Earlham College Academic Integrity Policy

Earlham College trusts students who enroll at Earlham to be honest seekers of truth and knowledge. This trust is extended to all students by other students and by teachers, and is manifested in a variety of forms. For example, you may have an in-class exam that is not proctored. Unlike many colleges and universities, Earlham does not ask students to sign an oath affirming that they did not cheat on an assignment, since this would imply that people are either inherently dishonest, or will be honest only when they explicitly swear to it.

Students must be mindful that, although Earlham encourages cooperative and collaborative, rather than competitive, modes of learning, one’s work must still be one’s own, unless explicitly assigned to a group. Giving or receiving aid inappropriately on assignments and tests, submitting artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content in violation of stated rules, or plagiarizing by using words, ideas, or creative content other than one’s own without credit, constitutes a serious breach of our trust in one another and in the integrity of the search for truth.

Because of the rapidly evolving nature of AI tools available, it is useful to distinguish between “assistive” AI and “generative” AI. Assistive AI tools can help with tasks such as grammar and spelling checks in writing, transcription, summarizing longer works, and finding research sources. These tools can help users without creating original content. Generative AI tools receive user prompts and produce new written content, visual images, musical compositions, computational solutions, etc. based on patterns learned from large datasets. Use of these tools raises important questions about authorship and originality, and faculty may determine that their use interferes with the learning process, whether by omitting essential steps in student learning, or by impeding a faculty member’s ability to evaluate student learning. Students and faculty must also consider authorship and copyright before feeding information into these tools. If a faculty member suspects that use of AI has interfered with the learning process for a student, that may initiate the conduct process described below. (Note: both types of AI, as well as human consultation, were used to help draft these definitions.)

Per Earlham’s 2025 Policy on AI Usage in the Classroom, “Faculty members have the freedom to determine if or how students are allowed to use generative AI tools in the classroom, and are expected to communicate course and assignment expectations clearly to students. … Students are responsible for understanding and following all course policies as stated by their instructors on course syllabi and assignments.”  Therefore, not following a course or assignment policy on AI usage may be considered a violation of Earlham’s academic integrity policy.

Those who believe they have witnessed violations of academic integrity should feel the obligation to speak about this to the student(s), and/or report the incident to the instructor if the student declines to self-report.

Academic Dean for Student Success:

The Academic Dean guides faculty and students through the conduct process and records outcomes. When an Academic Conduct Council (ACC) hearing is required, the Academic Dean typically serves as hearing Convenor, but does not participate in consensus decisions of the ACC. The Academic Dean maintains an Academic Conduct File containing all reported cases of academic misconduct.

Dean’s Hearing:

In certain cases, a Dean’s Hearing may be held instead of an ACC hearing. It is convened by the designated Dean with the student, the faculty member, any relevant witnesses, and, if requested, support persons. Dean’s Hearings are closed to non-participants.

Hearing Convenor:

The Convenor for an Academic Conduct Council (ACC) hearing schedules and opens hearings for each case. If the Academic Dean is unavailable or unable to serve for any reason, the Provost or Academic Dean may appoint another Dean or former Dean to serve as Convenor.

Conduct Council Faculty Pool:

The Faculty Pool consists of faculty members of the Student Conduct Council approved by the Faculty Nominating Committee. Members serve three-year staggered terms, which are renewable. They are eligible to serve on Academic and Social Conduct Councils as well as Appeals Boards.

Conduct Council Student Pool:

The Student Pool is made up of current students who have completed at least two semesters, remain in good academic standing, and have no active conduct sanctions during their service. Students who meet the criteria are eligible to participate on Conduct Councils and Appeals Boards. Nominations may come from Student Government and Student Life.

Academic Conduct Council (ACC):

An Academic Conduct Council is convened when a hearing is needed because involved parties disagree, or in cases of High Concern. For the purpose of a given hearing, an ACC is composed of a Convenor, one faculty member from the Faculty Pool, and two students from the Student Pool. The council reviews the charge and evidence, listens and asks questions, and ACC members participate in reaching a consensus decision. If a member has a conflict of interest, they must step aside, and the Convenor will appoint a replacement from the appropriate pool. ACC hearings are closed to non-participants.

Faculty Member (bringing the charge):

The faculty member bringing the charge is responsible for collecting and submitting evidence supporting the alleged violation. They also determine the level of Academic Concern (Low Concern, Concern, High Concern) associated with the violation, unless a Hearing reaches a different final determination. They participate in the conduct process and hearing alongside the student.

Support People:

Each involved party (whether faculty or student) may bring one support person to any meetings or hearings. Support people must be members of the campus community. They help their party understand the process and potential outcomes, and may provide guidance, preparation support, and private consultation. Support people may not serve as witnesses, question participants, speak during hearings unless invited by the Council, or submit statements or evidence on behalf of a party.

