Academic Integrity and Student Grievance Policies

USJ Academic Integrity Policy

Effective starting fall 2014; Revisions effective fall 2025
It is the policy of the University of Saint Joseph that all members of the community act honestly.  By enrolling in or working at the University, all members, faculty, staff, administration and students, implicitly agree to uphold the University’s policy on academic integrity in all areas of campus activity including course work, study abroad, and all experiential learning activities. It is also the University’s policy to ensure that the principles of due process are followed.

Defining Academic Integrity

What is Academic Integrity?

Academic Integrity is when all academic submissions are an accurate representation of the effort and ability of the individual making the submission. (See International Center for Academic Integrity)

Why Integrity?

Although USJ will penalize Academic Dishonesty, integrity bears its own rewards. Working with integrity means that we enjoy real accomplishments; if we cheat, steal, or lie, then we cannot call our “achievements” our own. In the rare case that it would go uncaught, copying from a friend’s test may result in a desired grade but it also leaves the cheater without the skills and knowledge to enter a desired profession. Integrity therefore brings us the satisfaction of real accomplishment and the confidence of overcoming challenges. 

Why is Integrity a Community Issue?

Although some people consider integrity a purely personal matter, every individual’s actions impact our community. The rare student who graduates from USJ having committed Academic Dishonesty only diminishes USJ’s reputation and the value of the degree that goes along with it. Dishonest students who cheat or plagiarize steal from the community. They steal the value of the University of Saint Joseph diploma. They steal from the hard work put in by other students or authors. They steal from the hard work put into teaching by the faculty.  Therefore, it is because USJ values the hard work put forth by its honorable students and faculty members that it so seriously sanctions Academic Dishonesty. 

Honor Statement

Faculty may ask students to sign the pledge below, however, the policy is in force universally, regardless of an individualized pledge. 

Statement of Academic Integrity

It is the policy of the University of Saint Joseph that all members of the community act honestly. By enrolling in or working at the University, all members implicitly agree to uphold the University’s policy of Academic Integrity (AI). This means that all work that is presented to satisfy course requirements be the result of your original scholarly efforts that ultimately improves your skills and knowledge and places value on the USJ degree. Should you violate this policy an AI report will be filed with the Academic Integrity Office and sanctions could range from a reduced grade on the assignment to an F for the course or in extreme cases suspension or expulsion.

Pledge

“I understand the Academic Integrity Policy and have acted with Academic Integrity.”

Academic Integrity Office

 Academic Integrity Officer (AIO)

1. The AIO serves as a resource for the entire university community, including faculty and students concerning the University’s Academic Integrity policy.
2. The AIO initially determines whether an alleged violation would constitute a Level One, Level Two, or Level Three violation, but the Academic Integrity Board (AIB) can amend that initial determination.
3. The AIO presides over AIB hearings.
4. The AIO is appointed by the Provost.
5. The AIO chairs the Academic Integrity Hearing Boards and is a non-voting, advisory member who provides guidance, prior case precedent and assists the student and board members through the decision-making process.
6. The AIO keeps records of all A.I. violations and notifies administrative offices, e.g. Registrar, as required. If any alleged violation does not have sufficient evidence to proceed as a case, all documents will be expunged from the AIO records.
7. If requested by a faculty member and/or student involved in the A.I. case, the AIO may delay proceedings for extenuating circumstances. Documentation of extenuating circumstances may be solicited.
8. If for any reason the AIO cannot preside over an A.I. matter or is otherwise involved in bringing the charge forward, a previous AIO or an academic dean from a school other than that where the alleged violation occurred will serve as acting AIO for that particular case.
9. The AIO will present a yearly report on Academic Integrity to the Provost and the community.
10. The AIO, in collaboration with the faculty member, may submit to the registrar Course Extensions and Changes of Grades, pursuant to academic integrity cases. 
     

