University Regulation on Academic Integrity

1. Introduction

• 1.1. Purpose and Statement on Academic Integrity
• The purpose of this Regulation is to ensure that East Carolina University (“ECU” or “University”) supports and maintains an ethical academic environment through the creation of consistent standards for all members of the academic community of ECU, with a focus on assisting students in learning responsibility for one’s own academic work. Violating the principles of academic integrity damages the reputation of the university and undermines its educational mission. Without the assurance of integrity in academic work, degrees from the university lose value. For these reasons, academic integrity is required of every ECU student.
• Maintaining the academic integrity of ECU is the responsibility of all members of the academic community.
  • 1.1.1. Under Section 502 D of the Code of the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina System, the Board of Governors and the President of the University of North Carolina System have delegated the responsibility to manage student conduct to the Chancellor of each constituent campus. Accordingly, it is the duty of the Chancellor to exercise full authority in the regulation of student affairs and student conduct and discipline. ECU’s Chancellor has charged the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs with overseeing the student conduct process, including collaborating with Academic Affairs in matters of academic integrity under this Regulation. The Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities (“OSRR”) in turn is charged with assisting in the implementation of this Regulation and administration of the process contained therein.
  • 1.1.2. In the discharge of the Chancellor’s duty with respect to matters of student discipline, it shall be the duty of the Chancellor to secure every student the right to due process. This Regulation intends to establish a fair, effective, and efficient policy with implementing procedures that comply with the minimal due process standards set forth in 700.4.1 of the UNC Policy Manual and Code.
  • 1.1.3. The procedures governing the academic integrity process are provided in Appendix A: Academic Integrity Process and Procedures implementing this Regulation and housed in the OSRR and a copy contained in the ECU Faculty Manual Part VI Section II. These procedures are subject to periodic updates. Any such revisions will be conducted in consultation with the Office of University Counsel. To the extent that there is any discrepancy between this Regulation and its accompanying procedures, Appendix A, and the ECU Faculty Manual, this Regulation and Appendix A will control.
• 1.2. Scope and Jurisdiction
  • 1.2.1. This Regulation contains the policies relating to academic integrity violations (“AIVs”) at ECU as well as possible outcomes. These policies and accompanying procedures pertain to anyone registered for an academic course at the University, including but not limited to, undergraduate and graduate students who are classified as degree or non-degree seeking, as well as visiting students, and students studying abroad. The Regulation on Academic Integrity also applies to student violations discovered after the student has completed a course, graduated, or separated from the University for any other reason. Depending on the circumstances of the case, degree revocation may be a possible outcome, as outlined in the relevant catalog maintained with the Office of the Registrar. Upon acceptance of admission to ECU, each student agrees to abide by the policies and expectations of the University and to conduct themselves on and off campus in a manner consistent with ECU’s educational mission. Students are responsible for reviewing this Regulation and other policies and, if necessary, seeking clarification from the OSRR.
  • In addition to the expectations of Academic Integrity provided in this Regulation, certain academic departments, programs, colleges, and schools, particularly at the professional and graduate level, may have additional ethical and behavioral expectations of their students, including expectations for the conduct of research. Those expectations must be published and readily available to students.
  • Units may also establish additional penalties for AIVs. For example, medical students, dental students, graduate students, student athletes, resident advisors, student organization leaders, and students residing in the residence halls may also be subject to additional penalties under the standards set by those units.
  • 1.2.2. ECU’s policy on research misconduct is a separate and independent process from the process outlined in this Regulation. The determinations, results, procedures, and outcomes of the Research Misconduct Proceedings shall rely on ECU’s PRR on the Regulation on Research Misconduct. Cases and questions related to Research Misconduct shall be reported to the Office of Research Integrity and Compliance.

