Academic Conduct Code

All students entering Boston University are expected to maintain high standards of academic honesty and integrity. In all charges of academic misconduct against a student, the student is entitled to full procedural fairness in any disciplinary proceedings. The Student Academic Conduct Code details the guidelines governing disciplinary proceedings. It also articulates the College’s philosophy of discipline, defines violations of the code, and enumerates penalties applicable under the code. It is your responsibility, as a student, to be aware of the code’s contents.


The objective of the College of General Studies in enforcing academic rules is to promote and protect the type of community in which learning can best take place. This atmosphere can be maintained only if every student believes that his or her academic competence is being judged fairly and that he or she will not be put at a disadvantage because of the dishonesty of someone else. In establishing procedures to deal with academic misconduct the intent is to protect the integrity of the grading system and the educational process in general.


Academic misconduct is conduct in subversion of academic standards. A student engages in academic misconduct when he/she misrepresents his or her academic accomplishments, hurts other students’ chances of being judged fairly for their academic work, or is an accomplice in such an act. Knowingly allowing others to represent your work as theirs is as serious an offense as submitting another’s work as your own.


Violations of this code are acts that constitute an attempt to be dishonest or deceptive in the performance of academic work in or out of the classroom, to alter academic records; or to collaborate with another student or students in an act of academic misconduct. Violations include but are not limited to:

  • A. Cheating on examinations. Any attempt by a student to alter his or her performance on an examination in violation of that examination’s stated or commonly understood ground rules.
  • B. Failing to sit in the specifically assigned seat, as posted, during examinations.
  • C. Cheating on papers or assignments. Any attempt to misrepresent one’s own work, including submitting work that is not one’s own, submitting the same work to more than one instructor without the authorization of both instructors, and misrepresenting or falsifying data.
  • D. Plagiarism. Any attempt by a student to represent the work of another as his or her own. This includes copying the answers of another student on an examination or copying or substantially restating the work of another person or persons in any oral or written work without citing the appropriate source; collaborating with someone else in an academic endeavor without acknowledging his or her contribution; and attempting to copy or imitate the language, ideas, and thoughts of another author and present this work as one’s own work.

    The faculty of CGS requires that whenever three or more words are copied consecutively from another author, quotation marks must be used; students should also note that paraphrase or “indirect quotation” of others’ ideas and thoughts must be credited. Students should familiarize themselves with the commonly accepted methods of documentation as taught in Rhetoric and other CGS classes, and as outlined in the handbook used in the rhetoric course. A student who has difficulty in interpreting this policy should err in the direction of caution, and is urged to consult with his or her instructor.

  • E. Misrepresentation or falsification of data presented for surveys, experiments, etc.
  • F. Theft of an examination. Stealing or otherwise discovering and/or making known to others the contents of an examination, unless it has been released by the instructor.
  • G. Theft or destruction of examinations or papers after submission, including purposefully altering possible poor performance.
  • H. Alteration, theft, or destruction of academic records, library materials, or other University equipment or property related to instructional matters or research.
  • I. Unauthorized conversation is not allowed during examinations. Any unauthorized conversation may be considered prima facie evidence of cheating.
  • J. Use of any electronic communication, recording, or photographic device during an examination, except in cases of explicit accommodation, is prohibited and will be considered prima facie evidence of academic misconduct.
  • K. Vandalism. Forgery, alteration, theft, destruction, or knowing misuse of graded examinations, grade lists, or official University records, documents, or computer files, including but not limited to transcripts, letters of recommendation, or other work after submission.
  • L. Altering or destroying another student’s work or records, altering records of any kind, removing materials from libraries or offices without consent, or in any way interfering with the work of others so as to impede their performance.
  • M. Failure to comply with the sanctions imposed under the authority of this code.


Any faculty member, staff or student at the College who becomes aware of alleged academic misconduct on the part of a student enrolled in a course at the College shall report the matter to the faculty member of the course.


A faculty member in the College of General Studies who has reason to believe that a student has violated the Academic Conduct Code shall meet with the assistant dean to determine if previous academic infractions are on record for the student. The faculty member shall then meet with the divisional chairman to discuss the case and sanctions. If there are no previous incidents for the student, the faculty member shall have the right to give the student the option of a grading penalty. If there is a previous sanction, the faculty member may not offer a grading penalty as the sole penalty. The faculty member shall inform the student of the suspected violation, consult witnesses, any others with information about the alleged misconduct. The faculty member shall outline the reasons for believing that academic misconduct has occurred and document whether the student admitted to misconduct when questioned. All supporting evidence shall be attached to the “Faculty Report of Student Academic Misconduct” and submitted to the assistant dean in room 211 within 24 hours of meeting with the accused student.