Academic Integrity Board (AIB) Undergraduate and Graduate

The AIO will openly solicit faculty and students to be included in a list of available candidates to serve as hearing board members and may also recruit specific members as needed. Hearing boards may be composed of the following:

1. Two faculty members, from different schools; who have taught a minimum of 12 credits at USJ. Usually one faculty member will be from the school where the alleged violation took place, and one will be from a different school.
2. The Chair of the department of the course in which the violation is asserted. If the course is co-listed, the AIO will determine which chair will serve.
3. Three students from different programs, if possible. At least one student should be pursuing the same level degree as the accused student (undergraduate or graduate).

• ​Students who have been found guilty of past violations may serve on the AIB provided (a) they completed the required sanctions and (b) they have the approval of the Dean of their school.

1. The AIO (nonvoting).
2. The Dean of the school that is home to the course in which alleged violation occurred. The Dean is nonvoting except in the case of a tie. If the Dean of the requisite school cannot attend another Dean may take his or her place.
3. Before serving on any hearings, new members (faculty and students) must be participate in an orientation, customarily provided by the AIO. The AIO will attest at the hearing that all AIB participants have been oriented.
4. If the entire complement of the AIB cannot meet, a hearing may proceed with a quorum of two students, and two faculty members, and either a Dean or Department Chair must also be present to serve as a voting member. 

Student Bill of Rights

1. A student is presumed innocent of an academic integrity violation unless and until the student is found to be in violation of the policy.
2. With the exception of other policies outlined herein, the student is otherwise entitled to all rights and coursework in the class until A.I. proceedings conclude.
3. A student may at any time confidentially meet with the AIO about general student rights and the A.I. policy, but the AIO cannot make presumptions of the outcomes of proceedings.
   • As valued members of the University community, students may bring forth a charge of Academic Dishonesty against other students, staff, faculty members either directly to the AIO or through another trusted member of the community.
   • Provided the withdrawal deadline has not passed, a student can submit to the Registrar a request to withdraw from a course. However, that withdrawal will not be executed until the A.I. proceeding is complete, and then may only go into effect if the student did not receive a sanction of an F in the course.
4. If the student’s case goes to an A.I. hearing, the student may opt to have a trusted USJ community member present, but that trusted member may not address the AIB directly. As this is an internal University matter, the student may not have a parent, lawyer, or other non-University person present.
   • In case of extenuating circumstances, e.g. serious illness, the student may submit a written request to the AIO to delay proceedings. The student may be asked to produce documentation, and final determination of delay rests in the AIO’s discretion.

Cases Involving More than One Student

If a charge involves more than one student, the AIO will determine whether the cases should be handled together or separately. Students may seek a confidential discussion with the AIO to request that the cases be handled separately. In deciding whether or not to combine the cases, the AIO shall consider the similarity of facts, the need to have both students as witnesses, the need for consistency in outcome and the likelihood that combining cases will disadvantage a student.

Privacy and Sharing of Academic Integrity Case Information

All academic integrity cases are handled and maintained confidentially by the AIO per the parameters contained herein. The AIO, involved faculty, and/or Department Chair may share case specific information with those who have a legitimate educational interest. Those with a legitimate educational interest include, but are not limited to: faculty writing references for the student, faculty recommending students for honors and honor societies, and faculty and staff that manage or direct experiential learning opportunities. Except for cases where there is an expulsion, Academic Integrity violations are not recorded on a student’s transcript.

Academic Integrity Violations

Violations of the Academic Integrity policy can take many forms. A non-exhaustive list of categories and examples is below. To ensure complete coverage and clarity, there is intentional overlap among the categories. For example, the misuse of generative artificial intelligence is plagiarism, misrepresentation, and cyber fraud.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the use of any material from another source without giving credit to the source for the material. Whenever terminology, ideas, or information from another source-a book, an article, a teacher, a student, the Internet (including artificial intelligence), etc.-is used, it must be cited, so that it is clear from where the information or idea originated. Typically, faculty members will require that students use a predetermined format for attributing material to the original source, e.g. APA, MLA, CSE, AMA, Chicago, Turabian, etc., but the absence of a prescribed format in no way diminishes the necessity for attributing source material.