2. Definitions

• 2.1 An AIV is defined as any activity that exhibits dishonesty in the educational process or that compromises the academic honor of the university. For examples of AIVs, including the application of the below definitions, please see Appendix A: Academic Integrity Process and Procedures. Examples of AIVs include, but are not limited to, the following:
  • 2.1.1. Cheating: Unauthorized aid or unauthorized assistance or the giving or receiving of an unauthorized advantage on any form of academic work, whether graded or otherwise. Examples of cheating include, but are not limited to: unauthorized copying from another student’s work during an academic assignment; receiving unauthorized assistance during an academic assignment; using unauthorized materials such as books, notes, or other devices; improperly disseminating or obtaining test or examination questions or answers; unapproved use of artificial intelligence to generate assigned written material, collaborating on academic work without authorization and/or without truthful disclosure of the extent of that collaboration; allowing or directing a substitute to complete academic work.
  • 2.1.2. Plagiarism: Representing the language, structure, ideas, and/or thoughts of another as one’s own original work. Examples of plagiarism include but are not limited to: submitting a paper that has been purchased or downloaded from an essay-writing service; directly quoting, word for word, from any source, including online sources, without indicating that the material comes directly from that source; omitting a citation to a source when paraphrasing or summarizing another’s work; submitting a paper written by another person, service, or online tool as one’s own work.
  • 2.1.3. Falsification/Fabrication: Any statement one knows or should know is untrue, either spoken or written, regarding any circumstances related to academic work. This includes any untrue statements made regarding a suspected AIV. Examples of falsification/fabrication include, but are not limited to: Making up data, research results, experimental procedures, internship or practicum experiences, or otherwise claiming academic-related experience that one has not actually had; inventing or submitting deceptive citations for the sources of one’s information; submitting a false excuse for an absence from class or other academic obligation.
  • 2.1.4. Multiple submissions: The submission of substantial portions of the same academic work for credit more than once without authorization from the faculty member who receives the later submission. Examples of multiple submissions include, but are not limited to: submitting the same essay for credit in two courses without first receiving written permission; making minor revisions to an assignment that has already received credit in a course, and submitting it in another class as if it were new work.
  • 2.1.5. Violation assistance: Knowingly helping or attempting to help someone else in an act that constitutes an AIV. Examples of violation assistance include but are not limited to knowingly allowing another to copy answers during an examination or quiz; distributing test questions or examination materials without permission from the faculty member teaching the course; writing an essay, or substantial portions thereof, for another student to submit as his or her own work; taking an examination or test for another student; distributing information involving clinical simulation and skills assessments.
  • 2.1.6. Violation attempts: Attempting any act that, if completed, would constitute an AIV as defined herein. In other words, it does not matter if a student succeeds in carrying out any of the above violations, the fact that a violation was attempted is itself a violation of academic integrity.
  • 2.1.7. Cheating ring: A cheating ring is more than three students working together in a non-course-sanctioned manner that improperly benefits at least one of the students in the group.
• 2.2. Definitions of Review Committees, Boards, and Roles
  • 2.2.1. University Committee on Academic Integrity (“UCAI”): The UCAI is the body maintained to make up the hearing boards as outlined in this Regulation.
  • 2.2.2. Academic Integrity Board (“AIB”): The AIB is a panel of five UCAI members; three faculty members and two students who hear allegations of violations of this Regulation for cases outlined in 5.2.
  • 2.2.3. Academic Integrity Appeal Board (“AIAB”): The AIAB is a panel of five UCAI members; three faculty members and two students who hear appeals referred by OSRR as outlined in 5.3.
  • 2.2.4. Complainant: An individual or group of individuals who allege a student or group of students of violating this Regulation. This may include but is not limited to: A faculty member, teaching assistants, or other instructional personnel, a student (s), a staff member, or a community member outside of ECU.
  • 2.2.5. Respondent: A Student who is accused of a violation of this Regulation.

3. Rights and Responsibilities

AIVs are harmful to the individual and the broader intellectual community. In order to uphold academic integrity standards and expectations, it is strongly encouraged that students and community members report information related to suspected AIVs to OSRR.

