Honor Council hearings are not courts of law. Rather, they are intended to serve an informative and educational purpose for the accused, hearing board members, and University officials alike. Though the University vests hearing board members with an important judicial function, hearing boards are not constituted as arenas to try or prosecute students. Rather, they serve as a forum to find and discuss the facts of the case, consider any special circumstances encumbered by the accused, and then to evaluate the behavior of the accused according to the University’s established guidelines for honesty and integrity in the pursuit of scholarship. Ultimately, the hearing board is charged with making decisions that will serve a mutual interest for Georgetown in its mission to educate each student from a “whole person” standpoint while fulfilling its obligation to preserve academic integrity.
Waivers
In order to expedite the process, the accused student may sign a waiver of his or her right to the usual week’s notice prior to a hearing. When applicable, this waiver will usually be given to the accused student with his or her packet to be delivered to the Hearing Board Chair. In certain circumstances, the Chair may present the accused student with a copy of the waiver at the hearing itself.
If all of the students involved in a case desire to have one joint hearing, they may each sign a waiver of their right to individual hearings. If the students fail to sign such waivers, each student will have a separate hearing. In most cases, however, cases involving more than one student will be held at the same time by the same board, but not as a joint hearing. In these cases, students will present their side of the case to the board one at a time, with all other accused students waiting out of the room.
Hearing Board Structure
Upon referral of a case from the Investigating Officer (IO), the Executive Director and the Faculty Chair of the Honor Council will organize a hearing board and, in writing, notify the accused student of the hearing and the alleged offense. The hearing board will consist of 4 or 5 members, of which 1 is a dean (who will also serve as the hearing board chair). Usually, the hearing board will consist of at least 1 faculty member, and at least 2 students.
The Executive Director and Faculty Chair will make a reasonable effort to construct a hearing board that also satisfies the following 5 conditions. 1) The Hearing Board Chair will be a dean from the accused student’s own school. 2) One student will be from the accused student’s own school. 3) One student will be from a different school than the accused student. 4) There will be a faculty member with an appointment in the accused student’s own school. 5) There will be a faculty member whose appointment is not in the accused student’s school.
If one member of the hearing board, other than the chair, fails to arrive at the hearing within 15 minutes of the scheduled starting time, then, at the discretion of the Hearing Board Chair, the hearing may proceed with 4 members. Whenever a hearing board has only 4 members, at least 3 out the 4 members must vote “in violation” to find the accused student in violation. At least 3 of the 4 members of the hearing board must agree on the imposed sanction, if the student is found in violation.
Under no conditions will a hearing be conducted with 3 or fewer hearing board members.
Hearing Policies
The hearing is closed to the public in all cases.
Hearings typically are not audio recorded, and never video recorded. However, any of the participants in the hearing can request that the hearing be audio recorded. Such requests, with reasons for the request, must be submitted to the Executive Director AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING. The Executive Director, in consultation with the chair of the hearing board, the faculty chair of the Honor Council, the accused student, and University Council, will make the final decision as to whether the hearing may be recorded or not.
Packets
The Executive Director prepares packets for all hearing participants, which should be available one week prior to the hearing. Packets are hand-delivered to deans and faculty members, and must be picked up by students (both accused students and student hearing board members) in the Provost’s Office (ICC 650). Students are to sign a pick-up receipt when retrieving their packets. Packets issued to hearing board members include the following materials:
- Official letter to hearing board member announcing hearing (date, time, location)
- Incident report submitted by the IO
- All relevant background materials, such as copies of the student’s original work (paper, exam, quiz), a description provided by a witness, source documents, another student’s work (in case of alleged cheating), relevant e-mail correspondence, etc.
- A copy of the professor’s syllabus
- Written statement of accused student if provided in time to distribute with packets
The hearing board chair’s packet will also include these additional materials:
- Preamble to the HC hearing
- Hearing decision sheet
- Sealed envelope with information stating whether or not student was previously found to be in violation of the Honor System, the sanction levied and date, and the nature of the previous offense, if any.