Upon receiving the appropriate paperwork, the assistant dean shall request a meeting with the accused student. At that meeting the student will be notified in writing with supporting documentation of the official charges, sanctions, and the student’s right to accept or dispute the charges, accept a grading penalty (if approved) or have the case referred to the College’s Academic Conduct Committee. The student will be asked to sign the “Admission of Academic Misconduct” form.

In cases of undisputed academic misconduct by first-time offenders, i.e., the students have admitted to the academic misconduct, have never been found guilty of any academic code violations at Boston University, who have signed the “Admission of Academic Misconduct” form, the assistant dean shall inform them that a grading penalty determined by the faculty and reviewed by the chairman will be imposed, which is usually a “0” or “F” on the assignment, or sometimes an “F” in the course.

In cases of disputed misconduct, or in cases that have been referred to the Academic Conduct Committee, the assistant dean shall inform the student in writing of:

  1. 1. The charges.
  2. 2. The hearing date, time, location.
  3. 3. The fact that the student may request to reschedule the hearing for a valid reason.
  4. 4. The fact that the student may be accompanied by an advisor of his or her choice, who may be an attorney. At the discretion of the committee chairman, the advisor may be allowed to make a brief statement on behalf of the student. The advisor may not participate directly in the hearing.
  5. 5. The fact that he or she shall have the right to examine the person bringing the charges, to have access to all documents that have been introduced as evidence


A. Students Who Sign Admission of Academic Misconduct Form

Students with no prior incidents who sign Admission of Academic Misconduct Forms shall receive the grading penalty noted on the form, as reviewed by the divisional chairman. Students will also receive a letter of reprimand from the dean. The form and the letter of reprimand will be retained in the student’s file at the CGS Student Services Office, but shall not be recorded on the student’s transcript.

B. Student Whose Cases Are Referred to Committee

Students who are not allowed the option of a grading penalty because of a previous offense, or who elect to have their cases heard by the Academic Conduct Committee, may receive the sanctions of Reprimand, Disciplinary Probation, Suspension, or Expulsion. For cases referred to the Academic Conduct Committee, students may be penalized for academic conduct violations only through action of the Committee. However, faculty members always retain the right to assign grades reflecting their principled and equitable assessment of students’ work. In a case in which the Academic Conduct Committee has found a violation of the Code, the grade assigned by the faculty member may also reflect the faculty member’s determination of how seriously overall course goals and expectations of the academic discipline are compromised by work involved in an incident of academic misconduct, and how that work should in consequence contribute to the final course grade.

C. Previous sanctioned offenses will be considered when imposing sanctions for future offenses.

D. Students who believe that a faculty member has penalized them for alleged acts of academic misconduct without having followed the procedures set forth in this Code shall make their concerns known as soon as possible to the assistant dean.

E. If the accused is found guilty by the Committee, the following sanctions may be imposed:

  • 1. No penalty for minor violations that do not warrant sanction.
  • 2. Reprimand
    • a. For violations of a minor nature or mitigated by extenuating circumstances
    • b. A copy of the reprimand shall be placed in the student’s file but shall not be recorded on the permanent academic record (transcript).
    • c. Past reprimands may be considered in imposing sanctions for future offenses.
    • d. Reprimands are not to be made public when records, transcripts, etc., are sent out.
    • e. Reprimands place no restriction on the student’s participation in academic or nonacademic College or all-University activities.
  • 3. Disciplinary Probation
    • a. For violations deemed serious enough to warrant some abridgment of the student’s rights and privileges. Prohibits the student from being an officer in any recognized all-University or School student organization and from participating in intercollegiate activities during the specified probation period.
    • b. Given for a specified period of time.
    • c. Recorded on the student’s file.
    • d. Probation is not recorded on the student’s transcript.
  • 4. Suspension
    • a. For violations deemed serious enough to warrant separation of the student from the University for a limited time, but not serious enough to warrant expulsion.
    • b. Given for a period of time from one to three terms.
    • c. Recorded on the student’s transcript as “withdrawn” from the University.
    • d. The student must apply to the College for readmission, making a statement of her or her interim activities and future conduct.
    • e. No academic coursework may be undertaken for Boston University credit during the period of suspension.
  • 5. Expulsion
    • a. For extremely serious academic misconduct and/or for most second sanctioned offenses.
    • b. Recorded on the student’s transcript as “academic dismissal.”
    • c. Expulsion is permanent.
    • d. In general, the student will be expelled for a second sanctioned offense.

