18. School of Journalism

Alleged academic offences in the undergraduate programs in the School of Journalism are dealt with by the Journalism Discipline Committee.

Students enrolled in undergraduate courses in the School of Journalism should be aware that the Journalism Discipline Committee is charged with the authority to deal with cases of alleged academic offences in relation to all undergraduate courses taken in the School of Journalism.

Allegations of academic dishonesty against students registered in the Master of Journalism or the Master of Fine Arts program will be addressed through Dalhousie’s Faculty of Discipline Procedures Concerning Allegations of Academic Offenses (“Faculty Procedures”) and through the Dalhousie Senate Discipline Committee Procedures as appropriate. The King’s Academic Integrity Officer shall serve as the Integrity Officer for students registered in the Master of Journalism or the Master of Fine Arts.

I. Academic Integrity Officer

1. Academic Integrity Officers are associated with the Faculties of Dalhousie University and the School of Journalism at the University of King’s College.

2. The Academic Integrity Officer shall act between the student and instructor, and may appear at Hearing Panels of the Journalism Discipline Committee or the Journalism Appeal Committee to present the case against the student.

3. The Academic Integrity Officer is the Director of the School of Journalism. The Director will normally delegate this role to the King’s Academic Integrity Officer appointed by the King’s Faculty.

4. The Academic Integrity Officer shall meet with the Journalism Discipline Committee (JDC) at least once a year to discuss relevant policy issues and training requirements with a view to maximizing consistency and predictability in the administration of academic offences across the University of King’s College and Dalhousie University. Such meetings are convened and chaired by the Vice- President (ex officio Chair of Journalism Discipline Committee) at King’s.

5. Penalties
Penalties shall follow the guidelines contained within the University’s Academic Regulations and the Journalism Discipline Committee terms of reference set out elsewhere in this calendar and which are reproduced below for convenience.

The range of penalties which may be imposed by the Journalism Discipline Committee be circumscribed only by the requirement that such penalty or penalties be of an academic nature and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may include any one or more of:

• 1) notation of the fact of discipline on the offender’s transcript for a period of one (1) or more years, but not exceed five (5) years;
• 2) repeat of the assignment that triggered the discipline;
• 3) a failing grade or mark or assessment in the piece of work triggering the discipline;
• 4) failure of the course or seminar or program;
• 5) failure of the academic year;
• 6) suspension for an academic term or year (to a maximum suspension of three (3) academic years);
• 7) expulsion from the University;
• 8) loss of a current or continuing scholarship, or both, or loss of eligibility to receive or to maintain scholarships or prizes or bursaries; and
• 9) removal from the “President’s List.”

6. Procedures
When an academic offence is suspected, the instructor shall submit a signed statement outlining the basis for the allegation, together with all relevant supporting evidence, to the Academic Integrity Officer of the School of Journalism within ten working days of becoming aware of the alleged offence, but in any event no later than the deadline for submission of final grades to the Registrar, except in extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the Academic Integrity Officer.

7. Upon receipt of the material from the instructor, the Academic Integrity Officer shall determine whether or not the material supports a prima facie case that the student has committed an academic offence. If no prima facie case is made out, no further steps are taken in relation to the allegation, and the instructor and student will be so advised in writing.

8. If a prima facie case is established, then the Academic Integrity Officer will take the following further steps:

• a) Check the academic discipline database maintained by the Registrar’s Office to determine if the student(s) has a record of prior academic offence(s);
• b) With the exception of cases involving two or more students facing allegations arising from the same fact situation (“common allegation”) which shall proceed in accordance with paragraph 9, if the student(s) has a record of prior academic offence(s), forward the allegation to the Journalism Discipline Committee;
• c) If the allegation appears to be a first offense, and in all cases of two or more students facing a common allegation, inform the student(s) in writing of the nature of the allegation, the instructor’s statement, the evidence, the procedures to be followed, the possible penalties, and possible sources of advice and support (will be a standard document);
• d) Convene a meeting with the student(s), the student(s)’ advisor, if any, and the instructor within five working day upon receipt of the allegation by the student, which time may be extended at the request of the student, instructor or Academic Integrity Officer in appropriate circumstances;
• e) If the meeting does not take place within the time set out above, the Academic Integrity Officer has the discretion to convene another meeting with the student(s), the student(s)’ advisor, if any, and the instructor. The Academic Integrity Officer also has the discretion to convene additional meetings as may be reasonably required. In the event an initial meeting does not occur within a reasonable time after a prima facie case is established, the Academic Integrity Officer shall refer the allegation to the Journalism Discipline Committee.

