[Common Terms Used] ["All
Call" Protocol]
[Hearing Panel Protocol] [Consideration
of Information] [Effective Questioning] [Standard
of Proof] [Deliberations] [Sanctioning]
When a Case Investigator report recommends to the Honor System Director
that the Case moves forward to an Honor Council (HC) Hearing, the Associate
Director
sends out an email "all call" for volunteers to serve as Hearing
Panelists. Due to time constraints in affording accused students due process,
it
is imperative that
all HC members respond immediately WHETHER OR NOT each can serve
on the Hearing Panel. When the Associate Director
has received commitments via phone or email, he/she assigns
six members to a Hearing Panel. One member is appointed Chair
of the Panel. All members receive the Case report and supporting documentation
at least one day prior to the hearing. Confidentiality must
be upheld! At the time of appointment to the Hearing Panel, a panelist is
informed of all parties involved in the Case. Upon becoming aware of Case participants,
Hearing Panelists must gage whether there is
a
conflict of interest and so inform the
Director.
To make certain that all HC Hearings are conducted with the same quality, it is mandatory that all HC members understand and adhere to HC Hearing Panel procedures.
HC Hearing Panelists should arrive at the hearing room 5 to 10 minutes prior to the start of the hearing if all case materials have been evaluated. If a Panelist does not have time to read Case materials prior to a hearing, Panelists should arrive at the hearing at least 30 minutes prior to the start of the hearing. Promptness and dress is indicative of respect for the task at hand. Student members of the panel should not wear Greek or organizational clothing.
Because being involved in an Honor Hearing is often quite unnerving for students (and sometimes for faculty members as well), the Honor System staff attempts to provide an atmosphere of non-threatening dialogue, dignity of persons, and caring to educate. Throughout the Hearing, Panelists should be mindful of the following verbal and non-verbal behaviors:
Use the golden rule when communicating with all parties. Consider how you would want to be treated through the process, regardless of your violation. Students in higher education are still learning what it means to be "in community." How you approach a hearing may mean the difference between a student being cooperative and remorseful (if a violation has occurred) or walking away from a hearing angry and resentful at the treatment he or she was afforded. Learning takes place when there is discipline AND caring. More information on panel ethics may be found at the following link: Panel Ethics
In conducting the hearing, the Chair uses a Hearing Script provided by the Director. After the tape recorder has been turned on, all participants are introduced. The Hearing Panel then listens to:
The Hearing Panel members and all participants in the Case have the opportunity
to ask questions of each other, as well as offer more information that may
clarify the case.
The ability to ask questions effectively is an important skill for HC members to possess. During a hearing, you will have the opportunity to ask questions of all participants. The following points are important to remember when asking questions:
The HC uses a standard of proof called "clear and convincing
information," defined as follows:
The truth of the facts asserted by the Reporter is highly probable. There is
no serious doubt as to the correctness of the conclusion, but there
is not a need to be conclusive.
In other words, to find the AV(s) responsible for violating the Honor Pledge,
you must be satisfied that most of the information points towards responsible
behavior on the part of the student brought before the Council. This can include
circumstantial information. On a percentage scale, between 51
% and
99% of the information shows that the Reporter's report contains factual
information.
It
is not necessary
to find a "smoking gun;" it is merely necessary to satisfy yourself
that it is highly probable that the student is responsible for the behavior stated
in the Case report.
Panelists should be prepared to vote on whether they think the AV was responsible or not independently of any possible sanction. A panelist should never vote not responsible because, in his or her opinion, a particular sanction would be too harsh. Those issues are separate. The determination of whether an AV is responsible or not should depend on whether or not the Panel believes the student violated the Honor Pledge.
Panelists should not be afraid to speak their opinions, especially if they think that the majority of the group is going to vote differently. If a panelist is convinced the AV is (or is not) responsible for the behavior stated in the Case report, it is his or her responsibility to explain why to the group. This could make a big difference in the final vote.
The deliberations process should center on reconstructing the facts of the event in question as accurately as the information will permit. It is important not to lose sight of the facts. Avoid posing "What if.?" scenarios during deliberations; they are irrelevant.
Finally, panelists should vote, even if they think
they are the only one in the room with that
opinion. The vote may be surprising!
Sanctions can include, but are not limited to any of the following:
A member
of the Honor Council accepts the Honor Pledge as it is, including
the sanction structure.
Sanctions should be considered in a serious manner. It
is helpful to review sanctions used in similar cases to keep the sanctioning
consistent. The sanction
should depend solely on
the three categories and not on personal beliefs that,
for example, a student
should
never be suspended from the University for cheating. The
standard sanction at KSU is failure in a course with a notation on the
transcript (XF grade). Some KSU instructors assign lesser
sanctions, but add the requirement that the Honor Pledge violator enrolls in
and successfully completes the Academic Integrity
course.
Alleged Violator-The student who is alleged to have violated
some aspect of the Honor System.
Deliberation-Process during a hearing in which Hearing Panelists,
in closed session, determine student responsibility and sanctions.
Hearing Panelist-A member of the adjudicating Hearing
Panel responsible for listening to Case information, evaluating Case documentation,
and deliberating with other panelists in a closed session about 1) whether
a
student is responsible for violating the KSU Honor Pledge; and 2) if so,
what sanction(s) to administer.
Hearing Panel-An adjudicating body of the Honor System composed
of six Honor Council members. The position of Chair of the Hearing Panel alternates
between being assigned to a
student
member
and a faculty/staff
member.
The Chair is a non-voting member whose primary duty is to conduct the hearing
with the help of a script drawn up by the Director. The rest of the Hearing
Panel is comprised of three student members and two faculty/staff
members.
Hearing Script-A formatted Honor System document used
during hearings. The Director updates each script with current information
about the Case. The Chair of the Hearing Panel reads the script during
the hearing. Hearing Panelists, AV(s), and Report all have access to the
script before the hearing.
Honor Council (HC) Hearing-A Hearing is a meeting held to determine
whether a student(s) has violated the Honor Pledge. A hearing is not
a legal proceeding and professional legal counsel may not speak to the Hearing
Panel during the hearing, although may confer with the AV. HC
hearings are private and all persons participating in a hearing must
guard
the confidentiality of the hearings. Hearing Panel members are prohibited
from expressing an opinion concerning the offense to anyone during the
investigation and throughout the course of the Hearing Panel's proceedings.
Reporter-The individual (faculty or student) who reports
a Case to the Honor System.
Sanction-A penalty assigned to a student responsible
for violating the Honor Pledge. Sanctions may include, but are not limited
to
Standard of Proof-Clear and convincing information that supports the Reporter's version of the actions that occurred, and that the AV is responsible for having violated the Honor Pledge (i.e. has either given or received unauthorized aid on some academic work.)