VI. Dissemination of Information

  • 1. Dissemination of information is governed by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. Copies of this act are available in the Office of the Dean of Student Affairs.
  • 2. Notice of sanctions, probation, suspension, or expulsion is sent to the parent or guardian of dependent students.
  • 3. Sanctions imposed through the Academic Conduct Code may be reported to graduate and professional schools to which a student seeks admission.
  • 4. Efforts will be made to ensure that students receive copies of the Academic Conduct Code. Copies of the code will also be available in the Student Services Office (room 211) of the College.

VII. Academic Conduct Committee

A. Composition

An Academic Conduct Committee (“the Committee”) shall consist of three faculty members of the College, appointed by the dean of the College. Usually, at least one member will also be a member of the Academic Standards Committee. If necessary, there may be two or more Academic Misconduct Committees actively hearing cases.

B. Jurisdiction

The Committee shall have jurisdiction, as assigned by the dean, over all allegations of academic misconduct made against any student enrolled in a course at the College of General Studies.


A. Request for a Hearing

Promptly after the referral of any case to an Academic Conduct Committee, the assistant dean shall set a date, time, and location for the hearing, as soon as is reasonably possible. He/she shall give written notice to the members of the Committee, to the instructor, to the student, and to any potential witnesses of the date, time, and location of the hearing and shall make available to the Committee and student copies of all material related to the case. The assistant dean must, by this notice, provide the student with clear notification of the nature of the alleged misconduct and access to material related to the case then in the assistant dean’s possession so as to permit the student to prepare for the hearing.

B. Presiding Officer

The Chairman of the Academic Conduct Committee, appointed by the dean, shall preside at the hearing. The chairman is empowered to make rulings and issue orders necessary for the orderly and efficient conduct of a fair hearing.

C. Attendance at the Hearing

The faculty member and the accused student have the responsibility to be present at the hearing. The faculty member and the accused student may invite witnesses for the purpose of giving evidence. Any party unable to attend may, prior to the hearing, deliver to the assistant dean written statements relevant to any aspect of the case. The assistant dean shall distribute the statements to the Committee and the accused student. The hearing shall not be public.

D. Right to Present Evidence

Both the accused student and the faculty member shall have the right to present evidence or witnesses. The accused student shall have the right to examine evidence and to question witnesses.

E. Findings

After the hearing the Committee shall decide by majority vote whether acts covered by the rules against academic misconduct have been committed. If the Committee finds against the allegations, the Committee will recommend in writing to the dean that the charges be dropped and that the previously recommended sanctions be withdrawn. If the Committee upholds the charge, it shall report this finding in writing to the dean, and it will then recommend in writing such sanctions as the Committee deems appropriate.

Any records of the Committee’s deliberations shall remain confidential and are not open to any persons other than Committee members. Any such records may be destroyed after the Committee reports its findings to the dean. The Committee shall report only to the dean.


A. The complete recommendations, including a statement of the charges, evidence, and judgment, shall be submitted to the dean of the College within five days after the hearing at which the judgment was made. The dean shall review the report and the appropriateness of the recommended sanctions (if applicable). The dean may refer the matter to the committee for further consideration and/or elaboration, or may request the transcript or recording of the hearing and /or the evidence. However, the factual findings of the Committee shall not be replaced by findings more damaging to the student unless the dean has submitted new evidence for a rehearing. Similarly, the dean shall not impose more severe sanctions than those recommended by the Committee.

B. The dean shall notify the student by hand-delivered or certified letter of the judgment and penalty imposed (if applicable) and that such findings and sanctions are subject to final review by the provost after all appeals within the College have been exhausted. The letter shall also inform the student that there is a procedure for appeal.


Within two weeks of the receipt of the dean’s final response to appeals within the College, a student may appeal the judgment or the penalty to the provost.

Appeals are to be in writing, setting forth the basis of the appeal and whether the student is appealing the judgment, the penalty, or both.

The provost shall review the documentation or refer the appeal to the committee for clarification and comments.

Normally, a rehearing will be ordered only if new evidence is presented.

Before making a decision, the provost may conduct his or her own investigation.