9. Notwithstanding paragraph 8b, in the case of two or more students facing allegations arising from the same fact situation (“common allegation”), the Academic Integrity Officer has the authority to convene a meeting with all such students in accordance with paragraphs 8d and 8e and to make findings for all such students under these Procedures, regardless of the fact that one or more of such students may have a record of prior academic offence(s). If the Academic Integrity Officer’s assessment is that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that a student facing a common allegation has committed an academic offence, for any such student who has no record of prior academic offence(s), subject to paragraph the Academic Integrity Officer shall assess an appropriate penalty for the student in accordance with these Procedures; and for any such student who has a record of prior academic offence(s), the Academic Integrity Officer shall forward the matter to the Journalism Discipline Committee for assessment of an appropriate penalty.

10. Following the meeting convened in accordance with paragraph 8, the Academic Integrity Officer shall make a preliminary assessment of whether there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the student has committed an academic offence, and if there is sufficient evidence, make a preliminary assessment of what penalty would be appropriate in the circumstances. In making the latter assessment, the Academic Integrity Officer shall exercise broad discretion in considering possible mitigating circumstances including but not limited to extraordinary personal circumstances and lack of educational experience.

11. If the Academic Integrity Officer’s assessment is that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the student has committed an academic offence, the Officer shall inform the student in writing with a copy to the Instructor within five working days of the meeting. This does not preclude an Academic Integrity Officer from proceeding with the allegation at a later date, should new evidence become available.

12. If the Academic Integrity Officer’s assessment is that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the student has committed an academic offence, AND that the appropriate penalty for the student’s conduct is any of the penalties described in paragraph 5, above, except those listed in sub-paragraphs 5 to 9 the Academic Integrity Officer shall provide the student with the option of accepting the finding and the proposed penalty, or of proceeding to the Journalism Discipline Committee for a full hearing. The option shall be presented to the student within 5 working days of the meeting, and the student shall have two working days to respond. In the event that the student elects to accept the finding and proposed penalty, the Academic Integrity Officer shall so advise the Vice- President (ex officio Chair of the Journalism Discipline Committee).

13. Within 14 calendar days of the Vice-President being advised of the finding and agreed penalty under paragraph 12, the Vice- President, or in their absence, one of the two faculty members of the Journalism Discipline Committee, and the student member of the Journalism Discipline Committee appointed by the King’s Student Union shall jointly review the finding and agreed penalty to determine whether the process is consistent with the Faculty Discipline Procedures Concerning Allegations of Academic Offences. If so, they shall ratify the matter on behalf of Faculty and the Vice-President shall notify the student and the Academic Integrity Officer of such ratification. For ratification to occur, the decision must be unanimous. The finding and agreed penalty shall stand, despite possible insubstantial procedural errors. The Vice- President shall ensure that the offence is recorded on the Journalism Discipline database and that the Registrar and any others are notified of the finding and penalty for immediate implementation. If the Vice-President and/or the student member have any material concerns about the process, the Vice-President shall consult with the Academic Integrity Officer to determine whether the concerns can be resolved. If the Vice-President and the Academic Integrity Officer are unable to resolve any concerns, the matter shall be referred back to the Academic Integrity Officer for further consideration under these Procedures, after which the Vice-President and the student representative on the Journalism Discipline Committee shall jointly re-consider ratification. Should ratification still not occur, the matter shall be referred to the Journalism Discipline Committee for a hearing.