• 3.1 Student Rights
• A student whose conduct is under review is a Respondent and has the rights listed below. The student may forfeit any of these rights if, after being given appropriate notice and opportunity to exercise these rights, the student fails to do so. The student may also forfeit any of these rights by signing a waiver of a specified right(s).
  • 3.1.1. The right to a fair, impartial, and efficient process and evaluation of the complaint.
  • 3.1.2. The right to be present during the meeting with the instructor of record and during the Academic Integrity Board (“AIB”) hearing (if applicable).
  • 3.1.3. The right to reasonable access to all relevant information gathered throughout the investigation pertinent to the alleged violation.
  • 3.1.4. The right to respond to information presented against the student. This may include presenting information relevant to the alleged violation, including inviting witnesses.
  • 3.1.5. The right to provide information throughout the process. The University will make a determination with or without the student’s information. The University will not imply that a student failing to provide information means that the student is withholding incriminating information.
  • 3.1.6. The right to a separate meeting with a faculty member or individual AIB hearing in cases involving multiple students. Charges against multiple students involved in the same incident may be heard in a single case only if each student consents to such a proceeding.
  • 3.1.7. The right to review the decision, after receiving written notice of the outcome, including to appeal as described in this Regulation.
  • 3.1.8. The right to be presumed not responsible until proven responsible, and to plead not responsible without fear that the plea itself (as distinct from any related lies or misrepresentations) may give rise to a charge of lying should the student be found guilty of committing an AIV.
  • 3.1.9. The right to be assisted in preparing their written appeal by a non-attorney advocate or a licensed attorney, at the student’s expense.
• 3.2. Faculty, Teaching Assistant, and other Instructional Personnel Rights
• A faculty member, teaching assistant, or other instructional personnel who alleges a violation of this Regulation is a Complainant and has the rights listed below.
  • 3.2.1 The right to have a non-participating observer at the initial meeting, subject to compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (“FERPA”).
  • 3.2.2. The right to invite relevant witnesses with knowledge of the alleged AIV.
  • 3.2.3. The right to submit a written statement, or other information. This includes the right to submit information after referral to an AIAB.
  • 3.2.4. The right, after receiving written notice of the outcome, to review the decision, if permitted under ECU policies, University of North Carolina System policies and local, state, and federal laws.
• 3.3. Student Responsibilities
• All students at ECU are responsible for the following:
  • 3.3.1. Understanding what academic integrity means, and what constitutes AIVs in each of their courses and field of study. This includes, but is not limited to, learning the recognized techniques of proper attribution of sources used in the preparation of written work, and identifying allowable resource materials or aids to be used during examination or in completion of any graded work. Students should seek clarification from faculty if it is not clear whether a certain action would violate this Regulation.
  • 3.3.2. Promoting academic integrity in the ECU community by upholding it in their own work and by reporting any suspected violations. A student knowing of circumstances in which an AIV may have occurred (or is likely to occur) should bring this knowledge to the attention of the appropriate instructor, official of their college or school, or OSRR.
  • 3.3.3. Complying with faculty classroom procedures and online testing environments designed to reduce the possibility of cheating – such as removing unauthorized materials or aids from the classroom or workspace, and protecting one’s own examination paper from the view of other students.
  • 3.3.4. Maintaining the confidentiality of examinations by not divulging information concerning an examination, directly or indirectly, to another student. This includes, but is not limited to, the unauthorized dissemination of information through online learning sites (ex. Chegg, Quizlet, etc.), social media, group messaging systems, or any other method.
  • 3.3.5. Maintaining up to date personal contact information on their Pirate Port account and consistently monitoring their ECU e-mail account, to receive University communications.
• 3.4. Faculty, Teaching Assistant, and other Instructional Personnel Responsibilities
  Faculty, teaching assistants, and other instructional personnel are responsible for the following:
  • 3.4.1 Understanding what constitutes AIVs under this Regulation and the accompanying procedures.
  • 3.4.2 Communicating University-wide expectations for academic integrity, for example, by providing copies of this Regulation or by providing a reference to it in their course syllabus to ensure that students are accountable for conforming their conduct to these expectations. Instructors should communicate clear rules and expectations for academic work conducted under their supervision.
  • 3.4.3 Taking reasonable steps to prevent AIVs. For example, instructors should: Prevent unauthorized access to examinations during the development, duplication, and administration of such exams; avoid reusing prior examinations (in whole or in part) to the extent possible; take all reasonable steps consistent with physical classroom conditions to reduce the risk of cheating during the administration of examinations; and maintain proper security during the administration of examinations, including as appropriate overseeing distribution and collection of examinations, and proctoring the examination session.
  • 3.4.4 Following the procedures for responding to suspected AIVs (enumerated in Section 6). The responsibility for following the stated procedures also includes but is not limited to, the following: Obeying the time constraints of this Regulation, providing proper notice to the student alleged to have committed an AIV, refraining from taking unilateral punitive action, and reporting the alleged violation to the OSRR, and the department chair (or designee), as required.
  • 3.4.5 Cooperating with the OSRR, the Academic Integrity Appeal Board (“AIAB”), and the Academic Integrity Board (“AIB”) when these bodies are conducting investigations, administering hearings and/or reviewing matters of academic integrity. The cooperation may call for actions such as providing testimony or other evidence, recommending appropriate sanctions, or helping to bring the matter to a prompt conclusion.

