Graduate Student Government within ten calendar days of notification by the president of the Faculty Senate. Any member of the Graduate Admissions and Continuing Enrollment Appeals Committee who is a faculty member in the department that awarded the degree involved shall not be a member of the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation for that particular investigation. If there are fewer than three nondisqualified faculty members, the president of the Faculty Senate shall appoint additional faculty members to bring the number of faculty committee members up to three. If the president of the Faculty Senate is from the same department that awarded the degree involved, the president-elect of the Faculty Senate shall appoint the additional member.
Complaint
An allegation or complaint involving the possibility of misconduct can be raised by anyone. The allegation should be made in writing to the dean.
Initial Review
The dean will conduct the initial review to determine whether or not the allegation has merit. The dean may discuss the matter with the former student's advisory committee (if any) and other faculty as appropriate. The dean may also contact persons outside the University who may be able to provide factual information on the alleged misconduct or who may otherwise have expertise concerning issues involved in the alleged misconduct. If the dean determines that the allegation has no merit, he/she will terminate the investigation. If the dean determines that serious academic misconduct is suspected, the dean will notify the president of the Faculty Senate in writing in a confidential manner. The dean shall also notify the vice president for academic affairs and provost of the charge but will not discuss any details of the charge.
Committee of Inquiry
The president of the Faculty Senate shall, within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the notification from the dean, appoint three (3) faculty members to the Committee of Inquiry and notify the president of Graduate Student Government or the president of the student body, as appropriate, who shall appoint a graduate or undergraduate student, as appropriate, to the Committee of Inquiry within ten (10) calendar days of notification. The president of the Faculty Senate shall also notify the degree holder of the formation of a Committee of Inquiry.
If the Faculty Senate president is from the same department that awarded the degree involved, the president-elect of the Faculty Senate shall appoint the Committee of Inquiry. The faculty members will be appointed from departments which did not award the degree involved. The committee will elect its chairman from the faculty members on the committee.
For each allegation, the Committee of Inquiry will review the complaint and any other information provided by the dean and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a formal charge of academic misconduct and further investigation under this policy. While the Committee of Inquiry shall not make a recommendation as to whether a degree should be revoked, the purpose is to provide a review to separate frivolous, unjustified or mistaken allegations from those requiring a more detailed and formal investigation. The Committee of Inquiry will review the evidence and must determine that the alleged misconduct more probably than not occurred in order for the committee to recommend a formal charge and further investigation.
Within thirty (30) calendar days of the formation of the Committee of Inquiry, the Committee of Inquiry will submit a written report to the president of the Faculty Senate. If the Committee of Inquiry's report finds that the investigation should not proceed, the president of the Faculty Senate shall terminate the investigation and notify the appropriate persons. If the Committee of Inquiry's report finds that a formal charge and further investigation are warranted, the president of the Faculty Senate shall, within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the report of the Committee of Inquiry, send a copy of that report to the dean and to the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation. The president of the Faculty Senate shall also immediately notify the president of Graduate Student Government or president of the student body (whichever is appropriate) that a student representative needs to be appointed to the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation. The president of the Faculty Senate shall also notify the vice president for academic affairs and provost of the Committee of Inquiry's recommendation. No details of the charge will be discussed.
Note: A majority vote of the Committee of Inquiry is necessary to recommend that a formal charge and further investigation are warranted. A tie vote means that an investigation is terminated as stated herein.
Notification to Degree Holder
The dean shall issue in writing, within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the report of the Committee of Inquiry, a formal charge of academic misconduct to the degree holder. This written notice shall detail the factual allegations for the charge and the evidence supporting the charge. This written notice shall also inform the degree holder of his/her right to appear at a hearing as stated in this policy. The dean shall also send with this notice a copy of this Policy and Procedure on Revocation of Academic Degrees to the degree holder. This notice shall be delivered to the accused in person or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested.
Committee of Investigation and Recommendation
The Committee of Investigation and Recommendation shall extend to the degree holder due process which shall, at a minimum, include the following:
- notice of the nature of the complaint;
- notice of the evidence supporting the complaint;
- notice of the hearing;
- the opportunity to present evidence, including testimony;
- the opportunity to hear the testimony against the degree holder;
- the opportunity to ask questions of all witnesses; and
- the opportunity to have an attorney or adviser present at the hearing; however, the role of the attorney or adviser shall be solely to assist the party, and the attorney or adviser shall not be permitted to participate actively in the proceedings.
The degree holder shall not be entitled to know the identity of the person(s) who originally made the complaint unless that person agrees that his/her identity can be revealed.
The chair of the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation shall inform the degree holder of the time and date of the hearing.
The dean or his/her designee shall present the accusation against the degree holder at the hearing and may have one additional representative present during the hearing. Under this section, the term "Dean" is understood to include the dean's designee, if such a designation is made.
The degree holder and the dean may submit written materials to the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation prior to the hearing. The chair of the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation shall make available the materials received to the other party and to all committee members.
The hearing before the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation shall be held no sooner than thirty (30) calendar days and no later than ninety (90) calendar days after receipt of the report of the Committee of Inquiry unless the degree holder and the dean agree to a different date. All matters pertaining to the hearing shall be kept as confidential as possible, and the hearing shall be closed to the public. A verbatim record of the hearing will be taken and a typewritten copy thereof transcribed and made a part of the hearing record.
