Honor System Policies | Georgetown University Honor Council

I. Introduction

As a Jesuit, Catholic university, committed to the education of the whole person, Georgetown expects all members of the academic community, students and faculty, to strive for excellence in scholarship and in character.

To uphold this tradition, the University community has established an Honor System for all degree-seeking undergraduate students, students seeking terminal master’s degrees (with the exception of the Master of Business Administration (MBA) programs); and doctoral students with regard to their coursework (e.g., the Honor System does not apply to cases involving dissertations or qualifying exams).

The Honor Council is the principal administrative body of the Honor System. The Honor Council has two primary responsibilities: to administer the policies and procedures of the Honor System and to educate the faculty and student bodies about the standards of conduct and procedures of the System.

II. The Honor Pledge

Upon application to any of the academic divisions of Georgetown University subject to the jurisdiction of the Honor System, all students will agree to uphold the Honor Pledge. Upon matriculation, the student will state or write the pledge as follows:

In pursuit of the high ideals and rigorous standards of academic life, I commit myself to respect and to uphold the Georgetown University Honor System:

To be honest in every academic endeavor, and

To conduct myself honorably, as a responsible member of the Georgetown community as we live and work together.

Faculty may at their discretion require students to include a signed version of the pledge with their assignments.

III. Standards of Conduct

Without regard to motive, student conduct that is academically dishonest, evidences lack of academic integrity or trustworthiness, or unfairly impinges upon the intellectual rights and privileges of others is prohibited. A non-exhaustive list of prohibited conduct includes:

A. Cheating on Exams and Other Assignments

Cheating is the use or attempted use of unauthorized materials, information, study aids, or unauthorized collaboration on in-class examinations, take-home examinations, or other academic exercises or course deliverables. It is the responsibility of the student to consult with the professor concerning what constitutes permissible collaboration. Cheating or assisting another student to cheat in connection with an examination or assignment is academic fraud.

B. Committing Plagiarism

Plagiarism, in any of its forms, and whether intentional or unintentional, violates standards of academic integrity. Plagiarism is the act of passing off as one’s own the ideas or writings of another. While different academic disciplines have different modes for attributing credit, all recognize and value the contributions of individuals to the corpus of knowledge and expertise. Students are responsible for educating themselves as to the proper mode of attributing credit in any course or field.

Note that plagiarism can be said to have occurred without any affirmative evidence showing that a student’s use of another’s work was intentional.

Faculty may use various methods to assess the originality of students’ work. For example, faculty may submit a student’s work to electronic search engines, including Turnitin, a service to which the Honor Council and the Provost subscribe.

C. Contract Cheating

Paying another student or other individual, or otherwise engaging in formal or informal arrangements by which another student, individual, organization, or system does one’s coursework violates standards of academic integrity. Contract cheating is considered to be among the most serious forms of academic misconduct because of the obvious intent to deceive. Moreover, advertising to provide or providing such assistance is academic fraud and a violation of the Georgetown Honor System.

D. Using False Citations

False citation is academic fraud. False citation is the attribution of intellectual property to an incorrect or fabricated source with the intention to deceive. False attribution seriously undermines the integrity of the academic enterprise by severing a chain of ideas which should be traceable link by link.

E. Submitting Work for Multiple Purposes – “Self-Plagiarism”

Students are not permitted to submit their own work (in identical or similar form) for multiple purposes without the prior and explicit approval of all faculty members to whom the work will be submitted. This includes work first produced in connection with classes at either Georgetown or other institutions attended by the student.

F. Submitting False Data

The submission of false data is academic fraud. False data are data that have been fabricated, altered, or contrived in such a way as to be deliberately misleading.

G. Falsifying Academic Documentation

Any attempt to forge or alter academic documentation (including transcripts, letters of recommendation, certificates of enrollment or good standing, registration forms, and medical certification of absence) concerning oneself or others is academic fraud.

IV. Student Status with Respect to the Honor System

All traditional Georgetown University undergraduate students, terminal master’s degree students except those enrolled in the MBA program, and Ph.D. students enrolled in coursework, usually in their first two years of study, are subject to the rules and procedures of the Honor System. Students in the School of Continuing Studies enrolled in non-degree programs such as certificate programs and students pursuing the M.D. or law degrees are not subject to the Honor System.

The Honor Council shall investigate and adjudicate, if appropriate, an alleged Honor System violation even if the accused student drops or is withdrawn from a course within the allowed deadlines.

