Academic Integrity Policy

Policy Statement

Academic integrity is a foundational principle of higher education and is expected of all students, staff, and faculty. This policy:

• defines academic integrity and emphasizes its importance,
• describes activities that may breach academic integrity in the context of credit-bearing undergraduate or graduate courses,
• outlines procedures for addressing allegations of breaches of academic integrity, and
• specifies sanctions that the instructors, programs, departments, and university may impose when breaches of academic integrity are confirmed.

Purpose/Scope

SUNY Brockport is an inclusive learning community that inspires excellence through growth, engagement, and transformation. Developing, sharing, and assessing ideas, knowledge, and creative works are among its core functions, and academic integrity provides the framework for these core functions.

Academic integrity is a foundational principle because:

• Academic credentials represent a student’s knowledge and skills as evaluated by their instructors. Academic integrity ensures that these credentials are earned honestly through genuine effort.
• Academic integrity supports genuine learning, which instructors help foster by providing feedback. However, if a student’s work is not theirs, the instructor’s feedback does not lead to genuine learning.
• Genuine university-level learning promotes lifelong learning, which benefits the individual and the society, and academic integrity is critical to genuine university-level learning.
• Respecting and acknowledging others’ contributions promotes creativity and knowledge creation, and academic integrity supports both.

A student seeking a SUNY Brockport credential that leads to a certificate or license is required to abide by the stipulations of the certification body and/or licensing authority. For such a student, academic integrity requires abiding by stipulations, which may exceed the expectations identified within this policy.

Applicability

This policy applies to all SUNY Brockport students.

Definitions

Academic Integrity — The expectation that students, faculty, and staff act with honesty, trust, fairness, and respect when developing and sharing ideas, knowledge, and creative works (as stated by the International Center for Academic Integrity). Because professionals in fields requiring certification or licensure must follow the ethical standards and expectations the issuing authority sets, upholding the ethical guidelines of the relevant certifying or licensing body is also part of the academic integrity of students preparing for such
professions.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) — A technology that uses math, logic, and large amounts of data that enable computers to perform tasks such as reasoning, problem-solving, and inferring that typically require human intelligence.

Breaches of Academic Integrity — Any transgression of the requirement that students act with honesty, trust, fairness, and respect when they present or submit work for evaluation at the University. Not adhering to the ethical standards of the certifying body or licensing authority of the profession a student intends to enter is also a breach. Common forms of breaches are:

1. 1. Cheating: Any fraudulent or deceptive academic act that has the potential to impact a course credit. Examples include but are not limited to falsification of data, possessing, providing, or using unapproved materials, sources, or tools for a project, exam, laboratory report, thesis, or creative work.
   2. Duplicate submission: Submitting for credit the same or similar work in more than one course in a single semester or multiple semesters without prior approval of the instructors of the courses.
   3. Plagiarism: Presenting without proper attribution the work or ideas of others or other entities, including those created by GenAI (such as ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot), for credit. Using the exact words of another person or entity without quotation marks and attribution, paraphrasing text without giving appropriate credit, and presenting the creative product of another person or entity without adequate and proper attribution are common examples of plagiarism.
   4. Using unauthorized materials: Accessing or using unauthorized materials, information, tools, technologies, or study aids in an exam, laboratory/studio, project, or paper. Unless the instructor authorizes explicitly the use of text, images, or other products created by GenAI (such as ChatGPT), using any one of them may constitute a breach of academic integrity.
   5. Unethical or unprofessional behavior: Not adhering to the ethical standards of a certifying body or licensing authority.

Deception and maliciousness — Intentional and pre-meditated actions taken to gain an unfair advantage or undermine the academic process. Submitting another person’s work as one’s own, using unauthorized materials during exams, and falsifying research data are typical examples of deception, whereas destroying another student’s work, removing academic resources to prevent others from using them, and changing other students’ data, papers, or assignments are examples of maliciousness.

Generative AI (GenAI) — A subset of AI that focuses on creating new content based on learned patterns from existing data.

Premeditation — In the context of academic integrity, this refers to the deliberate planning or intent to engage in dishonest academic behavior. It implies that the violation was not spontaneous or due to a momentary lapse in judgment but rather a calculated decision to be malicious or deceive.

Sanctions — Penalties imposed by the instructor, department chair (or program director), or university for misconduct that breaches academic integrity.

