
Academic Integrity Policy for Undergraduates
ON THIS PAGE
Academic integrity is central to learning at UC Santa Cruz. This policy explains our shared commitments, the process for addressing misconduct, and the rights and responsibilities of students and instructors.
Academic Integrity Policy for Undergraduates
INTRODUCTION & COMMITMENT(S)
As an ideal, academic integrity involves a commitment to fundamental values, among them, honesty, fairness, trust, responsibility, respect, and courage; and to principles such as being open, purposeful, caring, just, and disciplined in all of our teaching and learning endeavors.
As a practice, academic integrity involves following through on our pledges to do original work, to maintain transparency in how we complete work; to acknowledge the contributions of other people, material, and technologies to this work; to be generous, gracious, and forthcoming in how we attribute credit; and to foster an atmosphere where we can all share, challenge, and develop our ideas freely and openly. Integrity is about demonstrating authentic evidence of learning (for students); modeling honesty and giving informed, constructive assessments of learning (for instructors); and working to restore relationships and trust when either of these goals may have been compromised (for everyone).
When students, faculty, and staff all commit to practicing academic integrity, they enrich their own experiences while also contributing to a more collaborative, transparent, and equitable learning environment. Upholding integrity helps ensure that every achievement is fairly earned, and that the pursuit and preservation of knowledge remain valued goals. In service of this commitment, we recognize that acts of misconduct compromise the ideals of our community and undermine trust in the value of a UC Santa Cruz degree.
The rest of this document describes due process commitments for how members of our community will respond in situations where academic misconduct is suspected.
ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT RESOLUTION
The cornerstone of intellectual life and learning at UC Santa Cruz is a commitment to integrity in all forms of teaching, learning, and research. Academic misconduct violates the standards of our community. If students are found responsible, outcomes will include required educational measures and may also include warning, suspension, dismissal, or revocation of degree.
This document states campus policy concerning academic misconduct by undergraduates and describes the process that will be followed once an instructor or teaching assistant suspects that misconduct has occurred. All students reported for suspected misconduct will be notified by their instructor and invited to discuss the matter with a Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Education (VPDUE) designee, such as one of the college provosts. They are also entitled to bring their cases to the Academic Review Board and to appeal the decisions of the Review Board (if their case meets certain criteria) to the VPDUE. Each of these stages is described below.
- The Academic Misconduct Form for instructors is available at: https://ucsc-advocate.symplicity.com/public_report
- The comment form for students is available at: Academic Misconduct Student Comment Form
In cases of academic misconduct, the instructor of record has sole discretion to determine academic outcomes (e.g., reduced grade for the work in question, or reduced grade in the course). Using authority delegated to them by the VPDUE, college provosts, Academic Review Boards, and the Academic Integrity Office (AIO) share discretion for determining administrative outcomes, which will include educational measures, and may also include consequences such as warning, suspension, dismissal, or revocation of degree.
Both students and faculty bear responsibility for preventing academic misconduct. Students are responsible for becoming familiar with Sections 102.01–102.016 and 105.15 of the UC Santa Cruz Student Policies and Regulations Handbook. These sections include a listing of types of academic misconduct covered by this policy. This list offers only the most common types of academic misconduct and is not exhaustive.
Students should avoid academic misconduct themselves and are encouraged to tell instructors about any acts of academic misconduct that are known to them.
Instructors should clearly explain how the University’s academic misconduct policy applies to the context of their courses and specify the academic outcome(s) they will apply for misconduct (e.g., reduced grade for the work in question, or reduced grade in the course). Failure to include this information in the context of course syllabi does not excuse students from knowing and being accountable for following University policies as well as their instructors’ expectations.
