Grounds for Appeal

Students:

A student may appeal the decision of the Academic Integrity Committee to the provost on the grounds that:

  1. Fair consideration was not provided to the student, i.e., there is evidence that some aspect of the hearing was prejudicial, arbitrary, or capricious; or
  2. New and significant information, not reasonably available at the time of the initial hearing, has become available; or
  3. The sanction or remedy imposed is not in due proportion to the nature and seriousness of the offense

Faculty:

In addition to the above-listed grounds for student appeals, an instructor/complainant may appeal the decision of the Academic Integrity Committee to the provost on the grounds that:

  1. The instructor is unwilling or unable to carry out a sanction imposed by the committee that involves a student retaking an exam/rewriting an assignment and the instructor regrading resubmitted work.

Appeal Procedures

  1. Within three working days of receipt of the written notification of the decision by the Academic Integrity Committee, the student or instructor/complainant must:
    • submit a letter to the Office of the Provost stating the intention to appeal
    • cite one or more of the specific grounds for appeal, as outlined above and under the Office of Community Standards: Disciplinary Appeals Process
    • supply information that substantiates the grounds on which the appeal is being made.
  1. The chair of the Academic Integrity Committee forwards all relevant materials and the complete hearing file to the provost.
  2. The provost determines if grounds for an appeal exist and, if so, whether or not to accept the appeal.
  3. If the provost concludes that the appeal contains significant new information not available at the original hearing, he or she remands the case to the Academic Integrity Committee to conduct another hearing.
  4. The provost may appoint an ad hoc panel of two faculty members and one student to review the case file for evidence that the original hearing was unfair or prejudicial. If the provost concludes that the student was not given fair consideration, the provost may remand the decision of the Academic Integrity Committee for a new hearing by a newly constituted panel, with directions to correct the deficiencies.
  5. If the provost concludes that the sanction was disproportionate to the offense, he or she may reduce the sanctions imposed by the Academic Integrity Committee.
  6. The provost will assure that the decision honors all aspects of the due process rights of the student, the requirements of this policy, and applicable SUNY Board of Trustees policy. In his or her review, the provost will correct any deficiencies and/or make any adjustments that are necessary. In accordance with the authority assigned to the president of the college by the policies of the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York, the president may modify any decision made by any person or board operating under their authority under this policy as he or she deems appropriate. Any consultation with the president of the college which may be necessary will occur before the final decision is reached. When the decision has been reviewed and approved, the provost shall communicate the findings, together with his or her rationale, to the student, the complainant who brought the charges, the chair of the Academic Integrity Committee, and the campus conduct officer