Note 1: Breaches of academic integrity vary in scope and severity. Some breaches may be the result of inexperience or lack of understanding. Others may involve premeditation and maliciousness. Accordingly, the sanctions imposed by the instructor and/or the department chair need to be appropriate. Here is a
framework (adapted from Rutgers–New Brunswick) that faculty and department chairs may use to inform their decisions:

Level 1 Breaches: Transgressions that do not show premeditation by the student and may be the result of inexperience or lack of adequate understanding, especially when it is the first such occurrence. They are also minor in scope, involving a small portion of an assignment or a minor part of the overall course grade. Two examples of Level 1 violations are:

• First occurrence of plagiarism by an undergraduate student on a very limited portion of an assignment.
• Unpremeditated access and use of unauthorized or prohibited materials, tools, technologies (such as ChatGPT), or study aids in a quiz, lab report, minor project report, etc.

For Level 1 Breaches, a faculty member may:

• Require the student to redo the assessment. 
• Reduce the points awarded for the assessment (including a zero).
• Do both of the above.

Level 2 Breaches: These transgressions are characterized by premeditation to cheat or plan to deceive and involve a more significant portion of the course grade compared to Level 1 violations. Examples of such breaches may include:

• First occurrence of plagiarism by a student in multiple places.
• A second breach after receiving a warning from an instructor.
• Selectively omitting evidence or including previously submitted work from another course without attribution.

For Level 2 Breaches, a faculty member may:

• Assign zero points for the assessment.
• Reduce the course grade, including assigning a failing grade.

Level 3 Breaches: These are egregious transgressions denoted by maliciousness and/or deception. A serious professional code of conduct violation is also a Level 3 breach. Here are two examples:

• Cheating and/or plagiarism on a capstone project, thesis, dissertation, or major
  project/report/assessment instrument.
• Falsifying data, submitting products created by GenAI (such as ChatGPT) as one’s creation, or submitting an assignment the student acquired or purchased.

For Level 3 Breaches, a faculty member may:

• Assign a failing grade for the course.
• Recommend the department chair to dismiss the student from the major or program.

Note 2: Informed by the norms of the discipline, an academic department, individual program, and/or instructor may stipulate additional criteria regarding academic integrity, so long as they are not in conflict with this policy. Department- or program-level criteria must be published on the respective website, whereas instructor-specific criteria must be included in the syllabus of each applicable course.

Note 3: If the department-level sanctions include dismissing a student from a major or program, the decision must first be discussed with the school dean and the provost before being finalized.

Note 4: Faculty may require students to use plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin) to spot textual similarities to existing documents. However, such detection may lead to charges of plagiarism if the matched text in the student’s written work has not been properly cited to identify the source.

Policy Procedures

Procedures for Alleging and Dealing with Breaches of Academic Integrity

The process described herein is multi-step. A resolution could be reached at any stage. When that happens, the office that facilitated the resolution will submit written documentation of the breach and its resolution to the Provost’s Office, which will be the repository of this information.

A. An instructor who observes, discovers, or concludes based on reliable information that a student has breached academic integrity will notify the student via Brockport email within five business days and discuss the matter with the student. If the matter is unresolved, the instructor will notify the department chair (or program director) about the breach, provide documentation, and indicate the sanction they plan to impose.

1. 1. Any student or university employee who witnessed or has knowledge of a breach of academic integrity should notify the course instructor in writing. In such cases, in addition to the witness statement, evidence is required to conclude that a breach of academic integrity has occurred.

B. The department chair (or program director), within five (5) business days of receiving the notification from the instructor, will review the case to:

1. 1. ensure that the allegation of the breach is in keeping with the policies of the university,
   2. establish that the student alleged to have breached academic integrity had no previous violation,
   3. ascertain that the course-level sanction proposed by the instructor is appropriate, and
   4. determine whether to impose department-level sanction(s) and inform the instructor in writing what the additional sanction is, which may include the dismissal of the student from a departmental program.

C. Within three (3) business days of receiving information from the chair, the instructor will notify the student about the allegation via SUNY Brockport email, providing documentation supporting the allegation and specifying the sanction that the instructor plans to apply. The email will also include the written statement of the chair about the departmental sanction. The instructor shall advise the student that they have the right to appeal the allegation and/or proposed sanctions to the dean or designee. The chair may send their notification.

