Student Code of Conduct
Academic communities exist to facilitate the process of acquiring and exchanging knowledge and understanding, to enhance the personal and intellectual development of its members, and to advance the interests of society.
In order to realize these goals, community members must not be subject to a disruption of the community’s educational mission and social activities. They must be free from unreasonable interference in the exchange of concepts and ideas. They must be free from the threat of personal injury, bias or harassment, and intimidation or coercion. They must be free from the threat of damage to or loss of their property.
At the same time, members of the academic community have a responsibility to uphold the goals and good order of the academic community through personal integrity, honesty, and respect for others.
This Code of Conduct is concerned, in particular, about the rights and responsibilities of the student in the NYU Tandon School of Engineering.
Program of Enforcement
A. The function of the Office of Student Advocacy in the Office of Student Life and Services at the Tandon School of Engineering and the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards at NYU is to support the educational mission of the University through efforts to preserve the social and academic integrity of the University environment and to facilitate the academic, professional, and personal growth of students by addressing and resolving issues involving students whose behavioral choices negatively affect themselves and the community.
B. Academic misconduct and issues of academic integrity arising from academic programs and activities will be reviewed by faculty members in cooperation with the Associate Dean of Student Life and Services, the Office of Student Advocacy at the Tandon School of Engineering, and faculty members of the Student Affairs Committee (SAC), depending on the nature and circumstances of those matters and in accordance with the policies and procedures of NYU Tandon School of Engineering. See Section III.
C. Non-academic misconduct, as outlined in the University Student Conduct Policy and other University-wide policies of a non-academic nature, shall be addressed under the University Student Conduct Procedures as administered by the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards.
NYU Tandon Policies and Procedures on Academic Misconduct
A. Introduction: The Tandon School of Engineering encourages academic excellence in an environment that promotes honesty, integrity, and fairness, and students at the Tandon School of Engineering are expected to exhibit those qualities in their academic work. It is through the process of submitting their own work and receiving honest feedback on that work that students may progress academically.Those who breach the School’s rules on academic integrity may be subject to sanctions, up to and including dismissal, suspension, or expulsion from the University under this Code. Students are responsible for familiarizing themselves with this Code.
B. Definition: Academic dishonesty is any act of misrepresentation, deception, dishonesty, or falsification committed by a student to influence a grade or other academic evaluation. Academic dishonesty also includes intentionally damaging the academic work of others or assisting other students in acts of dishonesty.
Students should review the class syllabi for more details to obtain a clear understanding of any further specific rules or standards of academic misconduct.
Common examples of academically dishonest behavior include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Cheating: intentionally using or attempting to use unauthorized notes, books, electronic media, or electronic communications in an exam; talking with fellow students or looking at another person’s work during an exam; submitting work prepared in advance for an in-class examination; having someone take an exam for you or taking an exam for someone else; violating other rules governing the administration of examinations.
- Fabrication: including but not limited to, knowingly falsifying experimental data and/or citations.
- Plagiarism: intentionally or knowingly representing the words or ideas of another as one’s own in any academic exercise; failure to attribute direct quotations, paraphrases, or borrowed facts or information.
- Unauthorized collaboration: working together on work that was meant to be done individually.
- Duplicating work: presenting for grading the same work for more than one project or in more than one class, unless express and prior permission has been received from the course instructor(s) or research adviser involved.
- Forgery: altering any academic document, including, but not limited to, academic records, admissions materials, or medical excuses.
- Forgery or other misrepresentations or omissions in the admissions process is also prohibited by NYU; procedures and practices for addressing such instances are set and implemented by NYU’s undergraduate admissions and the respective Tandon graduate program admissions unit.
C. Procedures for review (at class, departmental, and Student Affairs Committee level) of allegations of academic misconduct: When a student is suspected of academic dishonesty, the following action must be taken. Note that all time frames in these procedures may be extended in appropriate circumstances at Tandon’s sole discretion
- If a course instructor suspects a student has engaged in behavior that violates this Code of Conduct, or if a course instructor has been notified of an alleged act of academic dishonesty by a proctor, a third party, or the Department Chair, evidence of that dishonesty must be collected and presented to the student via email within a reasonable time frame within the semester the offense occurred, generally within a 7 day period.