Here are some examples of plagiarism:

• Copying from another document word for word without quotation and attribution, even if it is only part of a sentence.
• Paraphrasing a passage from another work without giving credit to that source.
• Using a sentence from another work while changing some of the key words to make it appear original.
• Using a quotation but changing or omitting some of the language to make it better suit the point you want to make.
• Using false citations that do not correspond to the submitted work.
• Using information form a lecture or ideas from another person without attributing credit.
• Submitting a paper, or part of a paper, to two different classes without permission from both professions (see also misrepresentations). 
• Using information, statistics, or terminology from a source without attributing credit.
• Uncited and/or prohibited use of content generated by artificial intelligence (faculty may allow or prohibit any artificial intelligence use via assignment instructions, syllabi, or course policies). If a student is unsure what, if any, use of artificial intelligence is permissible, e.g. the use of revisions made by Grammarly, it is the student’s responsibility to seek clarification from the course instructor.

Examples of what is not plagiarism:

• Common Knowledge: References to ideas/language that is commonly known within a field or discipline, or generally known by the average reader, is not considered plagiarism. For example, a citation is not required for stating that Barack Obama is a past President. However, what constitutes “common knowledge” in a given field can be murkier. Typically, the test for common knowledge is as follows: Language/ideas stated in four or more texts that is not attributed to another person will typically fall under “common knowledge.” Some professors might also consider references to class materials or ideas to be “common knowledge” while you are in that particular course, but students need to check with each professor accordingly, and students should not suppose that what one professor considers common knowledge will also be considered common knowledge in another course. Since determining common knowledge can be difficult at times, it is always better to cite information if there is any question as to its status.
• Use of University Resources: The University presumes that students will take advantage of available resources such as tutors at the Center for Academic Excellence and reference librarians at the library. Unless a professor explicitly forbids use of such resources or requires students to disclose the use of such resources, the undisclosed use of such resources is not considered a violation of Academic Integrity.
• Proofreading: Provided only typographical matters are addressed, obtaining proofreading assistance from others is not a violation of Academic Integrity.

Unassigned Assistance

Unassigned Assistance refers to any work you do with other people or tools for which you do not have permission from the professor. If you are assigned a presentation then you must complete that assignment yourself. You obviously may not plagiarize parts of that presentation, but you also may not work with a friend in creating that presentation or purchase/acquire any parts of the presentation from another source.

Cheating

Cheating concerns things such as: copying answers from another person’s test, accessing information during a test from an electronic device, fabricating information or a source, or any other access to information that is not authorized by the professor. Students who allow other students to copy their work are just as guilty of Academic Dishonesty as the students who do the copying.

Misrepresentation

Misrepresentation refers to making false statements in the academic context or committing other fraudulent activities. Examples include lying about the completion of an assignment, about a reason for missing class, about the reason you might want an extension on a due date, etc.

Furthermore, misrepresentation might include the forgery of a professor’s signature, the manufacture of false documents, falsifying a grade, submitting the same paper to two different professors without permission from each (see also plagiarism), etc.

Cyber Fraud

Cyber Fraud concerns things such as misrepresenting yourself during an online course or through other electronic media. It also concerns potentially illegal acts and acts that violate USJ’s IT policies, such as manipulations of USJ computer files and tampering with computer programs or electronic correspondences. As technologies evolve, so will definitions of cyber fraud to expand to include other similar violations.

Submitting Cases of Academic Dishonesty

Any member of the USJ community may bring forth an A.I. matter. Any academic integrity violation can be withdrawn at the discretion of that member.

Faculty

Faculty who discover potential violations will bring them forth according to policies outlined under “Procedures for faculty”.

