Dec 12, 2024

2015-2016 Course Catalog

HELP

2015-2016 Course Catalog [ARCHIVED CATALOG]

Academic Integrity and Student Grievance Policies

Academic Integrity Policy

Defining Academic Integrity
Academic Dishonesty
Academic Integrity Office
Categories of Academic Violations

Student Grievance and Appeal Procedure

Undergraduate
Graduate

USJ Academic Integrity Policy

Effective Starting Fall Semester 2014

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 on academic integrity.

Defining 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

Some faculty members choose to require that students write and sign the following Honor Statement when submitting work, but all assignments assume this pledge whether or not it is made explicit:

“I understand the Academic Integrity code, have acted with Academic Integrity, and I have not witnessed any instances of Academic Dishonesty by other students.”

Academic Dishonesty

Violations of the Academic Integrity policy can take many forms. Some examples of those forms follow, but they should not be viewed as an exhaustive list:

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the use of any material from another source without giving credit for that material back to the source. Whenever we use the terminology, ideas, or information from another source - a book, an article, a teacher, a student, the Internet etc. - we must make it clear that the information came from that source. Therefore, we can take credit only for ideas and language that are uniquely our own. Typically, faculty members will require that students use a predetermined format for attributing material to the original source, e.g., APA, MLA, CBE, 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 just part of a sentence
Paraphrasing a passage from another work without giving credit back to that source
Using a sentence from another work while changing some of the key words in someone else’s work to make it appear original
Using a quotation but changing or omitting some of the language in order to make it better suit the point you want to make
Using information from 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 professors
Using information, statistics, or terminology from a source without attributing credit

Examples of what is not plagiarism:

Common knowledge: References to ideas/language that are commonly known within a field or discipline, or just generally known by the average reader, is not considered plagiarism. For example, a citation is not required for stating that Barack Obama is president. However, what constitutes “common knowledge” in a given field can become 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, or specifically attributed to another person typically falls 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. 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, or unless a professor explicitly requires otherwise, getting assistance from a peer in proofreading a paper is not a violation of Academic Integrity

Unassigned Collaboration

Unassigned collaboration refers to any work you do with peers 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. Some faculty members allow students to receive feedback from peers or tutors provided the work remains original, but students should make sure they have that permission before engaging in any collaboration.

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. Under the Honor Statement, a student who has witnessed Academic Dishonesty and fails to report Academic Dishonesty has committed a misrepresentation. Furthermore, misrepresentation might include the forgery of a professor’s signature, the manufacture of false documents, falsifying a grade, or submitting the same paper to two different professors without permission from each.

Cyberfraud

Cyberfraud concerns things such as misrepresenting yourself during an online course or through other electronic media. It also concerns more serious and potentially illegal acts such as manipulation of USJ computer files and tampering with computer programs or electronic correspondences. As technologies evolve, so will definitions of cyberfraud expand to include other similar violations.

Academic Integrity Office & Committees

Academic Integrity Officer (AIO)

The AIO serves as a resource for both faculty and students concerning the University’s Academic Integrity policy
The AIO initially determines whether an alleged violation would constitute an incidental, typical, or flagrant violation, but the Academic Integrity Board (AIB) can amend that initial determination
The AIO presides over AIB hearings
The AIO is appointed by the provost
The AIO sits on the Academic Integrity Board in a non-voting, advisory context
The AIO keeps records of all AI violations and notifies administrative offices, e.g. registrar, as required
If requested by a faculty member and/or student involved in the AI case, the AIO may delay proceedings for extenuating circumstances. Documentation of extenuating circumstances may be solicited.
The AIO is the institutional representative/member of the International Center for Academic Integrity. As a representative, the AIO attends seminars and conferences relating to Academic Integrity to ensure that the University remains abreast of best practices.
If for any reason the AIO cannot be preside over an AI matter or is otherwise involved in bringing the charge forward, an academic dean from a school other than that where the alleged violation occurred will serve as acting AIO for that particular case.
The AIO will present a yearly report on Academic Integrity to the provost

Undergraduate Academic Integrity Board (AIB)

Two tenured faculty members of different schools appointed by the Faculty Committee of the Whole (FCW) who serve year-round, two-year terms commencing at the fall semester add/drop deadline. These terms are staggered so that there will always be one returning member and one new member.
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.
Three students, typically the presidents of the sophomore, junior, and senior classes:

a. If those officers cannot fulfill the duty, other student officers or students at large may be solicited by the AIO in consultation with the vice president of student affairs (dean)
b. Students who have been found guilty of past violations may serve on the AIB provided (1) they completed the required sanctions and (2) they have the approval of the dean of their school
The AIO (nonvoting)
The dean of the school that is home to the course in which alleged violation occurred also will be present. 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.
Before serving on any hearings, new members (faculty and students) must undergo training from the AIO
If the entire AIB cannot meet, a hearing may proceed with a quorum of two students and two faculty members. Either the dean or chair must also be present.