4. Standard of Proof and Due Process

• 4.1 Standards of Due Process: UNC Policy Manual 700.4.1 requires that students are afforded both procedural and substantive due process.
  • 4.1.1 Procedural standards of due process require notice and an opportunity for a hearing. The formality of these provisions will vary depending on the seriousness of the alleged offense.
  • 4.1.2. Substantive standards of due process require that the decision reached be neither arbitrary nor capricious. Generally, this means that there is evidence to support the decision reached.
• 4.2 Standard of Proof: For a student to be found responsible for an AIV, the evidence must establish that the student is responsible for an AIV by a preponderance of the evidence — that it is more likely than not that the student committed the AIV as alleged. This determination must be based on the evidence presented, which may include, but is not limited to, pertinent records (e.g., assignment, syllabi), exhibits (e.g., photographs, audio/video information, social media information), and written/oral statements.
• 4.3 Formal rules of evidence do not apply, nor does deviation from prescribed procedures necessarily invalidate a decision or proceeding, unless significant prejudice to the Complainant results.

5. Academic Integrity Boards

The Boards and Hearing Panels described below each have varying jurisdiction and scope depending on the scenario in which the alleged AIV occurred. The OSRR is responsible for coordinating the staffing and for maintenance of the University Committee on Academic Integrity (“UCAI”), and the Academic Integrity Board (“AIB”), and the Academic Integrity Appeals Board (“AIAB”).

• 5.1 The University Committee on Academic Integrity (“UCAI”) is composed of the following University stakeholders:
  • 5.1.1. Faculty members: Twenty faculty members, at least eight (8) of whom have graduate faculty status, each of which is appointed for three-year staggered terms by the Faculty Senate, the method in which they are appointed being in the discretion of the Faculty Senate.
  • 5.1.2. Student members: Student representation will come from members of the Student Conduct Board. OSRR will ensure that there is both undergraduate and graduate representation within the members of the Student Conduct Board. The Director of the OSRR, or designee, shall serve as an administrative officer of the committee, but shall not participate in hearing boards.
• 5.2 Academic Integrity Board (“AIB”)
  • 5.2.1 Jurisdiction and Scope: The AIB is charged with presiding over a hearing in a few different scenarios:
    • 5.2.1.1 Cases where the instructor recommends sanctions in addition to the assigned academic penalties (e.g. probation, deferred suspension, suspension, expulsion), matters that concern organized AIVs that involve multiple students, and all cases in which suspension or expulsion are recommended by OSRR. In these scenarios, the AIB will only determine whether additional sanctions above those imposed by the instructor are warranted.
    • 5.2.1.2 In cases where there are alleged violations that occur outside of a specific course or classroom setting, upon referral by the OSRR the AIB will determine whether a student has violated this Regulation and, if appropriate, assign academic penalties and/or sanctions as outlined in Section 7.
    • 5.2.1.3 In cases where students have multiple AIVs and OSRR has referred the case to the AIB for additional sanctions, the AIB will only determine additional sanctions based on multiple violations and will not assign additional academic penalties related to a course.
    • 5.2.1.4 The AIB’s jurisdiction is not limited to the above scenarios, but also to other scenarios as referred by the OSRR.
  • 5.2.2 In all cases involving a graduate student, OSRR will make best efforts to ensure at least two of the three faculty members have graduate faculty status; and that the student members of the board are graduate students.
• 5.3 Academic Integrity Appeal Board (“AIAB”):
  • 5.3.1 Jurisdiction and Scope: The AIAB is charged with hearing cases referred by the OSRR in matters where the student seeks appeal from the decision of the instructor in either finding the student responsible for an AIV or the academic penalty assigned. The AIAB determines if the appeal submitted by the student has merit and if the original decision made by the instructor should be altered. The AIAB is not charged with determining whether suspension or expulsion is warranted. The AIAB can determine the following:
    • 5.3.1.1 Affirm and uphold the instructor’s original determination that an AIV occurred, and sanction assigned.
    • 5.3.1.2 Affirm and uphold the instructor’s original determination that an AIV occurred and amend the sanction assigned.
    • 5.3.1.3 Determine that there was not enough information to uphold the instructor’s finding that an AIV occurred. Procedures for AIAB hearings are available from the OSRR.