Past sanctions in elective courses may be considered in imposing penalties for future offenses. Similarly, past sanctions in CGS courses may be considered when imposing penalties for future offenses in elective courses.


“The academic counterpart of the bank embezzler and of the manufacturer who mislabels products is the plagiarist, the student or scholar who leads readers to believe that what they are reading is the original work of the writer when it is not. If it could be assumed that the distinction between plagiarism and honest use of sources is perfectly clear in everyone’s mind, there would be no need for the explanation that follows; merely the warning with which this definition concludes would be enough. But it is apparent that sometimes people of goodwill draw the suspicion of guilt upon themselves (and, indeed, are guilty) simply because they are not aware of the illegitimacy of certain kinds of “borrowing” and of the procedures for correct identification of materials other than those gained through independent research and reflection.”

“The spectrum is a wide one. At one end there is a word-for-word copying of another’s writing without enclosing the copied passage in quotation marks and identifying it in a footnote, both of which are necessary. (This includes, of course, the copying of all or any part of another student’s paper.) It hardly seems possible that anyone of college age or more could do that without clear intent to deceive. At the other end there is the almost casual slipping in of a particularly apt term which one has come across in reading and which so admirably expresses one’s opinion that one is tempted to make it personal property. Between these poles there are degrees and degrees, but they may be roughly placed in two groups. Close to outright and blatant deceit — but more the result, perhaps, of laziness than of bad intent — is the patching together of random jottings made in the course of reading, generally without careful identification of their source, and then woven into the text, so that the result is a mosaic of other people’s ideas and words, the writer’s sole contribution being the cement to hold the pieces together. Indicative of more effort and, for that reason, somewhat closer to honest, though still dishonest, is the paraphrase, an abbreviated (and often skillfully prepared) restatement of someone else’s analysis or conclusion, without acknowledgment that another person’s text has been the basis for the recapitulation.”

—The two paragraphs above are from H. Martin and R. Ohmann, The Logic and Rhetoric of Exposition, Revised Edition. Copyright 1963, Holt, Rinehart & Winston.


The examples given below should make clear the dishonest and the proper use of source material. If instances occur which these examples do not seem to cover, conscience will in all likelihood be prepared to supply advice.


“The importance of the Second Treatise of Government printed in this volume is such that without it we would miss some of the familiar features of our own government. It is safe to assert that the much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court obtained its being as a result of Locke’s insistence upon the separation of powers; and that the combination of many powers in the hands of the executive under the New Deal has still to encounter opposition because it is contrary to the principles enunciated therein, the effect of which is not spent, though the relationship may not be consciously traced. Again we see the crystallizing force of Locke’s writing. It renders explicit and adapts to the British politics of this day the trend and aim of writers from Languet and Bodin through Hooker and Grotius, to say nothing of the distant ancients, Aristotle and the Stoic School of natural law. It sums up magisterially the arguments used through the ages to attack authority vested in a single individual, but it does so from the particular point of view engendered by the Revolution of 1688 and is in harmony with the British scene and mental climate of the growing bourgeoisie of that age. Montesquieu and Rousseau, the framers of our own Declaration of Independence, and the statesmen (or should we say merchants and speculators?) who drew up the Constitution have re-echoed its claims for human liberty, for the separation of powers, for the sanctity of private property. In the hands of these it has been the quarry of liberal doctrines; and that it has served the Socialist theory of property based on labor is final proof of its breadth of view.”

—Charles L. Sherman, “Introduction” to John Locke,
Treatise of Civil Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration


“It is not hard to see the importance of the Second Treatise of Government to our own democracy. Without it we would miss some of the most familiar features of our own government. It is safe to assert that the much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court obtained its being as a result of Locke’s insistence upon the separation of powers; and that the combination of many powers in the hands of the executive is contrary to the principles enunciated therein, the effect of which is not spent, though the relationship may not be consciously traced. The framers of our own Declaration of Independence and the statesman who drew up the Constitution have re-echoed its claims for human liberty, for the separation of powers, for the sanctity of private property. All these are marks of influence of Locke’s Second Treatise on our own way of life.”

In this example, after composing half of the first sentence, the writer copies exactly what is in the original text, leaving out the center section of the paragraph and omitting the names of Montesquieu and Rousseau where he takes up the text again. The last sentence is also the writer’s own.

If the writer had enclosed all the copied text in quotation marks and had identified the source in a footnote, he would not have been liable to the charge of plagiarism; a reader might justifiably have felt, however, that the writer’s personal contribution to the discussion was not very significant.