Graduate Board

Two tenured graduate faculty members of different schools who serve a year-round, two-year term commencing at the fall semester add/drop deadline. These terms are staggered such that there always will be one returning member and one new member.
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.
Three graduate students from different programs who are recommended by graduate faculty or students at large solicited by the AIO
The AIO (nonvoting)
The dean of the school that is home to the course in which alleged violation occurred also will be present. The dean is nonvoting except in the case of a tie.
Before serving on any hearings, new members (faculty and students) must undergo training from the AIO
If the entire AIB cannot meet, a hearing may proceed with a quorum of two students and two faculty members. Either the dean or chair must also be present.

Student Bill of Rights

A student is presumed to be not in violation until exonerated of the charge or determined to be in violation. With the exception of other policies outlined herein, the student is otherwise entitled to all rights and coursework in the class until AI proceedings conclude.
A student may at any time confidentially meet with the AIO about general student rights and AI policy
As valued members of the University community, students may bring forth a charge of Academic Dishonesty against other students, staff, and faculty members
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 AI proceeding is complete, and then may only go into effect if (a) the student did not receive a sanction of an F in the course or (b) the student has fulfilled whatever other sanction, e.g., rewriting a paper, has been imposed.
If the student’s case goes to an AI hearing, the student may opt to have a trusted USJ faculty or staff 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.
If the student is part of a group charged collectively, the student may opt to have his or her case handled individually
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.

Submitting Cases of Academic Dishonesty

Any member of the USJ community may bring forth an AI matter.

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 for the case to the AIO by filling out the Academic Integrity Form (AIF). The AIO will base proceedings off existing AI policy.

Portfolio
If Academic Dishonesty is discovered in a student’s Writing Portfolio, the academic agent who discovered the alleged violation will notify the faculty member to whom the paper was submitted and/or the AIO. The faculty member will proceed according to AI policy. Depending on the severity of the violation, the AIO also will notify the dean of the school in which the student has declared his/her major.

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.

If Academic Dishonesty is discovered in any other context, e.g., a lie to the registrar’s office, the University’s agent in that context will bring forth the case as would a faculty member
If for any reason the faculty member or academic agent cannot present the charge, the chair of the department in which the course was taught, or the agent’s supervisor, may act as proxy
If for any reason the AIO cannot be present or is otherwise involved in bringing the charge forward, an academic dean from a school other than that where the alleged violation occurred will serve as acting AIO for that particular case

Students Who Discover Academic Dishonesty

Student AI Violation

A student who believes he or she has knowledge of another student’s violation should report it to the faculty member or AIO within six procedural days* after the student concludes that academic dishonesty has occurred
Anonymous reports are permitted. However, anonymous testimony cannot be considered in AI proceedings. A faculty member or the AIO may, however, pursue other evidence based on anonymous information.
Formal Report

a. A student(s) may fill out a formal report by completing the Academic Infraction Form (AIF) in consultation with the AIO or the faculty member
b. The faculty member and/or AIO may act on the report accordingly
c. The name of the student(s) filing the report will be held in confidence unless the matter goes to a hearing
d. A student(s) filing a formal report may withdraw the report prior to a hearing if she/he wants

* “Procedural Days” refers to weekdays on which regular classes or exams are held. This would include days where classes meet regularly, exam days, and study days. This would exclude breaks, e.g. winter break, days where classes are canceled for weather, and summers (unless the violation in question occurred in a summer class).