Staff

If Academic Dishonesty is discovered by any other University agent, e.g., a lie to the Registrar’s Office, the University’s agent in that context will bring the case to the AIO by completing an Academic Integrity Violation Form (AIF). filling out the AIF. 

Proxies

If for any reason a faculty member or other University agent cannot present a charge, e.g., because of serious illness, the Chair of the department in which the course was taught, or the Dean of the School, may act as proxy.

Students Who Discover Academic Dishonesty by Other Students, Faculty, Staff and/or Administrators

Note:  ”Procedural days” refers to weekdays on which regular classes or exams are held. This includes days where classes meet regularly, exam days, and study days. Excluded time includes breaks, e.g., winter break, days where classes are cancelled for weather, and summers (unless the violation in question occurred in a summer class).

1. A student who believes he or she has knowledge of another student’s violation should report it to a trusted faculty member, instructor, or the AIO within six procedural days of the alleged academic dishonesty occurrence.
2. Anonymous reports are permitted. However, anonymous testimony cannot be considered in A.I. proceedings. A faculty member or the AIO may, however, pursue other evidence based on anonymous information.
3. Formal report
   • A student may fill out a formal report by completing the Academic Integrity Violation Form (AIF) in consultation with the AIO or a faculty member.
   • The faculty member and/or AIO may act on the report accordingly.
   • In the case of an alleged violation by a university employee, the AIO may contact the Provost and the faculty/staff member’s supervisor, and/or the Office of Human Resources.
   • The name of the student(s) filing the report will be held in confidence unless the matter goes to a hearing.
4. ​A student filing a formal report may withdraw the report prior to a hearing if they wish to remain anonymous. 

Levels of Academic Integrity Violations

Level One Violation:

Refers to instances where the violation is deemed a small matter of error amidst otherwise sound work. May occur because of inexperience or a lack of knowledge needed for maintaining Academic Integrity. Intent may be questionable.

Examples:

• Writing a 3-5 page paper and shows some attempt to paraphrase and cite, but does not do so throughout the length of the paper.
• Using facts, statistics, graphs, or other illustrative material without proper citation.
• Helping another student with the content of their paper without authorization.
• Lying to a professor to receive an extension.

Level Two Violation:

Refers to instances where the violation is a more significant matter or affects a more significant portion of the assignment or coursework. When it is considered Academic Integrity is understood and yet not followed. 

Examples:

• Copying word for word or lifting phrases or a special term from a source or reference, whether oral, printed or on the internet, without proper attribution.
• The misuse of artificial intelligence.
• Copying from a student on an exam. 
• Helping another student write their paper. 
• Engage in unauthorized assistance when they have been instructed to do their own work.
• Using unauthorized notes or study aids or information from another student or Internet site, including artificial intelligence on an examination or assignment.
• Discussing specifics of exam questions to a student taking the exam in another section or at a different time.

Level Three Violation:

Refers to intentional and blatant disregard for Academic Integrity and the mission of the University. Involves premeditation and/or an essential portion of the work for the course.

Examples:

• Buying a paper or using another person’s paper and turning it in as your own work.
• Submitting a professor’s questions or assignment to an Internet site that may then post the questions and answer (regardless if the student submits the Internet provided answer as his/her own work)
• Stealing a test
• Forging a signature
• Assuming a false identity
• Conspiring to commit Academic Dishonesty
• Fabricating data
• Recurring violations in the same course (even if discovered all at once)