The degree holder and the dean shall be responsible for having any witnesses they wish to testify in attendance at the hearing. Witnesses will be present only while testifying.
The chair of the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation shall take whatever action is necessary during the hearing to ensure a fair, orderly and expeditious hearing. No formal rules of evidence will be followed. If any objection is made to any evidence being offered, the decision of the majority of the committee shall govern. Irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded.
The degree holder and the dean shall be permitted to offer evidence and witnesses pertinent to the issues.
The dean shall present the case against the accused first. The accused shall then present his/her response.
The chair will allow each party to ask questions of the other party and will allow each party to ask questions of the other party's witnesses at the appropriate time during the hearing as determined by the chair. Members of the committee may ask questions of any party or any witness at any time during the hearing.
Within fifteen (15) calendar days of the conclusion of the hearing, the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation shall submit a written report to the vice president for academic affairs and provost. The report shall contain findings and a recommendation as to whether the degree holder's degree should be revoked. The Committee of Investigation and Recommendation must find clear and convincing evidence that serious academic misconduct has been committed in order to recommend the revocation of the degree holder's degree. If the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation does not find clear and convincing evidence of serious academic misconduct, the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation cannot recommend revocation of the degree holder's degree and the matter shall be closed. Note: A majority vote of the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation is necessary to recommend the revocation of a degree holder's degree. This means that a tie vote will result in the matter being closed.
At the same time that the report is sent to the vice president for academic affairs and provost, the chair of the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation shall send a copy of the report to the degree holder, the dean and other appropriate persons involved in the process.
If the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation recommends that the degree holder's degree be revoked, the chair shall also send a complete copy of the hearing record to the vice president for academic affairs and provost. The hearing record shall consist of the transcript of the hearing and all documents that were submitted to the committee. The chair of the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation shall label which documents were submitted by each party when forwarding this information to the vice president for academic affairs and provost.
If the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation recommends that the degree holder's degree be revoked, the chair shall also send a copy of the transcript of the hearing to the degree holder and the dean at the same time that it is sent to the vice president for academic affairs and provost.
Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
If the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation recommends that the degree be revoked, the vice president for academic affairs and provost shall review the hearing record and the report of the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation. If the vice president for academic affairs and provost decides that the degree holder's degree should not be revoked, he/she shall notify the degree holder, the dean, the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation and other appropriate persons involved in the process, in writing, within twenty-one (21) calendar days of receipt of the transcript of the hearing, and the matter shall be closed.
If the vice president for academic affairs and provost decides to recommend that the degree holder's degree should be revoked, the vice president for academic affairs and provost shall send that recommendation in writing to the president of the University within twenty-one (21) calendar days of receipt of the transcript of the hearing. The vice president for academic affairs and provost shall send to the president, along with his/her recommendation, the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation's report and the hearing record. The vice president for academic affairs and provost shall send a copy of his/her recommendation to the degree holder, the dean, the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation and other appropriate persons involved in the process.
If the vice president for academic affairs and provost is disqualified from reviewing the case, the senior vice provost for research and graduate studies and chief research officer shall be substituted for the vice president for academic affairs and provost.
President
If the vice president for academic affairs and provost recommends to the president that the degree holder's degree should be revoked, the president shall transmit that recommendation along with the report of the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation and the hearing record to the executive secretary of the Board of Trustees within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt. If the president wishes to make a recommendation, he/she shall review the recommendation of the vice president for academic affairs and provost, the report of the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation, and the hearing record and forward his/her recommendation to the executive secretary of the Board of Trustees within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the recommendation of the vice president of academic affairs and provost.
Board of Trustees
The executive secretary of the Board of Trustees shall send to all Trustees the hearing record, the recommendation of the vice president for academic affairs and provost, the report of the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation, and the recommendation of the president, if any. A majority vote by the Board of Trustees, at a duly constituted Board meeting, is required to revoke an academic degree. The decision of the Board of Trustees shall be final.
Guiding Principles
All actions taken by committees shall be effective by a majority vote.
All investigations, hearings and actions shall be kept as confidential as possible except for notice of any revocation approved by the Board of Trustees.
A decision not to proceed at any stage of the proceedings set forth in this policy does not necessarily mean that the original complaint was groundless.
For good cause shown, at the request of either party and the approval of the other, the vice president of academic affairs and provost may extend any time limit set forth in this policy. Any such time extension shall be communicated in writing to all appropriate parties.
Administrative Action if Degree is Revoked
If a degree is revoked by the Board of Trustees, the former student's transcript will be modified to reflect that the degree was revoked, and the former student will be informed of the revocation and requested to return the diploma. If the former student was enrolled in a program requiring a thesis or dissertation, all bound copies will be removed from the Clemson University Library. In addition, for doctoral students, University Microfilms Inc., will be notified and requested to take appropriate action.
Students whose degrees have been revoked may be eligible to reapply for admission according to normal University procedures and policies in effect at the time of reapplication.
See Also: Graduate Student Omsbudsman