- A copy of the Sanctioning Guidelines
The accused student’s packet will include these additional materials:
- Waiver forms if need is known in advance
- Hearing Board members’ names and their school affiliations
Support Person
A family member or friend may accompany the student during the hearing. This person may not participate in the hearing in any way other than in a support role for the accused student. The support person must at all times conduct him/her self solely in a support role, and NOT in a professional or advisory role, even if this person is a lawyer. The support person may sit next to the accused student, so long as this person at all times refrains from participating in the hearing in any way, including making comments to the student. If the support person participates in the hearing in any way, the hearing board chair will reiterate these guidelines regarding the expectations of the support person. If the support person continues to violate these conditions, the hearing board chair may ask this person to leave the hearing.
Start of Hearing
The HBC opens the hearing by reading the following preamble:
We are assembled this evening as a Hearing Board of the University Honor Council to hear the case of alleged ________ [offense (cheating, plagiarism, etc.)] by _________ [student(s) name(s)] of _______ [student(s) school] by __________ [Professor’s name or whoever is making the charge] in ___________ [the course name or particular situation].
Our task is to listen to the case as presented by the Investigating Officer and the student, to ask necessary questions to gain clarification and full understanding of the facts as presented, and then to determine whether there has been or has not been a violation of the University Honor System. If our decision is that there was no violation, then the case will be dismissed. If our decision is that there was a violation, then we will deliberate and assign an appropriate sanction, as set forth by the University Honor System.
Everything that happens in this room is confidential. All materials and notes will be collected at the end of the hearing. Honor Council members are enjoined not to talk about this with other people. Maintaining confidentiality is essential.
The Chair then reviews the hearing board procedures.
All present introduce themselves.
Hearing Presentations
- The Investigating Officer (IO) – The IO is called upon first to present the case, based on all evidence and testimony collected from the investigation. The board members will then ask any questions they have of the IO and the professor or others reporting the case. The student(s) may ask questions of the investigating officer and the professor or others reporting the case.
- The Student – The student is offered the opportunity to speak about the incident, present any other information regarding the case, or to clarify anything that the IO and/or the professor has stated. The board members will then ask any questions they have for the student. The IO and/or the professor may, at the discretion of the hearing board chair, also ask questions. After questions, the student will be given a final opportunity to make a brief closing statement. The hearing board chair will not allow any questioning during or following the closing statement. After the student’s closing statement, the student, the IO, and the professor will be dismissed and the board members will remain to deliberate.
- For cases that involve more than one student – In matters involving multiple students, if all students consent in writing, their cases may be heard in a single hearing. Should all students not consent to a joint hearing, their cases will be heard separately by the same hearing board. (Honor Council Policy and Procedures, VI.C.1.c). If students have consented to a joint hearing, the hearing board chair will establish the order for the student presentations, in consultation with the students. All students are present at the start of the hearing for the dean to begin the hearing and for the IO to present the case. There are no questions at this point. After this presentation, the students who are not first to present will leave the room. The IO will present any additional facts about the case that are unique to the student who is present. The student is then invited to speak about the incident, present any other information regarding the case, or to clarify anything that the IO and/or the professor has stated. There is an opportunity for questions to the IO, professor and student. The student can then make a closing statement. At that point, the first student will leave the room and the second student will join the board. The same procedure will be followed with the second student (IO presents facts specific to that student, the student is invited to speak followed by questions and a closing statement). The same procedure is followed for any additional students. Assuming the board does not have any other questions for any of the students, all students, the professor and the IO are dismissed. The hearing board members will remain to deliberate. The board’s findings regarding violation and recommended sanctions do not have to be the same for all students.
Deliberations
The hearing board chair asks everyone but the hearing board members to leave so that the deliberations may begin. All notes and documentation must be left with the hearing board chair and be brought back to the Executive Director.
A. Determination of “In Violation” or “Not in Violation”
The first thing that must be determined is whether or not the student is in violation of the Honor System. The discussion will have no mention of sanctions, only whether or not a violation occurred, and what that violation was. A violation can occur even if the student did not intend to violate the Honor System. For example, if a student accidentally turns in a plagiarized paper, then plagiarism has occurred. To find the student to be “In Violation,” at least 3 hearing board members must vote “In Violation.”
