IV. Academic Information

1. Students' Freedom of Expression and Inquiry At its meeting of January 21, 1974, the Committee on Faculty Affairs approved the following statement for inclusion in the Faculty Handbook:

The professor in the classroom and in conference should, consistent with the nature of the course, encourage free discussion, inquiry, and expression. Student performance should be evaluated solely on an academic basis, not on opinions or conduct in matters unrelated to academic standards.

Students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion, but they are responsible for learning the content of any course of study for which they are enrolled.

Students should have protection through orderly procedures against prejudiced or capricious academic evaluation. At the same time, they are responsible for maintaining standards of academic performance established for each course in which they are enrolled.

2. Review of a Grade Although the individual faculty member is the sole judge of students' academic performance in a course, students have a right, consistent with the statement printed above, to be informed of the basis for the evaluation of their academic performance in courses of instruction.

The Dean of the Faculty and the Dean's Advisory Council have established the following procedure for students who desire a review of an instructor's evaluation of their academic performance in a course: The student should first discuss the matter with the instructor in the course, who should endeavor to explain the basis for his or her evaluation of the student's academic performance. If the student finds this to be unsatisfactory, he or she may request that the division director (or department chair) convene a meeting of the instructor, student, and division director (and/or chair), at which the instructor will explain the standards and criteria used in evaluating the student's academic performance in the course in question. At this meeting, the student may present reasons why he or she feels that the evaluation was incorrect or improperly made. The final responsibility for evaluating students' academic performance in a course, however, rests with the instructor.

If the division director (or department chair) finds that there is reason to believe that the instructor's evaluation of the student's academic performance was prejudiced or capricious, the division director (or chair) should immediately bring the matter to the attention of the Associate Dean of the Faculty for such action as the Associate Dean finds appropriate.

3. Academic Dishonesty The University policy on academic dishonesty was approved by the University Council on March 3, 1976, and is printed in the Student Handbook. Faculty members are requested to read the detailed policy at the earliest opportunity.

Students are expected to inform themselves of the University policy on academic dishonesty upon matriculation at Colgate. An essay by Margaret Maurer, Professor of English, on "Doing College-level Research, with advice on avoiding the Plagiarism Question" (printed in the Student Handbook) provides an excellent introduction to the broader subject. Each first-year seminar at Colgate devotes at least one class period to a discussion of the University policy on academic dishonesty. In addition, it is strongly urged that all instructors inform their students in advance, preferably in writing, of their specific policies and procedures concerning examinations, especially of the "take-home" variety, as well as papers, tests, laboratory assignments, and other academic exercises in a course.

The University policy on academic dishonesty states the following with respect to Disciplinary Procedures:

An instructor who suspects that a student has committed an act of academic dishonesty should inform the Director of Judicial Programs. An instructor who is uncertain about whether the exercise in question involves academic dishonesty or simple negligence is encouraged to discuss the subject with the Director of Judicial Programs.

The Director of Judicial Programs prepares and refers cases of suspected academic dishonesty to the University Student Disciplinary Board, which is composed of faculty, administrative and student members. The instructor and student will be asked to appear before the Board. If the Disciplinary Board finds the student responsible for academic dishonesty, it will assess appropriate sanctions. If the Board finds the student not responsible for academic dishonesty, whatever negligence the student's work represents may be reflected in the instructor's evaluation of the assignment.

Ignorance of University policy concerning academic dishonesty shall not be a defense in any University Student Disciplinary Board proceeding.

In May 1999, the Colgate Board of Trustees approved a new Academic Honor Code that will go into effect in the Fall semester, 2000, and supersede the current system. The Academic Honor Code will appear in the 1999-2001 Student Handbook.

Academic Honor Code: At Colgate University, we believe honesty and integrity are fundamental in a community dedicated to learning, personal responsibility, moral and intellectual leadership, and pride in ourselves and our university. As Colgate students we will represent ourselves truthfully, claim only work that is our own, and engage honestly in all academic assignments. Since articulated standards and expectations can influence attitudes, and because each of us shares the responsibility for maintaining academic integrity, we are committed to upholding the Academic Honor Code.