Academic Conduct Council Appeals Board (ACC-A):

An ACC-A is convened to review appeals by the Academic Dean or designee. The ACC-A includes the Academic Dean designee as Convenor, one faculty member, and one student, all selected from their respective pools. Members must have had no involvement in the original case. Decisions are reached by consensus and are final.

Earlham College considers that cases of academic misconduct happen at one of three levels, known as Levels of Concern. The Level of Concern for a violation may be determined by the faculty bringing a charge, or by the outcome of a Hearing.

1. Low Concern: violations on low-stakes assignments, or violations stemming from misunderstood expectations or instructions. These violations provide an educational opportunity for students to learn from faculty about college-level expectations and Earlham’s approach to academic integrity. Low Concern violations result in in-course sanctions such as a grade penalty or corrective assignment. Misconduct in this category is reported to the Academic Dean for Student Success, but results in no further institutional action if there are no further violations of academic integrity by the student while enrolled at Earlham.
2. Concern: violations on weighty assignments or advanced coursework, or violations that suggest an intent to deceive rather than a misunderstanding. A second Low Concern violation reported to the Academic Dean is treated as a Concern. These violations may require an ACC hearing, and if the student is found responsible may include sanctions such as a failing grade for the assignment or course from the faculty, and/or institutional sanctions (such as remedial assignments or demonstrations of learning) as determined by the ACC.
3. High Concern: violations that suggest a pattern of disregard for academic integrity, take place in capstone or other high-level coursework or publicly presented academic work, or are otherwise egregious academic violations of Earlham’s values. A second “Concern,” or a third report of academic concern at any level, is treated as High Concern by the Academic Dean. These violations automatically require an ACC hearing, and if the student is found responsible may include institutional sanctions such as suspension or expulsion, in addition to any course or grade penalties from the faculty.

Any faculty member may bring a charge against a student enrolled in their course. Students may also self-report their own violations, or students or employees may bring suspected violations to the attention of a faculty member.

Initial Review

When a faculty member suspects or learns of a violation, the faculty member communicates directly with the student. Ideally, this will take place during an in-person meeting, but if that is not possible, the faculty member may communicate with the student via virtual meeting or e-mail. The faculty member will explain why the violation of College, course, or assignment policy interferes with the learning process, hear from the student, and answer the student’s questions. If faculty and student agree that no violation occurred, the matter ends.

Faculty Determination: Level of Concern

If the faculty and student agree that a violation occurred, the faculty member will determine what level of academic concern to report to the Academic Dean, and any corresponding course sanction. Faculty are not responsible for knowing or incorporating into their determination the fact that a student may have had a prior violation. Sometimes a faculty member may have direct experience with a prior violation, but otherwise it is the student’s right to keep information about any previous violation private, and it is the responsibility of the Dean to use information of previous violations only as required to determine whether the level of concern should trigger a hearing and what type, and as part of the ACC Hearing discussion on sanctions.

Where student and faculty agree in cases of Low Concern or Concern, and the student does not have any previous notices of concern, there is no need for a hearing, though the Dean will record the outcome in the Academic Conduct File.  At the level of Concern, the student will meet with the Academic Dean to discuss the seriousness of the matter and understand the process in case of another violation. 

Disagreement or Appeals

If the faculty member and student do not agree that a violation occurred, or about the level of concern, the faculty member reports the matter to the Academic Dean, and the Academic Dean will have an initial consultation with the student to hear their perspective and explain the process.

At the level of Low Concern, the student may request a Dean’s Hearing to contest the faculty determination or sanction. A Dean’s Hearing is not a court of law and does not adhere to rules of procedure or evidence followed in a state or federal courtroom. A Dean’s Hearing determination shall be based on the preponderance of the evidence: whether it is more likely than not that the student respondent violated the academic policy, and therefore the determination of Low Concern is warranted.

At the level of Concern, if the student does not agree that a violation occurred, or does not agree with the level of concern, the student may request an ACC Hearing. Note that if the Concern results because the faculty’s determination of Low Concern represents the second Low Concern in the Academic Conduct File for that student, the student may request an ACC Hearing to dispute the level of concern ultimately recorded in the Conduct File.

High Concern

In any case of High Concern, whether because of multiple recorded violations or because of the egregious nature of the alleged violation, an ACC Hearing is automatically required, because of the seriousness of the possible consequences.

Institutional Records

Student information in the Dean’s Academic Conduct File is maintained for seven years, in accordance with Earlham’s policy on records retention. The exception is a determination of High Concern, which is maintained in perpetuity and, in cooperation with the Registrar, is communicated in response to an inquiry by a graduate program or other institution requesting information on student academic conduct as part of due diligence.

