The instructor member must make a determination of responsibility based upon a preponderance of the evidence. The preponderance of the evidence standard means that it is 51%, or more likely than not, that a student(s) is responsible or is not responsible for violating academic integrity. If the instructor has determined that the student(s) is responsible for violating academic integrity, they must do the following:

The student has 20 calendar days to submit an appeal to the Center of Community Standards (CCS). On the 21st calendar day the determination becomes final, and no appeals may be submitted.

The Academic Integrity Hearing Board (AIHB) will review all documents and reports submitted to the Center for Community Standards (CCS) by the instructor and all appeal documents and reports submitted by the student. The AIHB will then make a new determination based upon a preponderance of the evidence. The preponderance of the evidence standard means that it is 51%, or more likely than not that:

1. A student(s) is responsible or is not responsible for violating academic integrity.
2. The instructor did or did not follow course policies when assigning penalties for the violation.

The AIHB may also remand the case back to the instructor if they find that there are documents missing from the instructor's initial report or if they find that the instructor did not follow steps outlined in the academic integrity process. When cases are remanded back to the instructor from the AIHB, instructors are given:

1. Instructions related to what needs to be provided to the AIHB.
2. A deadline for when it must be provided to the AIHB.
   
   

Failure to meet the deadline or failure to provide what is requested by the AIHB will result in the AIHB reversing the instructor's initial determination of responsibility.

If a student(s) does not appeal an instructor's determination of responsible or if an Academic Integrity Hearing Board (AIHB) has found a student(s) responsible. The Center for Community Standards (CCS) will schedule a Conduct Officer Hearing with the student. It is not required that the student(s) attend, and student(s) who do attend are not required to testify or answer questions. Please refer to student rights and responsibilities for more information.

The purpose of this hearing is to:

1. Discuss what happened that led up to a responsible determination.
2. Discuss ways in which to avoid this occurring again.
3. Assign educational sanctions to avoid this occurring again.

Example of Evidence Submitted

• Earlier writing samples from the same course or prior courses
• Demonstrated differences in tone, vocabulary, sentence structure, or complexity

Sample Finding of Fact:
“The Board reviewed the student’s submitted paper alongside three prior writing samples completed earlier in the semester. The Board found a significant and unexplained shift in writing style, including markedly more advanced syntax, discipline specific terminology not previously demonstrated by the student, and a level of fluency inconsistent with the student’s earlier work.”

Example of Evidence Submitted

• Submitted work with discrepancies identified

Sample Finding of Fact:
“The Board reviewed the assignment submitted and identified multiple places where the perspective shifted from first person to third person with no explanation.”

Example of Evidence Submitted

• Instructor notes from a meeting with the student
• Written responses to follow up questions about the paper’s content
• In-class writing or oral questioning

Sample Finding of Fact:
“When asked to explain key arguments and sources cited in the paper, the student was unable to accurately summarize or discuss the material. The Board found that the student’s explanations were inconsistent with the depth of analysis presented in the submitted assignment.”

Example of Evidence Submitted

• Document revision history showing rapid generation of large blocks of text
• Absence of incremental drafting where drafting would be reasonably expected

Sample Finding of Fact:
“The document version history showed that the majority of the paper’s text was created in a single session, with minimal revision or drafting activity. The Board found this inconsistent with the assignment’s stated drafting requirements and the student’s prior writing process.”

Example of Evidence Submitted

• Citations that do not exist or cannot be located
• Sources that do not support the claims attributed to them
• Fabricated combinations of authors and articles where both exist, but the content is mismatched

Sample Finding of Fact:
“Multiple sources cited in the paper could not be located or were found to be inaccurately described. The Board determined that the presence of fabricated or misrepresented sources undermined the credibility of the work as an original student submission.”

Example of Evidence Submitted

• Use of concepts, terminology, or frameworks that are far outside the content of the course
• Content that contradicts course materials without explanation

Sample Finding of Fact:

“The paper referenced rare theories and terminology not introduced in the course and inconsistent with assigned readings. The student did not explain how these concepts related to course content in their appeal submission, leading the Board to question the authorship of the work.”

Example of Evidence Submitted

• Written or verbal statements acknowledging AI use beyond what was permitted
• Inconsistencies between initial explanations and later statements

Sample Finding of Fact:
“During the conduct conference, the student acknowledged using an AI tool to generate portions of the assignment in a manner not authorized by the course syllabus. The Board relied on the student’s statement in reaching its determination.”
Center

Emphasizing the importance of academic integrity in the course syllabus will assist you in addressing it on the first day of class. Information should specify what academic behaviors are prohibited, how you will manage academic integrity violations, and any consequences that may result.

If an instructor suspects a student in academic misconduct, they should collect as much information to demonstrate responsibility. Then they should make reasonable attempts to meet with the student(s) to discuss the event.

Yes, all instructors are required to meet with the student(s) to allow them the opportunity to provide more information about the event.

The standard of evidence should meet the preponderance of evidence threshold. Meaning that the information presented must show it is more likely than not, or at least 51% likely, that the student is responsible.

You can save this link to submit a report here: Submit Academic Integrity Violation Report.

When submitting a report, you must include:

• All evidence collected by the instructor.
• All communications related to meeting with the student to discuss the accusations.
• All communications related to notifying the student of the instructor's determination of responsibility.
• The instructor's course syllabus.

You should include information about the violation, penalties, appeal rights, and inform the student that a report will be sent to the Center for Community Standards. You may also use the template language below:

Hello _______,
Based on the information I have collected, I find you responsible for violating academic integrity in my class. This violates the code of student conduct at Washington State University, and I will file a report with the Center for Community Standards (CCS) regarding my decision to find you responsible. 

You may find an overview of the academic integrity process on CCS’s website: Academic Integrity Process.
I am also assigning you the following academic penalty in alignment with my course syllabus: _________________________
If you disagree with my decision, you may submit an appeal to the Center for Community Standards who will help facilitate that process. Submit an appeal.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

For a first-time academic integrity misconduct event, a student will meet with a Conduct Officer to discuss the matter and will be assigned an educational sanction. If the student has already had one or more academic integrity violations, CCS may refer the matter to an alternative resolution.

After CCS has received a report, we will send the student a letter informing them of the reported event and information regarding their appeal rights. If they choose to appeal, they will have 21 days to appeal from the time that the letter was delivered to their WSU email.

A Conduct Officer hearing is a meeting in which a Conduct Officer will meet with a student in relation to non-academic student conduct incidents, in which a university policy may have been violated. 

An Academic Integrity Hearing Board consists of a committee of 3-4 community members who review appeals of an Academic Integrity violation and will either affirm or overturn the initial decision.

If the student appeals the decision, you will be notified via your WSU email. You will not be required to participate in the appeals hearing process, as it is only a document review hearing.