Faculty/Staff Violation

A student who believes he or she has knowledge of a faculty or staff member’s violation should report it to the faculty member or AIO within six procedural days after the student concludes that academic dishonesty has occurred
Anonymous reports are permitted. However, anonymous testimony cannot be considered in AI proceedings. A faculty member or the AIO may, however, pursue other evidence based on anonymous information.
Formal Report

a. A student(s) may fill out a formal report by completing the AIF in consultation with the AIO
b. The AIO may act on the report accordingly by contacting the provost and the faculty/staff member’s supervisor, and/or the Office of Human Resources.
c. In the case of an alleged faculty violation, the matter may be handled through the Grievance Committee, which will consult with the AIO
d. The name of the student(s) filing the report will be held in confidence unless the matter goes to a hearing
e. A student(s) filing a formal report may withdraw the report prior to a hearing if he or she wants

Categories of Academic Integrity Violations

The following categories describe three different severities of the academic violations described above:

Incidental Violation

“Incidental Violations” refer to those instances where the violation is deemed a small matter of error amidst otherwise sound work. An example would be one instance of omitted attribution within a paper full of otherwise correct attributions, and when the omission is deemed erroneous rather than intentional.

Typical Violation
The vast majority of violations are considered typical. Examples include presenting someone else’s idea as your own, copying from another student during a test, lying to a professor to receive an extension on a due date, and getting help from a friend in developing the content of a paper.

Flagrant Violation
Flagrant Violations show intentional and blatant disregard for Academic Integrity and the mission of the University. Examples of such violations include the submission of a paper that is essentially plagiarized in its entirety, the stealing of a test before it is given, assuming a false identity, and a conspiracy to commit Academic Dishonesty.

Procedures for Faculty

First Steps

A faculty member who believes he or she has found Academic Dishonesty should, within five procedural days of the discovery, electronically submit the Academic Infraction 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.
The faculty member may approach a student suspected of violation before submitting the AIF. However, the faculty member may not establish any sanction until after submitting the AIF and determining (a) whether or not the student has had prior violations and (b) the severity of the violation in question.
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.
Within five procedural days of receiving the AIF, the AIO will (a) advise the faculty member as to whether or not the alleged infraction could be considered a violation of the Academic Integrity policy, (b) advise the faculty member if the violation qualifies as Incidental, Typical, or Flagrant, and (c) notify the faculty member of any prior violations by the same student.
The faculty member then proceeds as follows according to category of the violation

Incidental Violation

Procedures for Incidental Violation

If the alleged violation is incidental, the faculty member must email student within three procedural days after receiving the AIF back from the AIO in order to establish a meeting with the student.
The faculty member must afford the student six procedural days to respond to the allegation, and must include in the email the date that response would be required.
If the student does not respond within six procedural days, the student defaults into violation and the faculty member’s sanction goes into effect.
The faculty member and student must find a time to meet within six procedural days after the student responds to the email. The faculty member must at that time (a) present the charge in writing through the AIF, (b) present the student with a copy of the University’s Academic Integrity policy, and (c) notify the student that he or she may meet with the AIO prior to admitting or denying any charges.
In the case of emergency closures or other disruptions to the University’s schedule, the meeting must occur within five procedural days upon the return to normal procedural days. Proceedings 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.
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. If the meeting is scheduled when the AIO cannot attend, the meeting may be rescheduled to meet within five procedural days at another time when all parties can attend.
The student will have three procedural days to consider the charge.
If the student admits the violation, he or she accepts the penalty set in place by the faculty member
If the student denies the violation, the AIO will act as judge and determine whether or not the student is in violation
If the student does not reply to the faculty member within three procedural days after receiving the charge, the student is found in violation and the faculty member’s sanction goes into effect
The faculty member will submit the final, signed AIF to the AIO within three procedural days

Sanctions for Incidental Violation
Sanctions for incidental violations may not exceed an F on the given assignment, and may also involve revision, resubmission, or the completion of additional coursework. In addition to sanctions, faculty members are encouraged to treat incidental violations as teachable moments, but they may also consider the number of prior incidental 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 AI consultation.

Typical Violation

Procedures for a Typical Violation

If the alleged violation is typical, the faculty member must email student within three procedural days after receiving the AIF back from the AIO in order to establish a meeting with the student
The faculty member must afford the student six procedural days to respond to the allegation, and must include in the email the date that response would be required
If the student does not respond within six procedural days, the student defaults into violation and the faculty member’s sanction goes into effect
The faculty member and student must find a time to meet within six procedural days after the student responds to the email. The faculty member must at that time (a) present the charge in writing through the AIF, (b) present the student with a copy of the University’s Academic Integrity policy, and (c) notify the student that he or she may meet with the AIO prior to admitting or denying any charges.
The student will have three procedural days to consider the charge
If the student admits the violation, he or she accepts the penalty set in place by the faculty member
If the student denies the violation, the case goes to an AI hearing
If the student does not reply to the faculty member within three days after receiving the charge, the student is found in violation. The faculty member will submit the final, signed AIF to the AIO within three procedural days.