Students’ rights
As described throughout this document and in the UC Santa Cruz Student Policies and Regulations Handbook (see section 100), students have a right to due process in resolving any reports of suspected academic misconduct. This right includes others, such as:
- The Right to Be Notified: Being able to clarify University policies as well as instructors’ expectations about what counts as acceptable vs. unacceptable academic conduct in a given course;
- The Right to Receive Documentation: Being able to access records and review evidence of unacceptable academic conduct when it is presented against them;
- The Right to Be Heard: Being able to respond to records and evidence at each stage of the suspected academic misconduct reporting process;
- The Right to Appeal: Being able to contest academic as well as administrative outcomes related to findings of academic misconduct.
Before a report of suspected misconduct is filed, students may seek clarification by contacting their instructor; after a report is filed, they may do so by contacting the Academic Integrity Office (AIO). Students are encouraged to seek clarification about their rights and responsibilities within the suspected academic misconduct reporting process by contacting the AIO at any time.
Components of the process
- The instructor notifies the student
- The provost or VPDUE designee meets with the student
- The case may be reviewed by the Academic Review Board
- A hearing may be held
- A decision is made
- The student may submit an appeal
The instructor notifies the student
When an instructor suspects academic misconduct, they are responsible for notifying the student(s) involved, inviting student(s) to comment (which may include holding a meeting before a report is filed, although this is not required), and submitting all case documentation within twenty (20) working days of discovering the suspicious conduct.
Only in very unusual circumstances should as much as an entire term (Fall, Winter, Spring) pass, subsequent to the term in which the suspicious conduct was discovered, without notification to the student. Notification and any requests for review and comment should be sent to the student’s official UC Santa Cruz email address.
When notifying the student, the instructor should describe their concerns and invite the student to explain how they completed the work in question. If the student fails to respond to the instructor’s request for comment, the instructor should note this in the documentation they submit via the Academic Misconduct Form.
If the instructor becomes convinced that no academic misconduct occurred, the matter is closed and no further action is required. Out of care for the academic community and the efforts of honest students, instructors are required to report any lingering concerns by using the Academic Misconduct Form and by providing supporting documentation. Supporting documentation must include:
- An overview in common or ‘lay’ (not field-specific) terms of the evidence itself;
- An explanation of why the instructor finds the evidence suspicious (why they suspect it is possible student(s) did not demonstrate learning authentically);
- A clear statement about their relative level of certainty, or uncertainty, that student(s) committed academic misconduct according to university policy, the instructor’s stated syllabus expectations, and any additional guidelines given on how to complete exams or assignments.
After submitting documentation, the instructor assigns the course grade in a way that reflects their determination of academic misconduct, including any grade deductions or academic outcomes they wish to apply. Student(s) may appeal academic outcomes (grade deductions or other grade-related penalties) to the Committee on Courses of Instruction (Appendix C Grievance Procedures, Grievance Procedures Flowchart, Grade Grievance Submission Portal).
After a report is submitted, remaining processes determine whether administrative outcomes for misconduct are also imposed. Student(s) may appeal administrative outcomes by following steps described below.
Administrative processes for resolving academic misconduct concerns remain separate from academic processes. Any questions regarding the academic outcomes of a case should be discussed with the instructor.
A college provost or VPDUE designee meets with the student
After a provost or designee receives a report of suspected academic misconduct, they are responsible for reviewing and making a determination about the case within twenty (20) working days of when the case is forwarded. Steps to making a determination may include meeting with the student(s), requesting additional evidence, consulting with the AIO, deciding responsibility, and assigning administrative outcomes or referring the case to the Review Board as needed.
At the time the case is forwarded, a hold is placed on the student’s academic record. The hold is lifted after (a) the student and the provost or designee meet and (b) the case is fully resolved. Students whose graduation is contingent on case resolution are not eligible to graduate until after findings are issued and all required measures completed.
During the meeting between student and provost or designee, the provost or designee should ascertain the student’s account of the situation, explain procedures that are pertinent to a report of suspected academic misconduct, and make sure the student understands his or her rights and responsibilities. The provost or designee should also seek the student’s account of the situation (with the goal of gathering information that allows fair and objective assessment of the Level of misconduct.)
