The procedures for reporting suspected instances of academic dishonesty are contained in the text of the Academic Honor Code, and the material below, including case study examples, is designed to help clarify but not supercede the wording in the Code.

Student Reporting Expectations
A student who believes that he or she may have committed an act of academic dishonesty, is expected to self-report this concern to the instructor in the course or to his or her faculty or administrative adviser (who will in turn communicate this matter to the instructor for investigation and resolution.) When a student knows that he or she has been dishonest, the right and honorable thing to do is to admit the infraction and bear the disciplinary consequences of the behavior. The concept of self-report is consistent with basic expectations of the Academic Honor Code.

If a student suspects another student of any form of academic dishonesty, the student observing the behavior is expected to share that concern with the other student whose behavior is in question and to do so in a timely fashion. Before talking to the other student, the observer is free to consult with others (professors, deans, etc.) preferably without mentioning the name of the other student, but no formal consultation is expected or required. If after sharing the concern with the other student, the observer determines that no infraction has occurred, no further action of any kind if required. However, if the observer still believes that dishonest behavior has occurred, the student observed is expected to self-report the accusation immediately to the instructor in the course or to his or her administrative or academic adviser (who will in turn notify the notify the instructor who will investigate and resolve the complaint through the disciplinary system.) A student's self-report is in no way an admission of guilt. Within three days, the observer is to notify the Associate Dean for Administrative Advising (in the Office of the Dean of the College) to insure that the case is investigated, and if appropriate, referred to the Disciplinary Board for resolution. The role of the Associate Dean is to monitor the report and to insure that the charge is properly investigated and resolved.

An example:
John and Steven are both taking a closed-book exam in Prof. Jones' course, and during the course of the exam, John observes Steven take a note card from his pocket, refer to it, return the card to his pocket and then resume writing the exam. John suspects that the note card was a "crib note" and contained material that was not allowed in this closed-book exam. After the exam, John approaches Steven and shares the concern with Steven. Steven might show John the note card in question, and if it were not a "crib note" and if John concludes that no academic dishonesty has taken place, no further action is required, and the matter is closed. However, if Steven admits to John that he has cheated on this exam, or if John continues to believe that Steven has cheated (regardless of Steven's denial) Steven is expected to follow the self-report procedure and John is expected to report the matter to the Associate Dean within three class days to insure that the incident is investigated and resolved.

Faculty Reporting Expectations
Because plagiarism is the most common form of academic dishonesty detected and reported, it is anticipated that the vast majority of suspected academic dishonesty infractions will continue to be detected and reported by the faculty. Faculty may also be in the best position to note similarities between students' in-class or take-home examinations that might lead the professor to suspect that a student may have cheated on an examination.

An instructor is free to talk to the student whose behavior is in question and to consult with others (other faculty colleagues, the Department Chair or members of the Dean of the College staff, etc. preferably on an anonymous basis) if the instructor has questions about definitions, policy or procedures

An example:
Professor Jones is grading an in-class, closed-book unit examination and finds two exams that she observes to be remarkably similar. In her judgment, the responses are too similar to have been written entirely independently. She also recalls that the two students in question were sitting side-by-side when she distributed the examination. She believes it is likely that one student copied from the other student without the other student's knowledge or that both may have conspired to share answers during the examination. She shares her concerns with both students, and while they admit that they studied together prior to the examination and did sit next to each other during the examination, both deny that they ever looked at the other student's answers.

Professor Jones reports her suspicions to the University Disciplinary Officer, who refers both students to the Disciplinary Board for hearing and resolution.

Another example:
Professor Jones is grading papers and finds one paper that appears to be plagiarized. The student author has included some footnotes and a bibliography of sources consulted, but every page of the 10-page paper contains lengthy quotations without quotation marks, improper paraphrasing, and in several cases, a directing lifting of another author's words or ideas with no citation whatsoever. She confronts the student with her suspicions, and the student admits that she procrastinated on the paper and then took "short cuts" that she later recognized were dishonest.

Professor Jones reports the incident to the University Disciplinary Officer who refers the case to a Disciplinary Board hearing for resolution.