Sanctions for a First Typical Violation

The sanction for a first typical violation may not exceed an F in the course. It may include additional coursework, e.g., rewriting the paper for a possibly lower grade, but may not include additional coursework and an F in the course.
Regardless of other sanctions, the student also must either (a) re-take the Academic Integrity course (if offered), (b) read materials about Academic Integrity as assigned by the AIO and pass a test, or (c) meet with a CAE tutor for an AI consultation. The student’s enrollment in the following term, or graduation in the case of a senior, will be withheld until either a, b, and/or c is complete.
Students found guilty of academic dishonesty and who received a grade higher than an F may not replace that grade by retaking the course
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

Second or Third Typical Violation

Procedures for a Second or Third Typical Violation

The AIO will email student within three procedural days after returning the AIF to the faculty member
The AIO must afford the student six procedural days to respond to the allegation, and must include in the email the date that response would be required
If the student does not respond within six procedural days, the student defaults into violation and the faculty member’s sanction goes into effect
The AIO, faculty member, and student must find a time to meet within six procedural days after the student responds to the email. The AIO must at that time (a) present the charge in writing through the AIF, (b) present the student with a copy of the University’s Academic Integrity policy, and (c) notify the student that he or she may meet with the AIO prior to admitting or denying any charges.
The student will have three procedural days to consider the charge
If the student admits the violation, he or she accepts the penalty set in place by the AIO
If the student denies the violation, the case goes to an AI Hearing
If the student does not reply to the AIO within three days after receiving the charge, the student is found in violation

Sanctions for a Second or Third Typical Violation

Second Typical Violation

A student found in violation of a second typical violation will be suspended from the University for one or two semesters, typically the semester that follows the conclusion of proceedings.

Students who typically attend only spring/fall classes will typically be suspended for the spring if found in violation in the fall, and for the summer/fall if found in violation in the spring
A student found in violation of a charge during the second semester of his/her senior year receives an F in the course and will not be allowed to repeat the course for credit until after a one-semester suspension
Suspension requires the approval of the provost
In addition to the suspension, the student typically will, at the discretion of the faculty member, also receive an F in the course
Regardless of other sanctions, the student also must either (a) re-take the Academic Integrity course (if offered), (b) read materials about academic integrity as assigned by the AIO and pass a test, or (c) meet with a CAE tutor for an AI consultation. The student’s enrollment in the following term, or graduation in the case of a senior, will be withheld until either a, b, and/or c is complete.

Third Typical Violation

A student found in violation of a third typical violation will be expelled from the University
This action requires the approval of the president

Flagrant Violation

Procedures for Flagrant Violation

The AIO will email student within three procedural days after returning the AIF to the faculty member
The AIO must afford the student six procedural days to respond to the allegation, and must include in the email the date that response would be required
If the student does not respond within six procedural days, the student defaults into violation and the sanction goes into effect
The AIO, faculty member, and student must find a time to meet within six procedural days after the student responds to the email. The AIO must at that time (a) present the charge in writing through the AIF, (b) present the student with a copy of the University’s Academic Integrity policy, and (3) notify the student that he or she may meet with the AIO prior to admitting or denying any charges.
The AIO will communicate that the case must go to an AI hearing and follow procedures accordingly

Sanctions for a Flagrant Violation

First Flagrant Violation

The sanction for a first flagrant violation is typically a one-semester or one-year suspension, but may include expulsion.

Students who typically attend only spring/fall classes will typically be suspended for the spring if found in violation in the fall, and for the summer/fall if found in violation in the spring
A student found in violation of a charge during the second semester of his/her senior year receives an F in the course and will not be allowed to repeat the course for credit until after a one semester suspension
Suspension requires the approval of the provost
In addition to the suspension, the student typically will, at the discretion of the faculty member, also receive an F in the course
Regardless of other sanctions, the student also must either (a) re-take the Academic Integrity course (if offered), (b) read materials about academic integrity as assigned by the AIO and pass a test, or (c) meet with a CAE tutor for an AI consultation. The student’s enrollment in the following term, or graduation in the case of a senior, will be withheld until either a, b, and/or c is complete.