14. If the Academic Integrity Officer’s assessment is that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the student has committed an academic offence, but that the appropriate penalty for the student’s conduct is one of those listed in sub-paragraphs 5 to 9 of paragraph 5 of these Procedures, the Academic Integrity Officer shall, within five working days of the meeting, notify the student in writing, with a copy to the instructor, that the matter will be forwarded to the Journalism Discipline Committee for a full hearing.

15. Should a student request that an allegation be referred back to the Academic Integrity Officer after it has been forwarded to the Journalism Discipline Committee, the Academic Integrity Officer has the discretion to grant such a request. A student’s request shall be in writing, and delivered to the Vice-President within five working days of the date the allegation letter is sent to the student by the Vice-President.

16. Prior to a hearing by the Journalism Discipline Committee of an allegation against a student, the Academic Integrity Officer shall provide a written allegation to the Vice-President (ex officio Chair of the Journalism Discipline Committee) identifying the evidence initially presented by the instructor pursuant to paragraph 6 and any additional evidence obtained by the instructor in the course of the assessment of the matter. The written allegation shall not include reference to whether or not any meeting(s) did occur pursuant to paragraph 8d or 8e, any statements that may have been made by the student at such meeting(s), or any alternate versions of the facts and circumstances that may have been presented by one or more students at such meeting(s). The student shall have the opportunity to provide a written submission in response prior to the hearing by the Journalism Discipline Committee. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of a statement made by a student at a hearing of the Journalism Discipline Committee that is inconsistent with a statement previously made by that student in the meeting(s) with the Academic Integrity Officer, then the Academic Integrity Officer may refer to statements that may have been made by the student at such meeting(s).

17. Confidentiality must be maintained by those involved in each case when an academic offence is suspected and the instructor submits an allegation to the Academic Integrity Officer, except as is reasonably necessary to implement the finding and agreed penalty or as required in subsequent disciplinary proceedings related to the same matter.

II. Journalism Discipline Committee

Membership:

• Vice President ex officio (non-voting Chair)
• two members of Faculty who hold academic appointments outside the School of Journalism, appointed by the Faculty
• one student from outside the School of Journalism, appointed by the King’s Students’ Union.

A. Terms of Reference

The Journalism Discipline Committee shall:

1. consider all complaints or allegations respecting offences or irregularities of an academic nature in accordance with the procedures outlined above in Section B including those relating to admissions procedures and evaluation procedures, and to impose penalties in cases where the Committee finds an offence or irregularity has occurred;

2. have the power to discipline a student who, before or during the course of the disciplinary process involving them but prior to adjudication, has:

• been compelled to withdraw academically;
• chosen to withdraw from the course, the program or the University prior to being disciplined; or
• chosen not to register at the University;

3. assume jurisdiction when a complaint or allegation respecting offences or irregularities of an academic nature is brought to its attention in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section B. Guidelines for evaluators with respect to violations of academic regulations are set out in the document entitled “Guidelines for Academic Evaluators Regarding Violations of Academic Regulations by Students taking Journalism courses”;

4. conduct hearings according to the elements of natural justice (see below: “Procedures before the Journalism Discipline Committee and Journalism Appeals Committee”) and such other procedures as the Committee may decide in advance, with due notice to all interested parties;

5. evaluate the evidence of innocence or guilt of an accused student. This evaluation shall include the premise that the more senior the student in terms of chronological age, or year of University registration, and/or extent of other exposure to university rules and regulations (whether at King’s or elsewhere), the less credible are assertions of ignorance or innocence and the stronger is the case for a more severe penalty than would be imposed on a less senior student;

6. report its findings, and any penalty imposed, to the student, to the instructor of the course, King’s Academic Integrity Officer, to the Director of the School of Journalism as Discipline Advisor, and to the Registrar, University of King’s College;

7. notification of academic disciplinary proceedings engaged by the Journalism Discipline Committee in relation to a Dalhousie student enrolled in a University of King’s College Journalism course will be provided by the Chair of the Journalism Discipline Committee to the Registrar of Dalhousie University at the time the allegation is made and at the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings with outcomes identified, including any sanctions imposed.