Procedures for Faculty

1. A faculty member who believes he or she has found Academic Dishonesty should, within five procedural days of the discovery, electronically submit the Academic Integrity Violation Form (AIF) to the AIO. The faculty member may consult with the AIO prior to submitting the AIF, but the AIO will not disclose whether or not the student was found guilty of a prior violation until after the AIF is submitted.
   • Either prior to, or after consulting with the AIO the faculty member may meet with the student to discuss the assignment as a part of his or her AI violation assessment.
   • Especially in cases of suspected misuse of artificial intelligence, a student’s knowledge of the content of the assignment and ability to demonstrate work performed may guide the faculty member in the decision to proceed with the allegation.
   • The AIO may assist the faculty and/or conduct an independent investigation that may delay the submission of the AIF beyond the five procedural days noted above.
2. The faculty member may not establish any sanction until the AIF has been approved by the AIO and the AIO has determined (1) whether or not the student has had prior violations and (2) the severity of the violation in question.
3. Group Charged Collectively: If multiple students are collectively charged with the same alleged violation, the faculty member can consult with the AIO to determine the appropriateness of meeting with the students as a group. This does not supersede each student’s right to have his or her case handled individually, though if a hearing is required, the AIO may, in some circumstances, require that the hearings be combined.
4. Within five procedural days of receiving the AIF, the AIO will (1) advise the faculty member as to whether or not the alleged infraction could be considered a violation of the Academic Integrity policy, (2) advise the faculty member if the violation qualifies as Level One, Level Two, or Level Three, and (3) notify the faculty member of any prior violations by the same student. The policy will provide the range of grade sanctions the faculty can impose within the limitations of the level of the violation.
   • After the faculty member receives the approved AIF from the AIO, the faculty member will provide notice to the student of the violation and will share the AIF within three procedural days.
   • Either the student or the faculty member may request that the AIO attend meetings to discuss the alleged violation, and each party may meet with the AIO individually.
5. The student has six procedural days to respond to the allegation, and the faculty member must notify the student of the required response date. The student has four response options:
   • Admit responsibly and accept the consequence
   • Admit the violation and seek a hearing with the hope of reducing the consequence
   • Deny the violation and request a hearing
   • No response, in which case the student is deemed to admit responsibility and accept the consequence.
6. If a hearing is requested or required due to the nature of the allegation the AIO will-e-mail the student within three procedural days of receiving the student response to begin the hearing arrangement process. Cases requiring a hearing include:
   1. A second level two violation
   2. All level three violations
   3. All third violations
7. Timelines that would exceed the academic semester or would need to be initiated outside the academic semester, e.g. intercession or summer, may be delayed until the beginning of the next academic term at the students’ request.

Sanctions

Level One Violation

Sanctions for Level One violations may not exceed a zero on the assignment, and may also involve revision, resubmission, or the completion of additional coursework. In addition to sanctions, faculty members are encouraged to treat Level One violations as teachable moments, but they may also consider the number of prior Level One violations when determining the severity of the sanction imposed. All students found in violation must either complete an Academic Integrity course or meet with a CAE tutor for an A.I. consultation.

Level Two Violation

1. The sanction for a first Level Two violation may not exceed an F in the course. It may include additional coursework, e.g. rewriting the paper for a lower possible grade, but may not include additional coursework and an F in the course.
2. Regardless of other sanctions, the student also must either (a) re-take an Academic Integrity course (if offered), (b) read materials about academic integrity as assigned by the AIO, or (c) meet with a CAE tutor for an A.I. consultation. The student’s graduation will be withheld until either a, b, and/or c is complete. Students may register for the following term, but need to complete required sanctions before future classes can be taken.
3. A student found in violation of a charge during the second semester of his/her last year and receives an F in the course will not be allowed to repeat the course for credit until after completion of any suspension.
4. Students who receive an F in a course because of Academic Dishonesty and who do not need the credits or requirement to graduate do not need to retake the course.
5. A student found in violation of a second Level Two violation will receive an F in the course.
6. A student found in violation of a third Level Two violation will be suspended or expelled from the University. This action requires approval of the Provost.

Level Three Violation

1. The sanction for a first Level Three violation is an F in the course.
2. A student found in violation of a second Level Three violation will be suspended or expelled from the University. This action requires approval of the Provost.