- After the evidence of misconduct is presented to the student via email, the course instructor shall conduct a meeting (in person or virtually) with the student to discuss the allegations and proposed sanction, generally within 10 business days.
- At such a meeting, the course instructor should explain their reasons for suspecting that an act of academic dishonesty has occurred and confirm the results of the discussion in writing, generally within 48 hours.
- The student should be given an opportunity to respond. The student will have 7 business days to respond to the instructor regarding the allegations via email.
- If a student does not respond within the 7 business day period, the instructor will assign the proposed sanction and notify the Office of Student Advocacy of the misconduct at that time. An academic misconduct file will be made for the student and will remain on file. At this point, the case will be considered closed.
- If, after the meeting, the course instructor becomes convinced that the student is not responsible for a violation of academic integrity, then the accusation shall be dropped and no record will be sent to the Office of Student Advocacy. The professor will confirm this via email with the student in question.
- If the student admits dishonesty, the course instructor shall render a decision and impose a sanction listed in Sections III.D 1-3 of this policy, generally within 48 hours.
- If the course instructor believes the imposition of a sanction listed in Sections III.D 1-3 of this policy effectively addresses the matter, the instructor should impose such a sanction and notify the student via email along with the Chair of the department and the Office of Student Advocacy, generally within 48 hours of the initial discussion and admission of dishonesty.
- If the course instructor believes the nature of the admitted action warrants a sanction that exceeds their authority to impose (i.e. Sections III.D 4-6), the course instructor may refer the matter to the Department Chair for review. In doing so, the course instructor should provide the Department Chair with a memo describing the allegation and the evidence in the matter supporting the proposed sanction, generally within 48 hours of the initial discussion and admission of dishonesty.
- If the student denies the dishonesty or if the student feels the imposed sanction is excessive, the course instructor shall refer the matter to the Department Chair for review, providing the Department Chair with an email describing the allegation and the evidence in the matter generally within 48 hours of the initial discussion and denial of dishonesty.
- After receiving the email, the Department Chair shall meet with the student, generally within 7 business days of receiving the evidence email and attempt to find a resolution.
- Should the Department Chair not be able to reach a mutually agreeable resolution within 7 business days after the meeting, or if the student continues to deny academic dishonesty, or if the student believes the imposed sanction is excessive, then the issue will go to the Student Affairs Committee (SAC).
- The Department Chair will inform the Associate Dean of Student Life and Services in writing of the basis for the allegation of academic misconduct. The Associate Dean of Student Affairs will inform the Office of Student Advocacy, as well as the Student Affairs Committee about the matter.
- Within 7 business days after receiving notification from the Department Chair, the Associate Dean of Student Life and Services, or their designee,will gather the relevant facts and evidence and will prepare a case for a Student Affairs Committee hearing. The hearing should generally be held within 10 business days of receipt of the case materials.
- Prior to a SAC hearing, the results of the investigation and the related evidence will be supplied to the SAC members via NYU secure messaging.
- All those involved in the hearing (for example, the accused student, identified here as the respondent; the course instructor, identified here as the complainant; the witnesses) will be notified by the Associate Dean of Student Life and Services of the date, time, and location of the hearing at least 7 business days prior to the hearing. The hearing can be held in person or virtually.
- If a student who is alleged to have engaged in an act of academic dishonesty withdraws from the course within the University Registrar’s deadline for doing so but before the completion of the ongoing investigation of the student’s case and, thus, is awarded a W instead of the grade subsequently deemed to be warranted as a result of the alleged misconduct (for example, an F), the matter should be referred to the SAC. In such instances, the student should be afforded an opportunity to appear before the SAC to present their case. Based on its investigation and deliberation, the SAC will make a recommendation to the course instructor regarding the student’s final grade. The Registrar will be informed of the instructor’s final decision by the Department Chair once a decision has been rendered.
- Student Affairs Committee hearings will be conducted in accordance with the following procedures:
The Student Affairs Committee is composed of three elected faculty members, one of whom is the Chair of the Committee, and four students, two of whom are graduate students and two of whom are undergraduate students. The students will be chosen by the Associate Dean of Student Life and Services in consultation with the Student Affairs Committee.
The Associate Dean of Student Life and Services will, at their sole discretion, exclude any potential student member who may have a substantive conflict of interest in the case, including being a member of the same academic department as the respondent.