6. Addressing and Reporting Suspected Academic Integrity Violations

• 6.1 For procedures to follow in addressing and reporting suspected AIVs, please see Appendix A: Academic Integrity Process and Procedures.
• 6.2 Withdrawing from the Course
  • 6.2.1 A student may not withdraw from a course while a suspected AIV is being investigated by the instructor, reviewed by OSRR for referral to an AIB or AIAB, or pending an outcome from an AIB or AIAB. If the AIV process results in an XF, the student may not withdraw from the course and an XF will be noted on the student’s transcript.
  • 6.2.2 If the outcome of the AIV process does not result in an XF (i.e. the student does not receive a failing grade as a result of a finding of responsibility), the student may withdraw from the course once the AIV process has concluded, as long as it within the term withdrawal period as determined by the University Registrar.
  • 6.2.3 If a student is eligible to withdraw from the course once the AIV process has concluded, the withdrawal date will be the date the instructor notified the student of the outcome on the matter.
  • 6.2.4 If a student attempts to withdraw before the AIV process has concluded, the faculty member or OSRR will inform the registrar that the student is not allowed to withdraw while the AIV matter is under review and to reinstate the student back into the class until the matter has concluded.
• 6.3 Cases Involving Multiple Students
  • 6.3.1 In a case where the AIV involves multiple students (for example, cheating rings), the instructor shall consult OSRR to determine if the instructor or OSRR should handle the case. The nature and scope of the suspected AIV will determine who resolves the matter. OSRR reserves the right to refer the case to the UCAI for an AIB hearing for resolution and/or additional sanctioning regardless of who handles the case.
  • 6.3.2 A cheating ring is more than three students working together in a non-course sanctioned manner that improperly benefits at least one of the students in the group.
  • 6.3.3 If the faculty member and/or OSRR determine that the nature of the cheating ring is egregious, it has significant impact to the integrity of the course, and/or the students involved have previous academic integrity violations, the AIB may assign a sanction of suspension or expulsion.
• 6.4 Violations that Do Not Fall Under Instructors’ Purview
  • 6.4.1 If an instructor discovers a suspected violation in which the currently enrolled student has used the work of a student either in a different section of the course or who has taken a course at a different time, the instructor should follow the procedures for the Initial Meeting described in Appendix A: Academic Integrity Process and Procedures for the student enrolled in their course. If the other student involved is enrolled in another section of the course and with another instructor, or if the student took the class during a different time (different semester), then the instructor should submit the AIV Form directly to OSRR for resolution, which may include a referral to the AIB.
  • 6.4.2 If an instructor discovers a suspected violation at a time immediately after the student is no longer within the instructor’s course and a grade for the course has already been assigned, the instructor should refer the case, including all evidence related to the suspected violation, directly to OSRR through the AIV reporting form.
  • 6.4.3 If the suspected AIV occurs outside of a specific course, the case shall be referred directly to OSRR for possible investigation and an AIB hearing. (The AIV Form is available at https://osrr.ecu.edu/faculty-staff/).
  • 6.4.4 In the case of a suspected AIV reported directly to OSRR for which an Instructor of record can be identified, OSRR will first consult with the Instructor in charge of the course(s) affected. The Instructor will determine whether to pursue the alleged violation against the student in their course.
• 6.5 Multiple Violations and Severe Cases
  • 6.5.1 OSRR may refer students who have multiple AIVs for which they have been found responsible to the AIB for additional sanctions, based on the nature of the violations, the outcome may result in a recommendation of suspension or expulsion.
  • 6.5.2 If, based on the nature and severity of the suspected AIV, OSRR determines an AIV warrants a recommendation of probation, deferred suspension, suspension, or expulsion, in addition to the instructor’s penalty, OSRR will refer the matter to the AIB. OSRR’s referral will provide a recommended sanction with rationale to the AIB for consideration. If the AIB determines that suspension or expulsion is warranted, they will make a recommendation to the Provost or Provost’s designee for a decision on the matter.
• 6.6 Graduate Students and Professional School Students
  • 6.6.1 If the suspected AIV involves a graduate student and occurs outside of a specific course, the case will be referred to the student’s Faculty Advisor who will serve in the role of the faculty member to resolve the matter per the procedures outlined in this regulation. In the event that no Faculty Advisor can be identified, the relevant Graduate Program Director will serve in the role of the faculty member and resolve the matter per the procedures outlined in this regulation.
  • 6.6.2 If the AIV involves a student enrolled in a professional school, a graduate student, or a department that has published professional standards, the school or department may have its own panel or board and may have supplemental processes or procedures, and/or additional academic penalties or sanctions, as long as the professional program or department and its procedures comport with 700.4.1 of the UNC Policy on Minimum Substantive and Procedural Standards for Student Disciplinary Proceedings, as well as federal, state and local law. The instructor is also required to follow the procedures of this Regulation and report the suspected AIV to OSRR.
  • 6.6.3 All matters where a suspension or expulsion from the University is recommended shall be referred to OSRR for referral to an AIB. A professional school or department does not have authority over a sanction of suspension or expulsion from the University.