B. Procedures

1. Hearing: A student against whom an allegation has been made is entitled to an oral hearing which allows interested parties to present evidence and to question witnesses. A student may opt to waive the right to an oral hearing and proceed instead by written submissions. (N.B.: If for some valid reason a witness is unavailable for questioning, their evidence may be received by the Committee in writing or in some other form. Lack of opportunity to question a witness should go to the weight and not the admissibility of their evidence.)

2. Notice of the Hearing: Students must be advised of their right to a hearing or to some alternative process. They shall be advised in a timely fashion of the date and location of any hearing or alternative process, and of their right, within reason, to be consulted as to time and place. The role of the student at such hearing or alternative process should be explained.

3. Disclosure: Full and timely disclosure in advance of any hearing is essential. Disclosure shall include not only all of the precise allegations against the student, but also, where appropriate, the release of all documents upon which the hearing panel will rely, and the names of all witnesses.

4. Right to Counsel or Other Representation: Students must be advised of their right to present their own case or to be represented by legal counsel or by such other person as the students may wish to have represent them. This advice shall be offered at the same time as the student is advised of the allegation and of the right to a hearing. The Journalism Discipline and Appeal Committees also have the right to seek advice from, or to retain, legal counsel.

5. Record of Proceedings: All correspondence relating to the proceedings and all documentary evidence adduced at the hearing shall be kept on file until such time as the possibility for further appeal or proceedings has elapsed. Adjudicators, and in particular the Chair of any hearing panel, shall keep full notes of the evidence and submissions made at the hearing.

6. Notification of Decision: Following the hearing, a student against whom an allegation has been made shall receive written notification of the decision of the Committee, and of the recommended penalty.

7. Bias: No member of the Journalism Discipline Committee or the Journalism Appeals Committee shall sit on a panel hearing a discipline matter or an appeal from a decision of the Discipline Committee where they have any interest or perceived interest in the outcome of the hearing. A student whose case is before either a Discipline Committee or an Appeal Committee may object to the participation of any member of the hearing panel where the student has a reasonable apprehension of bias. An apprehension of bias may also provide grounds for an appeal where the student can provide a satisfactory explanation as to why the issue was not raised before the Discipline panel when the initial hearing took place.

C. Appeals

As noted above, academic appeals in connection with Masters of Journalism or Master of Fine Arts courses delivered by King’s will be heard in the first instance by the Journalism Studies Committee, with a right of appeal to the Dalhousie Faculty of Graduate Studies Appeal Committee and then to Dalhousie Senate Appeals Committee in accordance with Dalhousie regulations and policies.

Undergraduate appeals from decisions of the Journalism Discipline Committee may be made to the Journalism Appeals Committee but only on the limited grounds defined under “Function” of the Journalism Appeals Committee (see below). Decisions of the Journalism Appeals Committee are final and binding on all parties. At the time of filing the appeal, a student must specifically indicate the facts and allegations that will form the basis of the appeal. An appeal will be limited to matters so alleged. The deadline for appeal of a decision of the Journalism Discipline Committee will be 30 days from the date of the letter which notifies the person of the Committee’s decision. Appeals shall be directed to the Chair of Faculty, who will cause an Appeal Committee to be struck.

D. Penalties

The range of penalties which may be imposed by the Journalism Discipline Committee for breaches of academic regulations shall be circumscribed only by the requirement that such penalty or penalties be of an academic nature and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may include any one or more of:

1. notation of the fact of discipline on the offender’s transcript for a period of one (1) or more years, but not exceeding five (5) years;

2. repeat of the assignment that triggered the discipline;

3. a failing grade or mark or assessment in the piece of work triggering the discipline;

4. failure of the course or seminar or program;

5. failure of the academic year;

6. suspension for an academic term or year (to a maximum suspension of three (3) academic years);

7. expulsion from the University;

8. loss of a current or continuing scholarship, or both, or loss of eligibility to receive or to maintain scholarships or prizes or bursaries; and

9. removal from the President’s List.