If a possible violation is reported after the grade for a course has been submitted, a case will be adjudicated only if the Executive Board determines that the alleged offense is of sufficient gravity to warrant considerations. Only matters that could reasonably result in sanctions reflected in a student’s permanent record will ordinarily meet the “sufficient gravity” test in this context.

If a student with a possible violation withdraws, transfers, or is, for any reason, not currently enrolled at Georgetown, the University may maintain a continuing interest in, and complete the adjudication of the matter, if, in the judgment of the Executive Board, the matter is of sufficient gravity to warrant resolution. Only matters that could reasonably result in sanctions reflected in a student’s permanent record will ordinarily meet the “sufficient gravity” test in this context. The Executive Board shall have the discretion to determine whether the adjudication will occur before or after the student’s re-enrollment.

A student may not graduate with an unresolved Honor Council allegation. Certification for the degree will be withheld pending a final resolution of the Honor Council matter.

If a possible violation is reported after a student has graduated, transferred, or otherwise terminated his or her enrollment at the University, a case will be adjudicated only if the Executive Board determines that the case is of sufficient gravity to warrant consideration. Only matters that could reasonably result in sanctions reflected in a student’s permanent record will ordinarily meet the “sufficient gravity” test in this context. Following adjudication in a case involving a student who has already received a degree, the Hearing Board shall have the authority to recommend sanctions up to and including the revocation of the student’s degree.

V. The Honor Council

A. Membership

The Honor Council shall consist of three Assemblies: students, faculty, and deans’ representatives. Each assembly will select from its members individuals to serve on the Executive Committee of the Honor Council. Members of each assembly are expected to serve periodically on Honor Council committees. The full membership of the Honor Council shall convene periodically as deemed necessary by the Executive Board.

The Executive Board

The Executive Board of the Honor Council shall consist of the Faculty Chair, 2 undergraduate students, 2 graduate students and the Executive Director.

The Executive Committee

The Honor Council Executive Committee (ExCo) shall be led by the Faculty Chair, who is appointed by the Provost. The Executive Director of the Honor Council reports to the Office of the Provost, and serves as the non-voting administrative officer for the Honor Council. The Executive Committee shall consist of twenty-four members: eight students, including the student members of the Executive Board; six faculty members; and six members of the deans’ offices. Board. At least one year service on the Honor Council is required before one is eligible to serve on the ExCo. Chairs of Honor Council committees may serve in an ex officio capacity, on the Executive Committee.

The Decanal Assembly

Two members of the dean’s offices of each school shall be appointed by the school Deans for staggered two-year terms.

The Faculty Assembly

All full-time faculty, including administrators and staff who are or have been teaching faculty, are eligible to serve with the Honor Council. The assembly is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct and sitting on hearing boards. The number of faculty per school is based on the total number of undergraduate and graduate students in the school. All faculty members may serve on hearing boards and serve as investigating officers.

The Student Assembly

Students may apply to the Honor Council at any time of the academic year with primary recruiting occurring early in the fall semester. The assembly shall be composed of representatives from each school both at the undergraduate and graduate levels, as appropriate, for no fewer than forty members. Each spring, a review of student participation in Honor Council activities will be conducted to determine which students will be invited to continue the following year. Students who have not participated, usually based on scheduling conflicts, may request to remain on the assembly. Each spring an application review committee made up of six students (3 undergrads, 3 grads) will be composed to review applications in the fall term. Normally, students enrolled in their first semester at Georgetown are not eligible to serve on hearing boards.

Committees

The Sanction Reduction Board is a standing committee of the Honor council. The Board is chaired by one or two students who report to the Executive Director. Including the chair(s), a maximum of nine students make up the board. Students may apply to serve on the board and shall be appointed by the Executive Director in consultation with the chair(s) based on previous service to the Honor Council.

The ExCo may elect to develop additional standing committees or task forces as needed.

B. Duties

The primary responsibility of the Executive Board is to review all cases investigated by the Honor Council and will adjudicate them fairly, consistently, and expeditiously. This review committee shall include the Faculty Chair, Executive Director and one student at the same level as the accused student. Final decisions of the Executive Board will be based on a majority (2:1) vote of the members.

The Executive Committee shall, on the advice and consent of the general membership, determine and implement the policies and procedures of the Honor System. The Executive Committee serves as the appeals board in instances when a student appeals the outcome of a hearing board. A final vote on any matter may be taken only if a quorum, defined as at least 3 members from each assembly, are present. If a quorum is present, the final decision is based on a majority vote of the attending members. The Executive Committee shall convene at least three times per semester.