Second Flagrant Violation

A student found in violation of a second flagrant violation will be expelled from the University
This action requires the approval of the president

Atypical Sanctions

In cases where students do not fit pre-existing categories, e.g., mixed violations such as having been found in violation of a flagrant violation and then in a subsequent case guilty of a typical violation, 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 typical violation that occurs on top of a flagrant violation may be treated as a third violation rather than a second violation.

Hearings

Timeline

The AIO will convene a hearing of the AIB within 10 procedural days after receiving notification that a student has denied a charge. All parties will be notified through email, and students will additionally be notified through certified mail.
The student will be informed of the hearing date, time, and location, and should be given a minimum of three 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.
Through a waiver, the student can request through the AIO that a hearing be conducted before the 10-procedural day period
Within 10 procedural days after the hearing, the AIO will send via registered mail, or by email if requested by the student, notification of the AIB’s verdict and sanctions

Verdict

The student’s guilt shall be established through majority vote on a more likely than not basis. Circumstantial evidence may be used as “hearsay” evidence.
If the vote results in a tie, the dean may vote to break the tie
The AIB votes separately on each of the following matters:

a. The category of the violation (incidental, typical, flagrant)

b. Whether or not the student is in violation

Sanctions

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

Hearing Policies

More than one charge against a student can be considered at a hearing
A hearing may be conducting in the absence of the student who fails to appear after the AIB has made a reasonable effort to provide adequate notice of the hearing time, date, and location
The hearing is closed to anyone not explicitly admitted through the AI policy
The hearing shall be recorded by use of digital recorder
a. 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 seven years after the event

b. Only the provost, AIO, or dean of the school in which the incident occurred shall have access to these records
c. The proceedings of the appeals hearing as well as all written documents arising out of the hearing are to be held in the strictest confidence
The student may bring to the hearing a 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 an advisor who will assist the student who is accused of academic dishonesty.
Any AIB member who has been involved in investigating or prosecuting the case should not serve on the AIB while it is reviewing the particular case in question. A replacement will be appointed by the AIO.
The student may confront and cross-examine witnesses

Appeals

A student may not appeal the verdict of a hearing by the AIB
A student may not appeal the sanction determined by a faculty member for an incidental offense or first typical offense
A student may otherwise appeal the sanction in hopes of a lighter sanction
Appeals must be submitted in writing to the provost and the AIO within three procedural days after the student receives notification
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
The provost’s decision is final and the student is permitted no subsequent appeals

Reference Material - www.clemson.edu/academics/academic-integrity

Undergraduate Grievance and Appeal Procedure

An undergraduate student with a grievance should confer first with the instructor and her/his advisor. If the grievance needs further discussion, the student brings it to the department chair. Should further consideration of the issue be required, it is brought to the dean of the school, who then calls together an ad hoc committee consisting of another student, instructor, advisor, department chair, dean of the school, and provost.

If you are taking any University of Saint Joseph courses and you have a complaint about your experience with the University of Saint Joseph, you can follow the University’s process for student appeals and grievances, which is in the Student Handbook.

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

The University’s regional accrediting agency, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), which is located at 3 Burlington Woods Drive, Suite 100, Burlington, MA 01803, at 855.886.3272 or https://cihe.neasc.org/about_us/staff/
The Connecticut Office of Higher Education, at: Office of Higher Education, 61 Woodland Street, Hartford, CT 06105-2326; at 800.842.0229; www.ctohe.org/studentcomplaints.shtml
If you reside outside of Connecticut and are attending the University of Saint Joseph via an online distance learning course, in many cases you can file a complaint in the state where you are residing. As required by federal regulations, we direct you to a list of state-by-state complaint resources compiled and updated by the State Higher Education Executive Officers: www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/Complaint%20Process%20Links%2012-2012.pdf

Graduate Grievance and Appeal Procedure

A graduate student with a grievance should confer first with the instructor and her/his advisor. If the grievance needs further discussion, the student brings it to the department chair. Should further consideration of the issue be required, it is brought to the dean of the school. If it is not resolved by the school dean, the matter is resolved by the provost.