If the student agrees that academic misconduct occurred, if the student has no prior responsible finding for academic misconduct, and if the provost or designee determines the academic misconduct to be either Level 1 (minor, arising from panic) or Level 2 (moderate, arising from confusion or inexperience), the provost or designee will impose outcomes guided by the First Finding Table (below).
FIRST FINDING TABLE – DEFINITION & OUTCOMES
Level | Definition* | Outcomes |
---|---|---|
Level 1 – Minor | Appropriate if: Documented evidence clearly indicates that the misconduct was minor and arose from panic. No evidence suggests that the student or students engaged in serious, sustained, or deliberate violation of academic integrity; Student accepts responsibility for committing misconduct and agrees to the administrative outcome(s) being applied. | Warning letter with online or hybrid training. Student may also be required to attend meetings or complete in-person training offered by AIO and/or by other campus units (e.g., Writing Center, Learning Support). |
Level 2 – Moderate | Appropriate if: Documented evidence suggests the misconduct was moderate, arising from confusion about assignment expectations or inexperience (e.g., if the student is newer to UCSC). Student accepts responsibility for committing misconduct and agrees to the administrative outcome(s) being applied. | Warning letter with online or hybrid and in-person training. Student will also be required to attend meetings and/or to enroll in additional in-person training offered by AIO. Failing to complete assigned training(s) in the established timelines will result in an enrollment hold being placed on the student’s account. |
Level 3 – Major | Appropriate if: Documented evidence suggests the misconduct was major and the student or students engaged in a sustained, serious, deliberate violation of academic integrity, likelier than not due to factors beyond inexperience/confusion. Factors that increase severity of the situation (e.g., providing false or misleading information to the Academic Review Board, implicating others in committing misconduct) are also present. Student either does not accept responsibility for committing misconduct or does not agree to the administrative outcome(s) being applied. | 1 term suspension with option to defer. In place of suspension, and with written approval from the AIO, the student may choose to enroll in additional in-person training or to attend meetings offered by the AIO. Failing to complete assigned training in the established timeline will result in the original suspension being reinstated. |
Level 4 – Major + | Appropriate if: Documented evidence suggests the misconduct is major + and represents an egregious, more sustained, or especially serious violation of academic integrity. Factors that increase the severity of the situation or compromise the reputation of the university or the integrity of other people’s actions (e.g., impersonating another student, contract cheating, offering or receiving pay to finish academic work, seeking to intimidate or to coerce others, falsifying a UCSC document such as a transcript or diploma) are also present. Student either does not accept responsibility for committing misconduct or does not agree to the administrative outcome(s) being applied. | 2+ term suspension without option to defer. In general, length of suspension should reflect the seriousness of the misconduct, with more severe behavior resulting in longer time away. Upon return to UCSC, the student may be recommended or required to enroll in training and/or attend meetings offered by the AIO.Failing to complete an assigned training in the agreed timelines will result in an enrollment hold being placed on the student’s account. |
Level 5 – Dismissal | Appropriate if: Documented evidence suggests the misconduct is major + and represents an egregious, more sustained, or especially serious violation of academic integrity. Factors that increase the severity of the situation or that pose significant and direct risk of harm to others (e.g., hostile behavior such as physically threatening staff, faculty, or other students) are also present. Student either does not accept responsibility for committing misconduct or does not agree to the administrative outcome(s) being applied. | Permanent Dismissal from the University of California. |
Determinations about Level of misconduct are made at the discretion of provosts, designees, or Review Board members. They should consider such factors as: students’ prior training, length of time at UCSC, clarity of documented assignment instructions, or documented evidence of due diligence the student(s) took in knowing, clarifying and following rules set forth in the Integrity Policy, the Student Handbook, and/or instructors’ course or assignment policies. Level of misconduct must be clearly indicated in any final decisions or outcomes letters issued in a case.