The Decanal Assembly

The primary responsibility of the decanal officers is to chair hearing boards with voting rights. All decanal officers are eligible to serve as hearing board members.

The Faculty Assembly

This assembly is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct and sitting on hearing boards. All faculty members may serve on hearing boards as voting members and serve as investigating officers.

The Student Assembly

All members of the Student Assembly, except first year students, may serve as peer consultants to any student accused of an academic violation. Students will be assigned to a case at the time that the accused student is notified of the allegation. Students also serve on hearing boards as voting members. Students are also required to participate in the wider mission of educating the community about issues of academic integrity. This may occur via presentations, workshops or other Honor Council activities.

Committees: The Sanction Reduction Board

The Honor Council student Sanction Reduction Chair (or co-chairs) report to the Executive Director and oversee the Sanction Reduction Program and chair the Sanction Reduction Board. The Sanction Reduction Board guides students, who have been found “in violation” of the Honor System, through the Sanction Reduction process to help them learn from their violations. Individual board members work one-on-one with students to help them develop student-specific plans, which allow them to reflect on and grow from their violations of the standards of conduct. The Chair(s) collect and provide data annually to the Executive Director for inclusion in the annual report.

General Duties of the Council

The Council will initiate and coordinate campus-wide educational efforts concerning academic integrity and the Honor System, ensuring that students, faculty, and administrators are fully informed about the Standards of Conduct and the Honor System. These efforts will include: working with the Office of Student Affairs to provide information and documents during New Student Orientation concerning the Honor System, and to have students pledge during convocation to adhere to the Standards of Conduct set forth in the Honor System; meeting directly with faculty to discuss the Honor Policy, and formulating recommendations regarding how faculty can promote academic integrity through class discussions, syllabi, and assignments.

The Council will publish the names of its members on its website.

The Executive Director and Faculty Chair will periodically review all cases reported to the Council, to ensure consistency.

The Council will issue an annual report to the Main Campus Executive Faculty, Provost, and the Deans. This report will list in aggregate all the cases brought to the attention of the Honor Council and their outcomes. To insure confidentiality, the names of the students involved will not be noted.
The Council will periodically review the Honor System and recommend improvements in the policies or procedures if needed. Significant policy changes to the Honor System will be approved by the Main Campus Executive Faculty AND Provost. “Add MCEF review.“

VI. The Honor System Procedure

The general procedure can be divided into four stages: report, investigation, adjudication, and sanction.

A. Report

Any member of the University community with information concerning a possible act of academic dishonesty should report it to the Honor Council via the GU360 portal. Faculty members are obligated to report apparent violations. As responsible members of the academic community, students are strongly encouraged to support the Honor System as well by reporting acts of suspected academic dishonesty.

Although the person making the report may first do so orally or by email, the formal report must be made via GU360 and must describe in detail the information upon which it is based insofar as the facts are known. Any faculty member or student involved in a case brought to the Council is responsible for furnishing relevant evidence.

B. Investigation

The Investigating Officer (henceforth, IO) will conduct an inquiry into the allegations. The investigating officer will inform the student(s) of the nature of the allegation, and evaluate the evidence. The IO shall make all reasonable efforts to interview the student, the professor in whose class the incident may have occurred if needed, the complainant (if other than the professor), and any potential witnesses. Both the faculty reporting a suspected violation and the student(s) subject to an investigation are obligated to respond quickly to the investigating officer’s communications.

If the IO determines that there is insufficient evidence of a violation to warrant formal adjudication then the report shall be reviewed by the Executive Board and may be dismissed. Under these circumstances, no record of the report or its outcome shall be retained in the Honor Council’s student file. Under no circumstance shall a dismissed report be considered a violation or have any bearing on subsequent cases involving the student. A notation of the matter itself will be kept by the Council as part of its record of reports, with the student’s name expunged.

If the IO determines that sufficient evidence of a violation exists to warrant formal adjudication, the IO will refer the matter for adjudication and make all materials available to the Executive Board.

C. Adjudication

Expedited Sanction

Under certain circumstances, a student who has been accused of an Honor System Violation may be given the option, in lieu of having a hearing, of accepting a finding of “In Violation” with a specified recommended sanction made by the Executive Board.