The SAC Chair will exclude, at their sole discretion, any faculty members who may have a substantive conflict of interest in the case, including being a member of the same academic department as the respondent. The Associate Dean of Student Life and Services, the Associate Dean’s representative, or other NYU administrators may be present ex officio, if requested by the Chair of the Student Affairs Committee.
Student Affairs Committee hearings are closed to the public.
The presiding Chair of the Student Affairs Committee hearing shall exercise control over the proceedings to achieve a fair and orderly process.
Formal rules of evidence shall not be applicable in disciplinary proceedings conducted pursuant to this Code.
Any person, including the respondent, who disrupts a hearing, may be excluded by the presiding person and is subject to the policies of the University Code governing non-academic misbehavior.
After receiving notice of the hearing, if the respondent fails to appear for the hearing, the hearing may proceed in the respondent’s absence.
Hearings shall be recorded and written notes will be taken. Both will be retained in the Office of Student Life and Services by the Office of Student Advocacy in accordance with the NYU Records Retention Policy.
The complainant and the respondent will be afforded an opportunity to present their perspectives and related evidence relevant to the matter being heard by the Student Affairs Committee.
Complainants and respondents shall be allowed to question those witnesses who testify for either party at the hearing. Questioning will be led by the SAC Chair. Badgering witnesses will not, however, be allowed.
The complainant, respondent, and witnesses will be asked to affirm that their testimony is truthful.
Prospective witnesses will be excluded from the hearing during the statements of other witnesses.
All parties and witnesses shall be excluded during the Student Affairs Committee deliberations that follow the hearing.
A determination as to the responsibility of the respondent for a violation shall be made on the standard of preponderance of the evidence, meaning that based on the evidence, it is more likely than not that a violation occurred.
The Student Affairs Committee assigns sanctions as listed in Section III.D.1-3 for most cases based on the evidentiary standard above.
The Student Affairs Committee reviews evidence, including meeting with witnesses and taking testimony from the respondent, and reaches a conclusion whether the evidence supports the course instructor’s decision or not. The Student Affairs Committee notifies the course instructor of its decision. Under no circumstances does the Student Affairs Committee act to change a grade. It can recommend that the course instructor reconsider the grade if the results of the hearing suggest this.
If, however, the behavior in question rises to the level of an offense thought to be egregious by the academic community as a whole, such as, but not limited to, plagiarism of a Ph.D. dissertation, the Student Affairs Committee may impose additional sanctions as deemed appropriate.
The Student Affairs Committee will communicate the decision and any sanctions to be imposed in the matter, generally within 7 business days from the date of the hearing to the Associate Dean of Student Life and Services through the Office of Student Advocacy. The Associate Dean of Student Life and Services will communicate the Student Affairs Committee’s decision to the respondent within 7 business days of receiving it from the Student Affairs Committee. The Department Chair and instructor will also be informed.
D. Sanctions Available in Academic Misconduct Matters
- A rejection of the assignment or project, along with a requirement that the student complete a substitute assignment. This may be particularly appropriate where there is an honest misunderstanding about the degree of collaboration permitted by a course instructor, or where a course instructor is not sure a student has intentionally acted dishonestly.
- A grade of F for the assignment, examination, or project. A record of the sanction will be retained in the office of the Associate Dean of Student Life and Services by the Office of Student Advocacy. See also Sections III.C.11.n.iv and III.E.2.
- A grade of F for the course or other academic requirement; this sanction is typically reserved for major assignments or more egregious offenses. A record of the sanction will be retained in the office of the Associate Dean of Student Life and Services by the Office of Student Advocacy. See also Sections III.C.11.n.iv and III.E.2.
- In these cases of egregious offenses, if a student withdraws from the course, within the University Registrar’s deadline for doing so, and is awarded a W instead of the grade subsequently deemed to be warranted as a result of the alleged misconduct (for example, an F), this matter should be referred to the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs for further review which may include submitting the case to the SAC and can result in a grade chang
- Dismissal from an undergraduate or a graduate program based on the nature of the academic misconduct and in consultation with the Associate Dean of Academics.
