Academic Grievance Procedure

Purpose
Procedures for review of academic grievances protect the rights of students, faculty, and the University by providing mechanisms for equitable problem solving.

Types of Grievances
A grievance is defined as a complaint of unfair treatment for which a specific remedy is sought. It excludes circumstances that may give rise to a complaint for which explicit redress is neither called for nor sought, or for which other structures within the University serve as an agency for resolution.

Academic grievances relate to procedural appeals or to academic competence appeals, or to issues of academic dishonesty. Procedural appeals are defined as those seeking a remedy where no issue of the quality of the student's work is involved. For example, a student might contend that the professor failed to follow previously announced mechanisms of evaluation. Academic competence appeals are defined as those seeking a remedy because the evaluation of the quality of a student's work in a course is disputed. Remedies would include but not be limited to awarded grade changes, such as permission to take make-up examinations or to repeat courses without penalty. Academic dishonesty appeals are defined as those seeking a remedy because of a dispute over whether plagiarism or cheating occurred. Remedies would include but not limited to removal of file letter, change of grade, or submitting new or revised work.

Time Limits
The procedures defined here must be initiated within one semester after the event that is the subject of the grievance.

Informal Procedure

Step one: The student attempts to resolve any academic grievance with the faculty member, department chair, or other individual or agency involved. If, following this initial attempt at resolution, the student remains convinced that a grievance exists, she or he advances to step two.

Step two: The student consults the chair, or other individuals when appropriate, bringing written documentation of the process up to this point. If the student continues to assert that a grievance exists after attempted reconciliation, he or she advances to step three.

Step three: The student presents the grievance to the dean of the school in which the course was offered, bringing to this meeting documentation of steps one and two. If the dean's attempts at mediation prove unsuccessful, the student is informed of the right to initiate formal review procedures.

Formal Procedure

Step one: If the student still believes that the grievance remains unresolved following informal procedures, she or he initiates the formal review procedure by making a written request through the dean of the school in which the course was offered for a formal hearing in the academic vice president's office. Such a request should define the grievance and be accompanied by documentation of completion of the informal process. It should also be accompanied by the dean's opinion of the grievance.

Step two: The academic vice president determines whether the grievance merits further attention. If not, the student is so informed. If, however, the grievance does merit further attention, the academic vice president determines whether it is a procedural, competence, or academic dishonesty appeal.

• If it relates to a procedural matter, the academic vice president selects a dean (other than the dean of the involved school) to chair a grievance committee.
• If it relates to an academic competence matter, the academic vice president requests from the dean involved the names of two outside experts to serve as a consultant panel in determining the merit of the student's grievance.
• If it relates to academic dishonesty, the academic vice president will convene a committee comprised of a dean and two faculty from outside the department in which the course was offered to review the material and the sanctions. In addition, in some instances it may be possible for the academic vice president to settle the grievance.

Step three: For procedural appeals, the grievance committee takes whatever steps are deemed appropriate to render a recommendation for resolving the grievance. The committee adheres to due process procedures analogous to those in the Faculty Handbook. For competence appeals, the academic vice president contacts the outside panel members and requests that they review the case in relation to its content validity. For academic honesty appeals, the academic vice president will request that the committee present a written report of their findings relating to the validity of the charge and the sanctions.

Step four: The recommendation from either the grievance committee or the panel is forwarded to the academic vice president in written form, accompanied, if necessary, by any supporting data that formed the basis of the recommendation.

Step five: The academic vice president renders a final and binding judgment, notifying all involved parties. If the grievance involves a dispute over a course grade given by a faculty member, the academic vice president is the only University official empowered to change that grade, and then only at the recommendation of the committee or panel.

Structure of the Grievance Committee
The structure of the Grievance Committee is the same as the existing Academic Honesty Committee, as follows:

• Two faculty members are selected from a standing panel of eight faculty members elected by the general faculty. The faculty member against whom the grievance has been directed proposes four names from that panel; the student strikes two of those names, and the two remaining faculty members serve.
• Two students are selected from a standing panel of eight students elected by the student government. The student(s) (grievant(s) propose four names from that panel; the faculty strike two of those names; the two remaining students serve.
• In the event that a faculty member or student selected through the foregoing process is unable to meet, another elected member of the panel serves as an alternate.
• The committee is chaired by a dean (other than the dean of the school in which the course was offered) to be selected by the academic vice president. The dean so selected has no vote except in the event of a tie, and is responsible for overseeing the selection of the review committee, convening and conducting the committee meetings, and preparing the committee's report(s) and other appropriate documentation.
• The election of committee members should take into account the possible need for response on 24-hour notice (particularly at the time of Commencement), and availability should, in such instances, be a prime consideration in committee member selection.

Due Process Procedure

1. Both the student and the faculty member have the right to be present and to be accompanied by a personal advisor or counsel throughout the hearing.
2. Both the student and the faculty member have the right to present and to examine and cross-examine witnesses.
3. The administration makes available to the student and the faculty member such authority as it may possess to require the presence of witnesses.
4. The hearing committee promptly and forthrightly adjudicates the issues.
5. The full text of the findings and conclusions of the hearing committee are made available in identical form and at the same time to the student and the faculty member. The cost is met by the University.
6. In the absence of a defect in procedure, recommendations shall be made to the Academic Vice President by the committee as to possible action in the case.
7. At any time should the basis for an informal hearing appear, the procedure may become informal in nature.

For a complete, PDF version of the Student Handbook, click here.