Dalhousie University and Journalism

Discipline
The University of King’s College Registrar shall notify the Dalhousie Registrar in the event that academic discipline proceedings have been commenced in relation to a Dalhousie student, and shall advise the Dalhousie Registrar of the outcome of such proceedings, including any sanctions imposed against the student. Where the student has been previously sanctioned for academic misconduct, the Dalhousie Registrar will provide the University of King’s College Registrar with particulars of the offence and the sanction imposed.

E. Commentary on Penalties

1. Proactive Measures: The University of King’s College emphasizes education and proactive engagement, therefore a Proactive Measure, which is a form of recommendation, may be prescribed as an educational aid in addition to a Penalty. It may include but not necessarily be restricted to suggesting that the student seek some form of professional help from an Academic Advisor or Counseling Services or elsewhere which, for example may be time management or stress management etc., and/or an apology for the infraction. The main purpose of the proactive measure is to help the student learn how to reduce the likelihood of future violations of academic integrity. It is important to note that it is the student’s responsibility to decide whether or not to follow the Proactive Measure since it is not a formal penalty but rather a recommendation. Therefore, there is normally no oversight by the University (AIO or JDC) to ensure that a Proactive Measure is followed.

2. Consequence: A Consequence is an outcome of the application of a Penalty. A Consequence is not imposed by the University’s academic integrity policies but arises from the University’s academic policies. For example the consequence of the Penalty of a failing grade may include but not necessarily be limited to: failure in a program, delay of graduation, loss of full-time student status, change in visa status (for a visa student), loss of eligibility for student aid, removal from the President’s list. Similarly a notation on a transcript may have serious unforeseen consequences for future opportunities, etc. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, therefore, while the university’s academic integrity procedure (AIO or JDC) may foresee some consequences, ultimately the student bears the responsibility for any consequences of a Penalty.

Journalism Appeals Committee

Terms of Reference

Membership:
Three members of Faculty appointed on an ad hoc basis. Members will hold academic appointments outside of the School of Journalism and are not involved in the subject of the appeal. The members of the committee will appoint a Chair.

Meetings:
At the call of the Chair of Faculty who will cause a committee to be struck.

Role:
To consider appeals by undergraduate students against decisions by or on behalf of the Director, School of Journalism, the Journalism Studies Committee and the Journalism Discipline Committee.

Authority:
Reports to Faculty.

A. Function
A Journalism Appeals Committee shall:

• 1. Hear appeals from decisions of the Journalism Discipline Committee on the following grounds:
  • (a) denial of natural justice
  • (b) disputed jurisdiction of the Journalism Discipline Committee
• 2. Have responsibility to ensure the execution of its decisions.

B. Action
A Journalism Appeals Committee may:

• 1. deny the appeal;
• 2. quash the decision of the Journalism Discipline Committee entirely;
• 3. quash the decision of the Journalism Discipline Committee and recommend a rehearing on the merits by a special ad hoc committee of Faculty;
• 4. quash the decision of the Journalism Discipline Committee and rehear the matter itself, with the consent of the appellant;
• 5. allow the Journalism Discipline Committee decision to stand, despite possible insubstantial procedural errors.

Please Note: The Registrar’s Office will provide administrative support and maintain the official records of Journalism Discipline Committee and Journalism Appeals Committee Proceedings according to the following guidelines:

• 1. in consultation with the Academic Integrity Officer, the chairperson and other members of the Journalism Discipline Committee, the student and their counsel (if any), and the evaluator and witnesses (if any), arrange the date, time and location of hearings and ensure that all relevant persons are advised in the manner chosen by such persons (preferably in writing) of such arrangements;
• 2. prepare and maintain a permanent record of all allegations of violations of academic offences heard by the Academic Integrity Officer and Journalism Discipline Committee. Such record should be maintained so as to note the name of the student, the date of the charge, the nature of the violation, whether it is a first, a second or subsequent academic violation charged against the student, the decision of the Academic Integrity Officer, the Journalism Discipline Committee and the penalty or penalties imposed (if any) or other disposition of the case.