Atypical Violation Patterns

In cases where students have multiple violations at differing levels, the AIO (non-hearing), in consultation with the faculty member, or the AIB (hearing) may alter sanctions accordingly provided they act within the spirit of the sanctions listed, including expulsion. For example, a Level Two violation that occurs on top of a Level Three violation may be treated as a third violation rather than a second violation.

Hearings

Timeline

1. The AIO will convene a hearing of the AIB within twelve procedural days after receiving the signed AIF form indicating that a hearing is required. All parties will be notified through email.
2. The student will be informed of the hearing date, time, and location, and should be given a minimum of two procedural days in which to write a response to prepare for the defense. The student has the right to examine the written evidence or exhibits in the AIO’s possession.
3. Within five procedural days after the hearing, the AIO will email notification of the AIB’s verdict and sanctions to the student, faculty member, and others on a need to know basis.

Verdict

1. The student’s guilt shall be established through majority vote on a more-likely-than-not basis.
2. Circumstantial evidence may be considered by the hearing board. 
3. If the vote results in a tie, the Dean/Chair may vote to break the tie
4. The AIB votes separately on each of the following matters:
   • Whether or not the student is in violation
   • The level of the violation (Level One, Level Two, Level Three)
   • The sanction

Sanctions

Except in the case of an atypical sanction, the AIB must impose a penalty within the range of penalties allowed, as identified herein.

Hearing policies

1. More than one charge against a student can be considered at a hearing.
2. A hearing may be conducted in the absence of the student after the AIO has made a reasonable effort to provide adequate notice of the hearing time, date, and location.
3. The hearing is closed to anyone not explicitly admitted through the A.I. policy.
4. The hearing shall be recorded.
   • The original record of the hearing shall be retained in a confidential file in the Office of the Academic Integrity Officer for a period of five years after the event or two years after graduation unless there is a transcript notation involved, whereby the file will be retained permanently.
   • Only the provost, AIO, or Dean of the School in which the incident occurred shall have access to the hearing records.
5. The student may bring to the hearing a USJ student, faculty, or staff member of her or his choice from the University’s community. A reasonable effort should be made to accommodate the schedule of a support person chosen by the student accused of academic dishonesty.
6. Any AIB member who has been involved in investigating the case or potentially part of the case should not serve on the AIB for that case. A replacement will be appointed by the AIO. AIB members should recuse themselves if they are concerned about a potential bias.
7. The student may confront and cross-examine witnesses.

Appeals

1. A student may not appeal the verdict of any hearing by the AIB, but may appeal the sanction in hopes of a lighter sanction
   • A student may not appeal the sanction for a Level One offense for a first Level Two offense.
2. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Provost and the AIO within three procedural days after the student receives the hearing verdict.
3. Within six procedural days after receiving the appeal, the Provost, who may consult with the AIO when considering the appeal, will respond to the student in writing and notify the AIO of his/her decision.
4. The Provost’s decision is final and the student is permitted no subsequent appeals. 

Reference Material

http://www.clemson.edu/academics/academic-integrity/

Academic Grievance Policy

The University of Saint Joseph Academic Grievance Policy is an umbrella policy to cover any type of academic grievance that is not considered under a separate defined policy. Redress for any grievances covered by the following policies must be pursued according to the procedures specified in the appropriate policy.

• Appeal of an academic dismissal from the University
• Dismissal from an academic program (see Handbook for your program)
• Removal from a clinical/practicum/internship site (see Handbook for your program)
• Appeal of a final grade
• Appeal of an Academic Integrity Sanction
• Grievance procedure for issues regarding disabilities
• Appeal of financial aid decision; financialaid@usj.edu

When a student has a complaint related to their academic program, courses, advising, etc. not covered by one of the above policies and procedures, he or she is encouraged to discuss the matter with the parties involved. If the matter cannot be resolved informally at this level, then the student may file a written, formal complaint. The procedures are:

A student’s grievance originating in any of the school or administrative units is handled by the department chair/director responsible for the unit in which the grievance originates. The written formal complaint should be submitted by the student to the chair or director within five business days of the failed attempt at an informal resolution. The chair or director should make a decision regarding the grievance within 10 business days of receipt of the formal complaint. The chair or director will inform the student in writing of their decision. If the student is not satisfied with the decision, the student may submit a written appeal within 5 days of the chair/director’s decision to the School Dean in the case of an academic department or the Provost in the case of an academic support unit. The dean/provost will inform the student within 10 business days of their decision. The dean/provost decision is final.