7. Sanctions

• 7.1 If an instructor determines that a student committed an AIV, they may assign the following penalties:
  • 7.1.1. Educational resolution: Does not result in an assignment or grade penalty. This may include an educational conversation and/or providing resources related to the conduct resulting in the AIV (e.g. resources on how to use citations properly).
  • 7.1.2. Grade penalty on the assignment: Examples include but are not limited to a grade of “F” on the assignment/exam; assignment grade reduction; repeat attempt on the original assignment; completion of an additional assignment relevant to the course/original assignment.
  • 7.1.3. Grade penalty for the course (i.e., course grade reduction) that does not result in a grade of “F”.
  • 7.1.4. A penalty of an “XF” as a result of an AIV violation. An “XF” is an F as a result of the AIV, rather than an earned F.
    • 7.1.4.1. If the penalty assigned is a failure of the course, OSRR will inform the registrar to record a final grade of “XF” on the student’s transcript. The “X” indicates the matter is related to a responsible finding of an AIV.
    • 7.1.4.2. The “X” designation must remain on the student’s transcript for at least one calendar year and will be removed from the official transcript after one calendar year only if the student has completed the “XF” removal requirements through OSRR and obtained the approval of the Director of the OSRR. The approval of the Director of the OSRR must be obtained through the submission of a formal written request for removal of the “X” designation. Courses in which a student receives a grade of “XF” are not eligible for grade replacement even if the “X” is removed from the official transcript. All courses for which a student receives an “XF” will be factored into the student’s GPA, even if the “X” is removed from the official transcript and the course is retaken.
• 7.2. Sanctions assigned by the AIAB
  • 7.2.1. An AIAB may take the following actions:
    • 7.2.1.1. Uphold the instructor’s original sanction(s);
    • 7.2.1.2. Amend the instructor’s decision and sanction(s) in the matter;
    • 7.2.1.3. Overturn the instructor’s decision and associated sanctions.
  • 7.2.2. The AIAB may not increase an instructor’s penalty.
  • 7.2.3. The AIAB may assign appropriate educational sanctions related to the AIV.
  • 7.2.4. The AIAB cannot recommend suspension or expulsion.
• 7.3. Sanctions assigned by the AIB
  • 7.3.1. An AIB cannot overturn an instructor’s penalty previously assigned.
  • 7.3.2. If an AIB is tasked with determining a student’s academic penalty for the course, they may assign a penalty.
  • 7.3.3. If an AIB is tasked with assigning additional sanctions in the matter, they may assign an educational task to be completed by the student (ex. educational module, reflection paper, etc.). Additionally, the AIB may issue a warning, probation, deferred suspension, or make a recommendation of suspension, or expulsion.
  • 7.3.4. Where suspension or expulsion is recommended by the AIB, the Director or designee of OSRR will compile the written record and provide it to the Provost (or designee) who will make the final administrative determination. The Provost (or designee) will determine whether to impose the sanctions recommended by the AIB, to modify the sanctions recommended by the AIB, to refer the case back to OSRR for a new hearing before a different AIB, or to take other necessary administrative action.
• 7.4. In addition to any sanctions assigned by the instructor, AIAB, AIB, or OSRR, upon being found responsible for an AIV, students may be required to complete an appropriate educational module related to the AIV as maintained by OSRR.
• 7.5. The final decision in cases where suspension or expulsion is the sanction will be made within forty-five (45) calendar days after the hearing and will be shared with the student in writing within ten (10) calendar days of the date on which the decision was made. The letter will include a brief summary of the information upon which the decision was based and any appeal rights, including the time limits during which to appeal and the permitted grounds for appeal.