Second findings of responsibility for academic misconduct, at any Level, typically result in suspension of at least one term (see SECOND FINDING TABLE, below); third findings of responsibility, at any Level, typically result in dismissal from the University of California.
If the provost or designee determines that the academic misconduct is possibly Level 3 or higher (major, arising from sustained, serious, deliberate activity that cannot be explained by inexperience or confusion), they should be in touch with the AIO as soon as possible. If the provost or designee is uncertain how to proceed, they should be in touch with the AIO as soon as possible.
Once a determination about responsibility, level of misconduct, and appropriate next step is reached (findings issued or referral to Review Board), the provost or designee formally notifies the student about the outcome. They should use the student’s official UC Santa Cruz email address, copying the instructor and the AIO.
Academic misconduct records will be retained for five (5) years following the academic year in which the case is closed, except in cases resulting in dismissal. With dismissal, case records will be retained for 50 years following the academic year when the case is closed. Records are retained in accordance with University of California policy.
The case may be reviewed by the Academic Review Board
If the student does not accept responsibility for academic misconduct, does not agree to the administrative outcome(s) being applied, or has a prior responsible finding for academic misconduct, or if the case in question is Level 3 or higher and might involve time away from the institution, the Academic Review Board will review and make a determination on the case within twenty (20) working days of when it is forwarded to them. Steps to making a determination may include requesting further evidence from student(s) or instructor, consulting with AIO, determining responsibility and if needed, assigning Level as well as administrative outcome(s).
The Academic Review Board will review and make determinations based on either the First Finding Table (above) or the Second Finding Table (below).
SECOND FINDING TABLE – DEFINITION & OUTCOMES
Level | Definition* | Outcomes |
---|---|---|
Level 3 – Major | Appropriate if: The first finding was Level 1; Documented evidence in the current case clearly shows the misconduct is minor (due to momentary panic; or moderate (due to confusion, inexperience, failure to verify assignment expectations ahead of time); No evidence in the current case suggests that the student or students engaged in a serious, sustained, or deliberate violation of academic integrity; Student accepts responsibility and agrees to the administrative outcome(s) applied. | 1 term suspension with option to defer. In place of suspension, and with written approval from the AIO, the student may choose to enroll in additional in-person training or to attend meetings offered by the AIO. Failing to complete assigned training in the established timeline will result in the original suspension being reinstated. |
Level 4 – Major + | Appropriate if: The first finding was Level 1 or 2; Documented evidence in the current case indicates that the misconduct is major and the student or students engaged in a sustained, serious, deliberate violation of academic integrity, likelier than not due to factors beyond inexperience/confusion. Factors that increase severity of the situation (e.g., providing false or misleading information to the Academic Review Board, implicating others in committing misconduct) are also present. Student either does not accept responsibility for committing misconduct or does not agree to the administrative outcome(s) being applied. | 2+ term suspension without option to defer. In general, length of suspension should reflect the seriousness of the misconduct, with more severe behavior resulting in longer time away. Upon return to UCSC, the student may be recommended or required to enroll in training and/or attend meetings offered by the AIO.Failing to complete an assigned training in the established timeline will result in an enrollment hold being placed on the student’s account. |
Level 5 – Dismissal | Appropriate if: The first finding was Level 3 or 4; Documented evidence in the current case indicates that the misconduct is major and the student or students engaged in a sustained, serious, deliberate violation of academic integrity, likelier than not due to factors beyond inexperience/confusion. Factors that increase severity of the situation (e.g., offering or receiving pay to finish academic work, seeking to intimidate or to coerce others, falsifying a UCSC document such as a transcript or diploma) are also present. Student either does not accept responsibility for committing misconduct or does not agree to the administrative outcome(s) being applied. | Permanent Dismissal from the University of California. |
Determinations about Level of misconduct are made at the discretion of provosts, designees, or Review Board members. They should consider such factors as: students’ prior training, length of time at UCSC, clarity of documented assignment instructions, or documented evidence of due diligence the student(s) took in knowing, clarifying and following rules set forth in the Integrity Policy, the Student Handbook, and/or instructors’ course or assignment policies. Level of misconduct must be clearly indicated in any final decisions or outcomes letters issued in a case.