After completing the investigation of a possible Honor System violation, the investigating officer (IO) has the option of indicating on the standard Incident Report, a recommendation that the accused student be given the option of accepting a specified sanction recommended by the Executive Board in lieu of having a hearing. The IO will do this only if the student takes full responsibility for the violation in his or her interview(s) with the investigating officer, and the student understands the nature and gravity of the offense. This should be made clear in a written statement by the student which will be included in the student’s case file.
Upon the recommendation of the IO, the Executive Board, after consideration of the case materials and IO’s report, will determine by a majority if, in its judgment, it is appropriate to offer the student this expedited process and, if so, what an appropriate sanction may be. Such sanction will take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as provided for by the Honor System’s Sanctioning Guidelines.
The recommendation of the Executive Board will be conveyed to the IO who, in turn, will communicate the proposed sanction to the student in a face-to-face meeting, or by telephone/Zoom conversation, or by email with replies. The IO must inform the student that this sanction, if accepted, will be the Honor Council’s final determination. The IO also will inform the student that if the student accepts the sanction, the professor of the course retains sole discretion over the student’s grade in the course. The date and time of the IO’s offer and the student’s decision will be recorded.
The student will have 24 hours to accept the offer. If the student does not accept the offer within 24 hours, the offer is withdrawn, and presumed to have been declined. The student may rescind his or her acceptance up to 48 hours after the offer was made by the IO. If the student rescinds his or her acceptance, the offer of an expedited process is withdrawn. Under special circumstances, the IO may allow the student limited, additional time to make a decision. The granting of additional time shall be in writing. The date(s) and time(s) of the student’s communications with the IO regarding the expedited sanctioning offer will be recorded.
If a student declines an offer (or rescinds an acceptance of an offer) and opts instead to have an Honor Council hearing, the Hearing Board will not be informed that the student was offered the expedited process.
If the student accepts an offer and the 48-hour rescission period passes, the Honor Council will consider the sanction as final and the case as concluded.

Hearing

Following receipt of a case from the investigating officer and if the Executive Board votes to move the case to a hearing, the Executive Director of the Honor Council shall organize a hearing board, and shall, in writing, notify the student of this fact. The letter to the student shall include a list of the hearing board members. The investigating officer may not be a member of the hearing board, but is invited to the hearing for a verbal review of the investigation and to answer questions.

The hearing board shall generally consist of five members of the Honor Council, including at least one member of the decanal assembly, at least member of the student assembly, and at least one member of the faculty assembly. At least one graduate student and faculty member who teach in programs with graduate students may serve on hearing boards for graduate students, unless approved by exception by the accused student. Usually, the decanal member, who serves as the hearing board chair, would be from the school of the accused student. If necessary, at the discretion of the Executive Director or the Hearing Board Chair, the hearing may proceed with four members.
In matters involving multiple students involved in the same accusation, their cases may be heard in a single hearing with each student’s case heard independently. In instances involving multiple students in a class but in which the students did not interact in the alleged offense, the cases will be heard separately.
The Executive Director shall prepare all written materials to be considered by the hearing board and make them available to the accused student at least seven days before the hearing. Any statement or corroborating evidence the accused student wishes to present to the hearing board should be submitted to the Executive Director at least 48 hours before the hearing. After that, statements and evidence may be accepted by the hearing board at its discretion. With the mutual agreement of the Honor Council and the accused student, a hearing may be held with fewer than seven days’ notice provided a hearing board reasonably can be assembled and the student will agree in writing waiving the seven days’ notice, in which case the student also may present a statement or corroborating evidence fewer than 48 hours in advance of the hearing.
If a student fails without good cause to appear at a scheduled hearing, a hearing may be held and the matter resolved with the student in absentia.
The hearing will be closed to the public in all cases. The accused student may be accompanied by another person who may serve as a source of support. For example, students have chosen to bring a parent, a friend, a priest, or an attorney to a hearing to serve in this capacity. This person may not participate directly or indirectly in the proceedings.
The hearing board shall decide whether the student is “in violation,” i.e., whether the student has violated the University’s Honor System. Three of the board members must vote “in violation” based upon the preponderance of the evidence in order for sanctions to be recommended.
If the student is found in violation, and a preliminary determination of a sanction has been decided, only then will the hearing chair refer to the student’s record to determine whether the student committed previous Honor System offenses.
If the student is found in violation, the hearing board will recommend one of the following five sanctions: a letter of reprimand in the student’s Honor Council file, a letter of censure in the student’s Honor Council file, an academic dishonesty notation on the transcript, suspension for academic dishonesty, or dismissal for academic dishonesty. More information on these sanctions can be found below in the Sanctions section.
Once the hearing board reaches a decision and the hearing has concluded, the chair of the hearing will notify the student of the board’s recommendation to the Honor Council. The Faculty Chair of the Honor Council will communicate in writing within 24 hours directly to the student the outcome of the hearing and the board’s decision.
The student may petition the Honor Council for a new hearing within seven days of the date of the letter from the Faculty Chair informing the student of the outcome of the hearing. A new hearing shall be granted only on the basis of new evidence or a significant and material violation of procedure. The request for a new hearing must be explicit regarding evidence that is new and not to have been available at the time of hearing, or a procedural violation by the Honor Council or any participant in advance of or at the hearing. The Executive Committee of the Honor Council shall determine, by its sole discretion through a majority vote of the Committee members (excluding any members who served on the original hearing board), whether a new hearing may be granted. A new hearing board will be constituted in the same manner as the original hearing board. No member of the original hearing board, or of the Executive Committee who voted on the appeal, may be a member of the new board without the student’s written approval.
After the period for an appeal for a new hearing has passed, the Honor Council will consider the sanction as final and the case as concluded.