8. OSRR Resources

• 8.1 In all AIV matters referred to OSRR, OSRR may elect to meet with the student in person to discuss the matter. OSRR may also provide additional educational resources, which may include completion of an educational module.
• 8.2 At OSRR’s discretion, OSRR may provide a list of resources related to the AIV, to be included in their notice of the AIV from OSRR.

9. Appeals

• 9.1 Decisions of the AIAB are final, as it is the appellate review of the instructor’s decision and assigned penalties consistent with this Regulation.
• 9.2 In all other cases, the student has the burden of showing either (1) a violation of due process or (2) the decision made was arbitrary or capricious.
  • 9.2.1 Violation of due process: Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. A violation of due process means that the student was not provided the required notice or an opportunity to be heard due to specified procedural errors, or errors in interpretation of University policies or regulations, that were so substantial as to effectively deny the student a fair hearing. Reasonable deviations from the procedures set out in this Regulation will not invalidate a decision or proceeding unless the student can show that, but for the deviation or error, there likely would have been a different outcome in the case.
  • 9.2.2 Material Deviation from Substantive and Procedural Standards: Material Deviation from Substantive and Procedural Standards require that the decision reached be neither arbitrary nor capricious. A material deviation from substantive standards means that there is a lack of information in the record that could support the decision or sanction(s). This does not mean the information presented at the hearing can be re-argued on appeal; rather, it requires a showing that no reasonable person could have determined the student was responsible or could have imposed the sanction that was issued, based on the information in the record. A material deviation from procedural standards means that a lack of information in the record that could support the decision is due to a procedural error that resulted in the proffered evidence or testimony being excluded.
• 9.3 To appeal, the student must specify in writing which grounds form the basis for the student’s appeal. The appeal letter must be dated, signed by the student, and received by OSRR within ten (10) calendar days from the date that the written decision on the outcome and sanctions is provided to the student. Appeals should be directed to OSRR at osrr@ecu.edu; or 364 Wright Building. Failure to deliver the written notice of appeal within this time limit will render the decision of the instructor or AIB final. Appeals will be limited to the record of the hearing, including the supporting documents provided by the student and available records (“written record”) within OSRR and the student’s written appeal.
• 9.4 In appeals from the initial outcome, OSRR will review the written record and make a determination as to if there was a violation of due process or material deviation from substantive and procedural standards. If an appeal hearing is granted, it will be referred to the AIAB. If OSRR denies the appeal, the decision of the instructor and any assigned sanctions are effective immediately, and the student will have no further appeal opportunities.
• 9.5 In cases of suspension or expulsion: Should the Provost (or designee) uphold the AIB recommendation of suspension or expulsion, the student has the right to appeal the decision to the East Carolina University Board of Trustees. The student should send a written appeal by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or by another means that provides proof of delivery to the Assistant Secretary to the Board within ten (10) calendar days after the notice of the Provost’s (or designee’s) decision is sent to the student. A copy should also be provided to the OSRR and the General Counsel and Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs. If the appeal is received in a timely manner, the Board of Trustees will establish a schedule for its review. If the student fails to comply with the schedule, the appeal will not be reviewed by the Board of Trustees. The decision of the Board of Trustees is final.

10. Records

• 10.1 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974: Academic Conduct case information is recorded and maintained by OSRR in compliance with FERPA. Generally, information contained in OSRR files that personally identifies a student will not be released without the written and dated consent of the student identified in the record, unless allowed by state or Federal law.
• 10.2 Maintenance of Records: Academic Conduct records are maintained by the OSRR in accordance with both UNC and ECU policy.
• 10.3 UNC Suspension/Expulsion Database: Information about students who are suspended, expelled, or have serious pending cases is entered into a UNC database, where it is stored permanently. All UNC constituent institutions have access to this information.
• 10.4 Transcript Notation: Academic Conduct suspensions will be marked on the student’s transcript for the duration of the suspension. Expulsions will be permanently marked on the student’s transcript.
• 10.5 Awarding of Degrees: Violations of this Regulation and/or the Student Code of Conduct, including academic and non-academic violations, may impact degree conferral, and if a student has a disciplinary complaint pending, the awarding of the degree may be delayed until the complaint is resolved, and, if imposed, the sanctions have been completed.