Second findings of responsibility for academic misconduct, at any Level, will typically result in suspension of at least one term; third findings of responsibility, at any Level, will typically result in dismissal from the University of California.
If a college provost or designee determines they lack sufficient information to decide the case (with respect to either responsibility or outcomes), they should refer the case directly to the Review Board. Student(s) will be notified when their case is referred; they may provide additional information directly to the Review Board, but are not required to do so. Instructors will be notified when further information is required; otherwise, as described elsewhere in this document, they will receive notice after the case is resolved.
The Academic Review Board is composed of at least two designees (e.g., provosts from colleges other than the college of the reported student(s)), in consultation with the AIO. In reviewing materials and making determinations on a case, Review Board members will conclude one of the following:
- The matter can be decided based on the available material. If the matter can be decided based on the available material, the Academic Review Board shall determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the student engaged in academic misconduct as defined in this policy.
- The matter cannot be decided based on available material and requires additional information from the instructor, the student, or other parties. If the instructor provides additional material, the student will be notified, given access to view the material, and invited to provide written comments. The Review Board will either decide the case based on additional information or, after reviewing the material, may decide to hold an in-person hearing.
In cases involving multiple reported students, the Academic Review Board may decide to hear the cases separately or jointly. If more than one student is alleged to have jointly engaged in act(s) of academic misconduct, the Review Board will make reasonable efforts to consider the cases jointly. If such related cases cannot be considered jointly, the Board may consider all statements, materials and other evidence presented at the first Board meeting in any subsequent proceedings of any other student alleged to have engaged jointly in the same academic misconduct.
Only in the most unusual circumstances will the resolution be delayed beyond the end of the following regular term in which the alleged academic misconduct was discovered and reported. For alleged academic misconduct reported at or near the end of a spring term, resolution may not be reached until the fall term immediately following.
A hearing may be held
When the Academic Review Board determines a hearing is needed, the hearing will be scheduled to include the instructor and the student. The Review Board will issue its ruling within ten (10) working days of the hearing. Possible findings are that the student engaged or did not engage in academic misconduct, and no finding. If the Board finds that the student engaged in academic misconduct, then at a minimum, the same administrative outcomes will apply as if the student had admitted responsibility during the provost meeting.
In cases involving multiple reported students, the Academic Review Board may decide to hear the cases separately or jointly. If more than one student is alleged to have jointly engaged in one or more acts of academic conduct, the Review Board will make reasonable efforts to hear the cases jointly. If such related cases cannot be heard jointly, the Board may consider all statements, materials and other evidence presented at the first hearing in any subsequent proceedings or hearings of any other student alleged to have been engaged jointly in the same academic misconduct.
The reported student and members of the Academic Review Board should be provided with copies of the relevant evidence at least five (5) working days prior to the scheduled hearing. If the accused student wishes to present written evidence or to call witnesses at the hearing, the written evidence itself and the names of the witnesses must be provided to the provost of the student’s college and the Review Board at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled meeting. It is the responsibility of accused students to invite witnesses, if desired, and to ensure their attendance at the scheduled time. Up to five (5) working days prior to the hearing date, the student may inform the Board of the intent to bring another person (e.g., friend, parent) to the hearing for support purposes only. Such a person may communicate quietly with the reported student but the visitor is not allowed to address Board members or participate in questioning or testimony. Supporting individuals may be asked to leave the hearing at any time.
If the student has any disability-related needs with respect to the hearing, they should be discussed with the Disability Resource Center as soon as the hearing is scheduled, and any resulting request for accommodation should be provided to the Review Board as soon as possible, always at least ten (10) working days prior to the hearing date.