The Honor Council’s standard for finding a student in violation is based on the preponderance of evidence. This means that for a hearing board member to find the student to be in violation, he/she must believe that the evidence implies it is “more likely than not” that the student committed a violation. Please note that this standard differs from other legal standards used in other cases such as the “clear and convincing” test or the “reasonable doubt” test.
If the student is found to be “not in violation,” the deliberations are concluded. The envelope that states whether or not the student has been previously found in violation of the Honor System remains unopened. The hearing board is free to go and the chair will write up a summary of the hearing and inform the student and the HC Chairs of the outcome. Usually, in a case when the student is found to be “Not in Violation,” the HBC will inform the student that he/she need not meet with the HBC the following day.
If the student is found to be “in violation,” the deliberations continue to the sanctioning stage. The envelope with information indicating whether or not the student has been found previously in violation of the Honor System is opened. If the student has been previously found in violation of the Honor System, the board may use that information when deciding on a sanction. Multiple offenses provide a legitimate basis for issuing a more severe sanction.
B. Sanctioning: The board will determine what the violation was and what is the appropriate sanction for that violation, considering the Honor Council’s Sanctioning Guidelines. There must be a majority vote in favor of the recommended sanction.
Once it is determined what sanction fits the violation, a discussion will ensue regarding any special circumstances that may mitigate or exacerbate the original decision of sanction. There must be a majority vote to change the recommended sanction because of extenuating circumstances. See the Sanctioning Guidelines for a more detailed description of what circumstances may and may not serve as extenuating.
After Deliberations
The hearing board chair collects all materials pertinent to the case from the board members. All board members sign the Hearing Board Decision form confirming the hearing results. The form does not show how any individual board member voted. This form is returned to the Executive Director.
If a majority opinion is reached among the board members (i.e., at least three members), and the dissenting board members refuse to sign the Hearing Board Decision form, this does NOT change the hearing outcome. The form will still note that a majority opinion was determined regarding the outcome/sanction, and the signatures of AT LEAST three board members will appear in support of the decision.
In a case where the board cannot come to a majority decision (at least three board members in agreement) on the sanction, the final vote will be forwarded to the dean of the student’s school. The dean will then make the final sanction decision, after consultation with the Executive Board of the Honor Council, and the hearing board chair.
Post Hearing
The hearing board chair will contact the student, either immediately following the conclusion of the hearing, or at a prearranged time the following day. The hearing board chair will inform her or him of the Board’s decision. If the student was found in violation of the Honor System, the hearing board chair will discuss the sentiment of the hearing board. The Board’s decision is a recommendation to the Dean of the student’s school.
The hearing board chair will communicate to the Executive Director the outcome of the hearing, and will write a summary of the hearing and deliberation. The summary, along with all of the documents from the case, goes back to the Executive Director. The day after the hearing, the Executive Director will then prepare a letter to be signed by the Faculty Chair of the Honor Council, which will go to the student.
If the student has new evidence or if the student believes there was a substantive violation of Honor System procedures affecting the outcome of the hearing, the student has one week from receipt of the letter from the Faculty Chair to file with the Honor Council Faculty Chair a letter of appeal. The appeal will be presented to the Honor Council Executive Committee. The Executive Committee, by a majority vote of members in attendance, can grant the student a new hearing.
If no appeal has been applied for, one week after the hearing the Executive Director will forward the summary along with the recommendation of the hearing board to the appropriate Dean for a final decision regarding a sanction. Otherwise, this material will be sent to the dean following resolution of the appeal.
In those cases in which the Dean is considering changing the sanction, he/she will only do so only after consulting with the Student and Faculty Chairs of the Honor Council and the hearing board chair.
Professor Follow-Up and Grading
If a student’s case is not forwarded to a hearing board by the IO, or if a hearing board finds the student “not in violation”, then the professor MAY NOT impose any additional grade penalty for the assignment, over and above what the student earned for the particular assignment(s) brought to question.
If a student is found to be “In Violation” of the Honor System, the professor may give the student any grade, for that assignment and for the course, that the professor deems as just.