D. Within ten (10) business days of the instructor sending the email about the academic integrity breach, the student may file an appeal, also by Brockport email, to the dean of the school in which the alleged breach occurred by:

1. 1. providing evidence to disprove the instructor’s allegation and/or
   2. contending that the sanction imposed by the instructor and/or the chair if any is unfair and incommensurate with the alleged breach. The student must copy the instructor and chair.

E. If the student does not appeal, the instructor imposes the sanction on or after the 11th business day and notifies the department chair (or program director). The department chair (or program director) will notify the provost or designee, and school dean. The instructor will notify the student about the sanctions imposed by the instructor and department, if any, and advise the student of the university policy that any other confirmed breach in any course in any subsequent semester could result in dismissal from the university. The matter is deemed closed at this point.

F. Within ten (10) business days of receiving the appeal, the dean or designee will review and render a decision: reject the appeal, concur fully with the student that academic integrity was not breached, or reduce the severity of the sanction imposed by the instructor, the chair, or both. In all cases, the dean or designee will inform the student, instructor, department chair, and provost about the decision via Brockport email.

1. 1. If the dean or designee concurs fully with the student, no sanction will be imposed, and the student will be held harmless.
   2. If the determination is that the student breached academic integrity, but the sanction
      imposed by the instructor and/or the chair is severe, the dean or designee will decide the
      appropriate sanction and inform the student, instructor, department chair (or program
      director), and provost.

G. Within ten (10) business days of the dean or designee sending the email about the decision concerning the appeal, the student may appeal to the provost or designee. The student may request as part of the appeal process an in-person hearing with the provost.

H. If the student does not appeal, the instructor imposes the original sanction(s) or the sanction(s) deemed appropriate by the dean or designee, on or after the 11th business day and notifies the student, department chair, dean, and provost. The instructor will notify the student about the sanctions imposed, if any, and advise the student of the university policy that any other confirmed breach in any course in any subsequent semester could result in dismissal from the university. The matter is deemed closed at this point.

I. The provost or designee will review and, within ten (10) business days of receiving the appeal, render a decision: reject the appeal, conduct a hearing, concur fully with the student that academic integrity was not breached, or reduce the severity of the sanction. If an appeal hearing is requested:

1. 1. The appeal hearing will include the provost (or designee), the course instructor, and the student.
   2. The provost or designee will have 5 business days from the date of the hearing to render a decision.
      1. If the provost or designee concurs fully with the student, no sanction will be imposed, and the student will be held harmless.
      2. If the determination is that the student breached academic integrity, but the sanction imposed is severe, the provost or designee will decide the appropriate sanction and inform the student, instructor, department chair (or program director), and dean.
      3. The provost reserves the right to dismiss the student from the university when there is a second confirmed breach of academic integrity.

J. Upon receiving the provost’s notification, the instructor will notify the student about the sanctions imposed, if any, and advise the student of the university policy that any other confirmed breach in any course could result in separation from the university. The decision of the provost or designee is final.

K. To support students in reducing the likelihood of violating the academic integrity policy, the following resources and recommendations are available:

1. 1. Consult with the course instructor as needed for clarification on assignment parameters.
   2. Save draft versions of their work to demonstrate authentic progress.
   3. Appropriately cite all sources used.
   4. Adhere to artificial intelligence policies outlined in the course syllabus.
   5. Meet with a professional writing tutor.
   6. Meet with a liaison librarian.
   7. Complete a refresher workshop on academic integrity.

Links to Related Procedures and Information

International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI)

Rutgers University - Academic Integrity Policy

Contact Information

Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

History (in descending order)

Item	Date	Explanation
Next Review Date	2030-06-06	Five-year review
Revision Date	2025-06-06 (Senate Resolution 2024-2025 #34)	Policy revised throughout
Revision Date	2024-07-30 (Senate Resolution 2023-2024 #67)	Addendum added at end of Policy Procedures regarding Artificial Intelligence
Revision Date	2015-08 (Senate Resolution 2015-2016 #N/A)	Policy Revised
Revision Date	2010-05-07 (Senate Resolution 2009-2010 #32)	Policy Revised
Adoption Date	1981-01-28 (Senate Resolution 1980-1981 #9)	Policy Adopted

Approval

This policy was approved by Brockport University Senate and SUNY Brockport President on 2025-06-06 (Senate Resolution 2024-2025 #34)