Similar rights are extended to faculty members with respect to witnesses and support individuals. Both the instructor and the reported student are given a chance to speak during the hearing and then members of the Review Board pose questions as desired.
A single recording is made of the hearing and is maintained by the University.
A decision is made
Findings by the Academic Review Board are reached using “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it is determined to be likelier than not that a reported student engaged in academic misconduct. The Review Board may determine it is likelier than not that the student did not engage in misconduct; if this happens, the Board should issue a determination of “not responsible.” Finally, the Board may determine it is equally likely as unlikely that the student engaged in academic misconduct; if this happens, the Board should issue a determination of “no finding.”
If the Review Board finds that the student engaged in academic misconduct, then at a minimum the same administrative outcomes would apply as if the student had admitted responsibility in their provost or designee meeting. As with the provosts or designees, once responsibility has been reached, Review Board members should make determinations about Level and outcome(s) according to the outcomes tables included in the policy.
Using official UC Santa Cruz email addresses, the Academic Review Board formally notifies the student, instructor, college provost or designee, and the AIO. In cases resulting in suspension or dismissal, the University Registrar is also notified. The decision of the Review Board must be communicated to the student within ten (10) working days of the hearing or, if there is no hearing, the Board’s final meeting on the case.
Academic Review Board records will be retained by the Office of the VPDUE for five (5) years following the academic year in which the case is closed, except in cases resulting in dismissal, in which records will be retained by the Office of the VPDUE for 50 years following the academic year in which the case is closed.
A student considering an appeal may request a copy of Review Board records, including the audio recording of any hearing, up to five (5) working days after the student receives the decision of the Board. If Review Board members are not sure how to proceed with a specific case, they should be in touch as soon as possible with the VPDUE and the AIO.
The student may submit an appeal
Students may appeal a decision of the Review Board to the VPDUE provided that their case was contested (they did not admit responsibility in their meeting with the provost or designee) and that their case meets certain conditions (procedural error or new information) described below. In all other situations, including cases determined by the Academic Review Board, Review Board decisions are final and end the administrative resolution process. Only a student (not a reporting instructor) may appeal the decisions of the Review Board.
Appeals will be granted only if one or both of the following conditions are met:
- In coming to a decision and imposing administrative outcomes, there is evidence that there was a procedural error or violation of university policies, campus regulations, or a student’s rights of due process. Such error(s) or violation(s) must be determined to more likely than not have affected Board decisions about responsibility, Level, and/or outcomes (procedural error);
- There is evidence unavailable at the time of the hearing or Review Board meeting, not considered by the Board, that would more likely than not have affected the Board’s decisions about responsibility, Level, or outcomes (new information).
The time frames expressed in the policy represent usual and ideal circumstances. Winter closure, spring break, summer quarter, or other situations that extend processing time may impact completion in these time frames. Cases involving multiple students may not be resolved as quickly as individual cases. Issues of significant variance from the policy’s specified time frames may be raised during the hearing or appeal process; they will not, on their own, be grounds for appeal.
Any appeal must be made in writing and received by the Office of the VPDUE within ten (10) working days from the date on the letter or email that informs the student about the Review Board’s decision. If the VPDUE has a conflict related to reviewing the appeal, the Chancellor will designate an alternate appellate officer.
An appeal can have several outcomes. These outcomes include, but are not limited to: upholding the Review Board’s findings about responsibility, modifying the Level and/or administrative outcomes given, or some other remedy. The decision of the VPDUE as appellate officer is final and shall be conveyed to the student and their provost or designee, who will formally inform other parties involved in the case. As needed, the VPDUE will ensure that records are adjusted appropriately.
Effective Fall 2025
Division of Undergraduate Education
Previous Academic Misconduct Policy for Undergraduates
Effective for cases reported through Summer 2025