- Suspension from the School and University for a period not to exceed one year with notation on the transcript during the suspension period based on the nature of the academic misconduct and in consultation with the Associate Dean of Academics. A record of the sanction will be retained in the office of the Associate Dean of Student Life and Services by the Office of Student Advocacy. See also Sections III.C.11n.iv and III.E.2.
- Expulsion from the School and University with appropriate notation on the student’s transcript based on the nature of the academic misconduct and in consultation with the Office of Student Conduct. The Dean of the Tandon School of Engineering will also be notified. A record of the sanction will be retained in the office of the Associate Dean of Student Life and Services by the Office of Student Advocacy. See also Sections III.C.11.n.iv and III.E.2.
E. Appeal in a Matter of Academic Misconduct
- A decision rendered by a Student Affairs Committee hearing may be appealed if the sanction involves a suspension or expulsion from the School and University and in accordance with the following procedures. See also Sections III.C.11.n.iv and III.D. 6 and 7.
- An appeal of suspension or expulsion from the School and University must be submitted in writing to the Dean of the Tandon School of Engineering within 7 business days from the date on which the decision was sent to the student.
- The appeal must cite one or more of four of the following grounds as the basis for the appeal; it must include evidence to support the allegation; and it must specify the remedy sought by the appellant:
- That the proceedings were conducted in an arbitrary or unfair manner not in accordance with the policies and procedures described above.
- That the outcome or decision was unreasonably disproportionate to the nature of the behavior in which the student was determined to have engaged.
- That the administrator or panel that reviewed the matter was unfairly biased or that there was a significant conflict of interest that reasonably could have resulted in a different outcome.
- That there is new, substantial, and relevant evidence that was unavailable at the time of the hearing.
- The appeal will be reviewed by the Dean of the Tandon School of Engineering or, at the Dean’s discretion, by a panel consisting of two faculty members and one administrator appointed by the Dean.The Dean will exclude any potential faculty member who may have a substantive conflict of interest in the case, including being a member of the same academic department as the respondent.
- The Dean or the panel considering the appeal may stay the sanction pending the outcome of the appeal.
- An appeal does not consist of a new hearing. Rather, it involves a review of the letter of appeal and the related documents of the case. The Dean or the panel may request additional information from the appellant and/or the original hearing, as needed.
- The Dean or the panel may reach one of the following conclusions:
- That there is an insufficient basis to support the appeal and leave the original sanctions in place as issued.
- That there is a sufficient basis to support the appeal and remedy sought by the appellant.
- That there is a sufficient basis to support the appeal and mandate that a new hearing or proceeding be conducted on the matter by a new committee of three faculty members, and four students, two of whom are graduate students and two of whom are undergraduate students, appointed by the Dean and not involved in the original SAC hearing. The Dean will exclude any potential student member and faculty who may have a substantive conflict of interest in the case, including being a member of the same academic department as the respondent. The new hearing or proceeding shall be conducted within a reasonable time frame.
- The Dean shall notify the appellant of the panel’s decision generally within 15 business days of the date the appeal was received.
- There is no further opportunity for appeal beyond the procedure described in this Code.
Final Grade Appeal Policy
University Policies on Sexual Misconduct
A. Please consult this link for information on sexual assaults and sexual harassment
B. Reporting an Incident of Sexual Assault, Harassment, or Other Sexual Misconduct. Anyone may report an alleged incident to any of the following:
- NYU Department of Campus Safety
- The NYU Title IX Coordinator 212-998-2352
- A Residence Life and Housing staff member 212-998-4600
- The Associate Dean of Student Life and Services at the Tandon School of Engineering 646-997-3918
- The Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards 212-998-4311
- The NYU Student Health Center and Team 212-443-1000
- The Wellness Exchange (212-443-9999)
Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy
University Policies and Standards on Student Conduct Records
A. Student-Conduct Records: Records associated with a student-conduct matter are part of a student's educational record and, as such, are covered under the standards set forth in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Student-conduct records may be kept for a minimum period of time or permanently, depending upon the nature of the disciplinary action in which the student was involved. Students are strongly encouraged to consult the University Policy on Retention and Destruction of Records for information concerning the retention of disciplinary records and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act for information concerning the manner in which student records are protected with respect to disclosure. The University Policy on Retention and Destruction of Records is available here. The FERPA policy is available here.
Approved by the Tandon Faculty October 27, 2022