Sanctions

A letter of reprimand may be issued for very minor violations against the Honor System. The letter of reprimand is placed in the student’s Honor Council file. Information about the letter of reprimand is not shared with those outside the University without the student’s consent except as permitted by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Within the University, in accordance with FERPA this information is available only to authorized University personnel who, in their professional capacity, have access to a student’s file.
For more serious acts of academic dishonesty, a student may receive a Letter of Censure. The Letter of Censure becomes part of the student’s permanent record in their honor council file and, under appropriate circumstances, may be shared with persons outside the Georgetown community. There are two Letters of Censure: one permanent Letter of Censure: Level II to remain in the student’s academic file in perpetuity; and a reducible Letter of Censure: Level I to remain in the student’s honor council file unless and until reduced or removed through the student’s successful completion of a sanction reduction (see below).
For violations sufficiently serious to be noted on the student’s permanent academic record (transcript), a student may receive a transcript notation. A transcript notation will be noted as follows: “Censure for Violation of Honor System.” This mid-level sanction will be evident to any individual or institution that receives the student’s transcript. There are two levels of transcript notation:
1. Level I Transcript Notation: Eligible for Sanction Reduction is an entry on the student’s transcript which reads as follows: “Censure: Violation of Honor System. This notation can be removed on [date] through student action.” The student action noted would be the successful completion of a sanction reduction plan.
2. Level II: Transcript Notation: Not Eligible for Sanction Reduction is a permanent entry on the student’s transcript which reads as follows: “Censure: Violation of Honor System.”
Sanction Reduction (see below): Students wishing to have either a level one letter of censure or level one transcript notation reduced, however, may do so completing a sanction reduction plan. The reduced sanction would take effect two years from the last day of the semester in which the violation occurred.
For the most serious offenses against the Honor System, a student may be suspended or dismissed from the University. These sanctions are permanently noted on the student’s transcript as follows: “Suspension (or Dismissal): Violation of Honor System.” A student cannot receive credit toward a Georgetown degree for work completed elsewhere during a period of active suspension for a violation of the Honor System.
A student’s disciplinary and academic record, including whether an Honor System sanction was imposed, may be considered as part of the application process for Georgetown approved study abroad programs. An Honor System violation should not necessarily preclude approval for study abroad. A student cannot receive Georgetown approval to study abroad during a period of active suspension for a violation of the Honor System.
Regardless of the sanction imposed by the Honor Council, if a student is found in violation, the faculty member involved may fail or reduce the grade for the student, for the assignment, or for the course, at his or her discretion. It should be noted that a student who has been graded within the discretion here afforded to the professor does not have recourse to the standard grade appeal process to appeal this grade. If, however, the student is found not in violation, the faculty member may not penalize the student on grounds of academic dishonesty.
To the best of their ability, the Executive Board and hearing boards who determine the final sanctions follow sanctioning guidelines established to provide for judicious, consistent, and proportionate outcomes. These guidelines are available on the “Sanctioning Guidelines” section of the Honor Council website. The guidelines will be updated from time to time as needed.

Sanction Reduction

As an integral part of the Honor Council, the Sanction Reduction Board guides students, who have been found “in violation” of the Honor System, through the Sanction Reduction process to help them learn from their violations. Individual board members work one-on-one with students to help them develop student-specific plans, which allow them to reflect on and grow from their violations of the standards of conduct. A student who successfully completes a Sanction Reduction plan will have his/her sanction reduced two years after the end of the semester in which he/she violated the Honor System. All sanctions are reduced to a Letter of Reprimand, which is removed upon graduation or immediately, if the student has already graduated.