Student Internal Appeal Procedures and External Resources

If you are participating in any University of Saint Joseph classes or programs and you wish to appeal a decision or request and exception, the following are links to the appropriate policy and procedure:

1. Final Grade Appeal Procedure
2. Undergraduate Academic Probation/Dismissal Policy and Procedure
3. Graduate Academic Probation and Dismissal Appeal
4. Request an exception to a University Academic or Administrative Policy
5. Academic Integrity Appeal of Hearing Board Sanctions

For students who have exhausted all institutional appeal procedures, the following state and accrediting agencies are available to address complaints:

1. The University’s regional accrediting agency, the New England Commission of Higher Education (NECHE),  301 Edgewater Place, Suite 210, Wakefield, MA 01880, at 781.425.7785 or neche.org
2. The Connecticut Office of Higher Education, at: Office of Higher Education, 450 Columbus Blvd, STE 707, Hartford, CT 06103-1841 at (860) 947-1800; or www.ctohe.org/studentcomplaints.shtml
3. The University of Saint Joseph has been approved by Connecticut to participate in the National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements. NC-SARA is a voluntary, regional approach to state oversight of postsecondary distance education.

If you reside outside of Connecticut, with the exception of California, and are attending the University of Saint Joseph via an online distance-learning course, you can file a complaint with the Connecticut Office of Higher Education at http://www.ctohe.org/SARA/Default.shtml for online programs.

Students who reside in California can file a complaint with:

Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education
2535 Capitol Oaks Drive, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95833
http://www.bppe.ca.gov/enforcement/complaint.shtml

Student Petitions for Exceptions to Policy

Undergraduate and Graduate

A Student Petition may be submitted to the Registrar’s Office to request an exception to an academic or administrative policy for reasons beyond the student’s control. 

The Student Petition process is not intended for:

• Grade disputes
• Academic progression in a program 
• Appeals of academic dismissal, for student disciplinary appeals
• Failure to assume responsibility for meeting published deadlines 

The Student Petition must be submitted in writing using the proper form and attaching any additional or supporting documentation. The policy exception or intended outcome of the petition should be stated in the petition, along with the pertinent reasons for requesting the exception and a rationale for approving the exception. 

Petition approvals, even for medical reasons, are not automatic. Petitions can be approved or denied. The outcome will depend on what policy exception is being requested and the rationale for approval. The more specific the petition and supporting information provided for review, the more thoroughly it can be assessed.

Students requesting exceptions to policy due to medical or extenuating circumstances should provide documentation of the medical condition or extenuating circumstance, or otherwise substantiate their reasons for submitting the petition. 

For example, if you are requesting a late drop and refund for medical reasons, you must include a statement from your physician confirming the dates, medical situation and other relevant information concerning your reason for petitioning. 

Please understand that if you received loans or a refund of loan proceeds from USJ related to a course that you are now asking to drop, you may have to repay the money from the loan or refund to the lender if your petition is successful.  

Where to Submit Petitions

Student Petitions should be submitted directly to the registrar’s office:

• In person
• By  U.S. mail 
• Attachment to an email
• Fax 

The Registrar’s Office will assemble all information related to the petition, including the student’s academic record and transcript, and forward the material to the University Provost, who makes the final determination for all Student Petitions. 

Once the final decision has been made, students will be notified of the decision in writing via U.S. Mail by the Registrar’s Office. It can take up to two-four weeks to process a Student Petition.