“The crystallizing force of Locke’s writing may be seen in the effect his Second Treatise of Government had in shaping some of the familiar features of our own government. That much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court and the combination of many powers in the hands of the executive under the New Deal are modern examples. But even the foundation of our state — the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution — have re-echoed its claims for human liberty, for the separation of powers, for the sanctity of private property. True, the influence of others is also marked in our Constitution — from the trend and aim of writers like Languet and Bodin, Hooker and Grotius to say nothing of Aristotle and the Stoic school of natural law; but the fundamental influence is Locke’s Treatise, the very quarry of liberal doctrines.”

Note how the following phrases have been lifted out of the original text and moved into new patterns:

“crystallizing force of Locke’s writing”

“some of the familiar features of our own government”

“much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court”

“combination of many powers in the hands of the executive under the New Deal”

“have re-echoed its claims for human liberty . . . property”

“from the trend and aim . . . Grotius”

“to say nothing of Aristotle and . . . natural law”

“quarry of liberal doctrines”

As in the first example, there is really no way of legitimizing such a procedure. To put every stolen phrase within quotation marks would produce an almost unreadable, and quite worthless, text.



“Many fundamental aspects of our own government are apparent in the Second Treatise of Government. One can safely say that the oft-censured Supreme Court really owes its existence to the Lockean demand that powers in government be kept separate; equally one can say that the allocation of varied and widespread authority to the President during the era of the New Deal has still to encounter opposition because it is contrary to the principles enunciated therein… Once more it is possible to note the way in which Locke’s writing clarified existing opinion.”


“Many familiar features of own government are apparent in the Second Treatise of Government. It is safe to assert that the much criticized…Court obtained its existence upon separation of powers; and that the combination of many powers in the hands of the executive under the New Deal has still to encounter opposition because it is contrary to the principles enunciated therein . . . . Again we see the crystallizing force of Locke’s writing.”

The foregoing comparison shows how the writer has simply traveled along with the original text, substituting approximately equivalent terms except where his or her understanding falters, as it does with crystallizing, or where the ambiguity of the original requires too much ingenuity to decipher, as it apparently does as in “to encounter opposition … consciously traced” in the original.

Such a procedure as the one shown in this example has its uses; for one thing, it is valuable for the reader as well. How, then, may it properly be used? The procedure is simple. The writer might begin the second sentence with “As Sherman notes in the introduction to his edition of the Treatise, one can safely say . . . ” and conclude the paraphrase passage with a footnote giving the additional identification necessary. Or he or she might indicate directly the exact nature of what is being done, in this fashion: “To paraphrase Sherman’s comment . . . ” and conclude that also with a footnote indicator.

In point of fact, this course does not particularly lend itself to honest paraphrase, with the exception of that one sentence which the paraphraser above copied without change except for abridgment. The purpose of paraphrase would be to simplify or to throw new and significant light on a text; it requires much skill if it is to be used honestly, and should be used rarely by the student except for the purpose, as suggested above, of personal enlightenment.


“The Second Treatise of Government is a veritable quarry of liberal doctrines. In it the crystallizing force of Locke’s writing is markedly apparent. The cause of human liberty, the principle of separation of powers, and the inviolability of private property — all three major dogmas of American constitutionalism — owe their presence in our Constitution in large part to the remarkable Treatise which first appeared around 1685 and was destined to spark within three years a revolution in the land of its author’s birth and, ninety years later, another revolution against that land.”

Here the writer has not been able to resist the appropriation of two striking terms — “quarry of liberal doctrines” and “crystallizing force”; a perfectly proper use of the terms would have required only the addition of a phrase: “The Second Treatise of Government is, to use Sherman’s suggestive expression, a “quarry of liberal doctrines.” In it the “crystallizing force” — the term again is Sherman’s — of Locke’s writing is markedly apparent.”

Other phrases in the text above — “the cause of human liberty,” “the principle of the separation of powers,” “the inviolability of private property” — are clearly drawn directly from the original source but are so much matters in the public domain, so to speak, that no one could reasonably object to their reuse in this fashion.

Since one of the principal aims of a college education is the development of intellectual honesty, it is obvious that plagiarism is a particularly serious offense, and the punishment for it is commensurately severe. What a penalized student suffers can never really be known by anyone but that student; what the student who plagiarized and “gets away with it” suffers is less public and probably less acute, but the corruptness of the act, the disloyalty and baseness it entails, must inevitably leave a mark on him or her as well as on the institution.