After a charge is reported, the Academic Dean (or designee) will contact all involved parties to explain the process. When appropriate, the Academic Dean schedules the ACC Hearing, which typically takes place no sooner than 24 hours and no later than 10 business days after the student receives written notice of the charge.

Hearing Structure

An ACC hearing is made up of ACC members (two students and one faculty member), the Academic Dean or other convenor, the student respondent, and the faculty member filing the charge. The student and faculty members may each bring one Support Person if they so choose. All ACC members, other than the convenor, participate in reaching a consensus.

An ACC Hearing is not a court of law and does not follow formal courtroom rules. Decisions are based on the preponderance of the evidence, meaning they will determine whether it was more likely than not that a violation occurred. The Dean convenes and conducts the hearing, makes decisions on procedural questions, and may remove any disruptive participant.

The hearing begins with introductions and an overview of the charge by the Convenor. The Convenor, faculty member, and student may make brief opening statements. Both faculty and student may present evidence for consideration by the ACC members. ACC members, the faculty member, and the student may ask questions. The Convenor determines the admissibility of evidence and resolves any procedural questions.

When ACC members are satisfied they have heard the evidence and responses to their questions, both the faculty member and the student may make final statements. The ACC then deliberates privately to determine whether the student is responsible for a violation.

Determination

The ACC will determine whether or not the student is responsible for the violation of academic integrity, the level of academic concern, and any appropriate institutional sanction. The Dean or designee will provide guidance on typical sanctions to ensure consistency. The ACC may determine one or multiple sanctions, as they deem appropriate to the specific violation.

Once the ACC reaches their determinations, the Convenor immediately notifies the student and faculty member in the presence of the ACC. Within three business days, the Dean sends both parties a formal statement of the decision, including information about the appeals process, if appropriate. The decision is recorded by the Dean in the Academic Conduct File.

A student may appeal an ACC decision only on specific grounds: a significant procedural error that could have affected the outcome, new evidence not previously available that could change the decision, or an inappropriate sanction. The appeal petition must clearly explain which of these grounds applies and provide supporting details.

Petition

An appeal petition must be submitted in writing to the Academic Dean within five business days of the ACC decision, or within one calendar week if the decision occurs during Finals Week or within two days of an academic calendar break. The Dean will review the petition to determine whether it meets the criteria for an appeal. If the Dean decides the petition does not meet these criteria, the original decision stands and the process ends.

Hearing Structure

If the Dean determines the appeal meets one or more of the criteria, the Dean organizes an Academic Conduct Council Appeals Board (ACC-A) to review the petition. The ACC-A Convenor and members (one faculty member and one student) must not have participated in the original ACC process.  The ACC-A reviews the case and makes decisions about the level of academic concern to be recorded in the Academic Conduct File, and any appropriate institutional sanction.

Determination

ACC-A determinations are final. The ACC-A communicates the decision to the parties immediately at the close of the meeting and provides a brief written summary explaining the rationale to the Academic Dean or designee. Within three business days, the Dean sends both parties a formal statement of the decision, and the decision is recorded in the Academic Conduct File.

Faculty wishing to bring a charge to the attention of the Dean must do so before grades are due at the end of the semester or session in which the violation occurred.

If a determination has not been reached in a case of academic misconduct by the time grades are submitted to the Registrar, the transcript will indicate an “M” grade for the course until the matter is resolved.

Earlham College faculty and students on EC faculty-led off-campus programs are subject to this policy. Students on other off-campus programs are primarily subject to the host program rules and standards for academic integrity violations.

Students are responsible for communicating with faculty or the Academic Dean about academic integrity charges or process. If a student does not respond to the faculty or Academic Dean’s request for information or a meeting within ten (10) business days, the faculty or Academic Dean’s determination of the level of academic misconduct concern and in-course penalty will be recorded in the Academic Conduct File and an official notice will be sent to the student by the Dean. In such cases, the student may give a notice of appeal, according to the appeals process described in Section IV, within 30 days from the date of the official notice.

Students suspended as a consequence of academic integrity violations will not be able to transfer credits toward an Earlham degree from courses taken elsewhere while on suspension.

A student may return to Earlham after a period of suspension on the condition that they provide a written statement affirming commitment to Earlham’s standard of academic integrity, in addition to any other requirements for enrollment. The statement should be sent to the Academic Dean and Registrar as part of the consideration for re-admission.

The Academic Dean for Student Success will be responsible for bringing proposed changes and updates to CPC in response to immediate administrative needs or in response to faculty or student concerns, and for a comprehensive policy review every four years (Winter Olympics/World Cup years). CPC will determine whether any resulting changes are minor and can be approved by the committee and communicated to the campus by the Dean, or substantive enough to merit Faculty Meeting approval.