Essays written for college courses generally require the use of sources: books, periodicals, and other documents containing information relevant to the topic of the essay to be written. The citation of such sources occurs in one or both of two places: footnotes and a bibliography appended to the essay.

Very simply, a bibliography lists the books, periodicals, and other documents actually used in the preparation of the essay; a footnote indicates very precisely the source of a quotation or specific statement occurring in the text of the essay. For both, a more-or-less standardized system has been developed so that readers anywhere can turn quickly from the footnote or the bibliographical listing to the proper source and be sure that they have at hand the cited work.

Just as honesty requires quotation marks around any statement copied directly from a written source, it requires a footnote to indicate the place from which information has been gathered, or from which paraphrased reconstructions are woven into the text.

A fine bibliography and careful footnoting, no matter how ably prepared, will not make up for the deficiency in reasoning, style, and substance of the essay proper, but they do enhance the value of good scholarly writing because they act as auxiliary agents in the process of communication.


The requirement to document, with proper citations, material obtained from sources other than the mind of the writer applies to words, ideas, drawings, images, and any other items obtained via electronic media such as the Internet. For example, if the writer paraphrases a paragraph from a World Wide Web site, the same procedure should be followed as outlined in item (3) above. The proper citation in the footnote and/or bibliography should include the author (if known), the name or title of the electronic site, the date, and the URL or Internet address.

Some instructors may, at their discretion, forbid use of electronic sources for a given assignment or for all assignments in the course. If, despite this instruction, a student uses and cites an electronic source, a low grade may result, but the action by itself is not a violation of the Academic Conduct Code.


In a laboratory of a natural science course, four students work together in a group, collecting the same data. In the syllabus, the instructor has stated that collaboration on laboratory exercises is allowed up to the point of discussing procedures and checking on the consistency of data to guard against typographical errors. Each student, however, must analyze the data and answer the questions in the lab book independently. While writing up the exercise, one student asks another in his group to show him the graphs that the second student plotted using the data. Realizing that his own graphs were in error, he draws new graphs that correspond to those of the second student.

In this example, the first student has clearly exceeded the extent of collaboration allowed according to the syllabus, as has the second student by permitting the first to see her graphs. Both are therefore guilty of violations of the Academic Conduct Code.

Note that if the extent of the collaboration allowed is not stated explicitly in the syllabus, the students in the class must assume that no collaboration whatsoever is allowed after the group works together in the laboratory.


The following list contains some examples of academic misconduct, and is not intended to be complete. Note that, although the examples refer to written assignments and exams, the same rules apply to assignments and exams that are administered or presented orally or by some other non-written means. (Adapted from Academic Dishonesty among College Students, S. Maramark and M. B. Maline, US Dept. of Education report no. OR-93-3082, August 1993.)

  • Copying from another student’s exam or assignment
  • Allowing another student to copy from your exam or assignment
  • Allowing another student to see your exam or to see part or all of your assignment before you hand it in, unless authorized by the instructor
  • Collaborating on assignments or take-home exams when instructions (or the syllabus) call for independent work
  • Providing or receiving answers to an exam using a system of signals or other means of communication with another student
  • Bringing unauthorized materials to an exam without placing them where they cannot be used during the exam
  • Altering the answers to, or otherwise tampering with, exams or assignments after they have been handed in, without the consent of the instructor
  • Taking an exam or completing part or all of an assignment for another student
  • Having another person take an exam for you or complete part or all of one or more of your assignments
  • Hiring a ghostwriter to write part or all of an assignment
  • Submitting all or part of a purchased term paper as your own
  • Using course materials, including lecture notes and excerpts from textbooks, in written assignments without proper citation
  • Using paraphrased materials in a written assignment without proper citation of the source
  • Downloading text, drawings, images, and other materials from the World Wide Web and using these in written assignments without proper citation of the sources
  • Copying material without proper citation
  • Feigning illness to avoid taking an exam or handing in an assignment on time
  • Submitting the same term paper for credit to more than one course without permission
  • Reviewing a copy of the regularly scheduled exam prior to taking a make-up exam
  • Reviewing a stolen copy of an exam prior to taking the exam
  • Providing questions from a test given in one section of a course to students in another section before they have taken the test
  • Receiving questions from a test given in one section of a course from another student in another section before you have taken the test
  • Altering or forging an official University document
  • Failing to sit in the specifically assigned seat, as posted, during examinations