VII. Honor Code

Preamble

The Richard Bland College Honor Code covers both academic and non-academic actions. The Honor Code at Richard Bland College is a democratic system of government that is upheld and supported by students, whose democratic efforts are actively supported by the administration and faculty. The letter and the spirit of the College’s Honor Code promote the virtues that sustain a democratic society, such as integrity, social responsibility, and moral courage. As a branch of William & Mary, which introduced the Honor System into American higher education, Richard Bland College commits itself to the perpetuation of high standards and expectations of its collegiate community. With an aim of educating individuals, the Student Conduct Board shall not discriminate in its membership or in its dealings with the accused on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, gender identification, sexual orientation, economic status, veteran status, disability, or any other status protected by law.

Student’s Pledge

I have read the Honor Code of Richard Bland College. I understand completely what is expected of me under this Code. I know that any act of lying, failing to disclose an Honor Code violation, stealing, or cheating is a violation of the Honor Code and will subject me to disciplinary action, which could result in expulsion from the College. I hereby pledge, without reservation, my full support of the Honor Code.

Honor Code Violations

A student violates the Honor Code if the student engages in dishonorable conduct as defined below. All Honor Code violations will be referred to the Student Conduct Board, and if necessary, a hearing will be conducted following the Student Conduct Board Process and Procedures. Students who commit academic Honor Code violations are subject to grade sanctioning by the course instructor and a hearing before the Student Conduct Board, following the Student Conduct Board Process. All academic penalties occur solely at the discretion of the instructor and according to the instructor’s syllabus and are not a matter of Conduct Board review, which does not issue academic penalties but institutional sanctions.

The Honor Code will be applied reasonably in accordance with the examples below. Examples of proscribed conduct are meant to be instructive and not all-inclusive.

General Violations

1. Lying: the presentation of false information with the intent to deceive. Lying includes, but is not limited to:
   • Misrepresenting oneself or one’s accomplishments for the purpose of gaining an academic advantage or an advantage in opportunities for employment or other co-curricular opportunities;
   • Falsifying College documents, including alteration, forgery, providing false information, or omitting required information; and
   • Providing false or misleading information to Campus Police or to Student Conduct Board members or investigators during the course of an investigation or hearing of an alleged violation of the Honor Code or Student Code of Conduct or during an investigation involving discrimination, harassment,  sexual misconduct, or retaliation. Lying within this context may be charged as a separate offense; and
2. Stealing: knowingly taking or appropriating the property of another, including property of the College, without the rightful owner’s permission and with the intent to permanently or substantially deprive the owner of the property. One does not receive rightful permission if it is induced by fraud or deception.

Academic Violations

1. Cheating: includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:
   • Plagiarism: the presentation with intent to deceive or with disregard for proper scholarly procedures of a significant scope, of any information, ideas, or phrasing of another as if they were one’s own without giving appropriate credit to the original source.
     • One commits plagiarism when one includes the words of another without quotation or when one includes the substantive work of another without properly crediting the source with footnotes, quotation marks, or other appropriate citation.
     • A student’s intent may be inferred based on the extent and context of the improperly cited material and whether the student has provided false citation or has manipulated the original text such that a reasonable person may conclude the student did so in order to avoid detection.
     • Disregard for proper scholarly procedure that is minimal in scope may be addressed solely as an academic matter, and the instructor may determine whether an academic penalty should be applied without pursuing resolution under the Honor Code. But any intentional acts of plagiarism or disregard for the scholarly procedure of a significant scope shall be treated as a violation of the Honor Code.
   • Unauthorized Assistance/Collaboration: giving unauthorized aid to another student or receiving unauthorized aid from another person on tests, quizzes, assignments, or examinations. Unauthorized assistance includes, but is not limited to, providing information to another about an assignment or examination prior to the conclusion of the administration of such exams/assignments to all related sections of the course unless permitted by the instructor.
   • Use of Unauthorized Materials/Technology: using or consulting unauthorized materials (including but not limited to electronic materials, apps, AI technology or other academic aids) or using unauthorized equipment or devices on tests, quizzes, assignments, or examinations.
   • Unauthorized Dual Submission of Previous Academic Work: using any material portion of a paper or project to fulfill the requirements of more than one course unless the student has received prior permission to do so from the appropriate instructor(s).
   • Time Constraint Violation: intentionally commencing work or failing to end work on any examination, test, quiz, or assignment according to the time constraints imposed.
   • Directions Violation: failing to follow instructions for an assignment or examination despite knowing or having reason to know that such conduct would result in an unfair academic advantage. Failing to disclose that another student has committed an Honor Code violation

Minimum Sanctions Applicable for Honor Code Violations

Discretion may be used in applying sanctions in cases where violation is of such a nature to warrant additional or more severe actions. Students dismissed from College are entitled to no refunds of College fees or tuition/room and board.

Honor Code Violations

First Offense

Attend Conduct Conference |Minimum Sanction: Warning

Second Offense

Attend Administrative Hearing: | Minimum Sanction: Disciplinary Probation | Educational Assignment/Workshop

Third Offense

Attend Conduct Board Hearing: |Minimum Sanction: Suspension from Richard Bland College

Grade Appeals

Responsible for Maintenance: Chief Academic Officer

1.  Purpose and Scope

This policy establishes the procedures and standards governing student appeals of final course grades at Richard Bland College.  It applies to all credit-bearing courses and is intended to ensure that grade disputes are resolved through a fair, consistent, and appropriately sequenced process.

This policy governs disputes about final course grades only.  It does not extend to matters of academic integrity. Allegations of academic misconduct are addressed through the Honor Code process outlined in Section VII of the Student Handbook.  Because grade appeals and academic misconduct proceedings sometimes arise from the same circumstances, the following clarification applies: a Student Conduct hearing outcome of “not responsible” does not obligate a faculty member to change a grade.  Faculty retain the authority to assign grades based on academic judgment, including concerns about the authenticity or academic integrity of submitted work, even when the conduct standard of preponderance of evidence is not met in a disciplinary proceeding.

2.  Grounds for Appeal

A grade appeal may be initiated only on one or more of the following grounds:

• A clerical or calculation error;
• Inconsistent application of grading criteria;
• Deviation from stated course policies or syllabus;
• Evidence of bias, capricious, or arbitrary grading.

3.  Limitations on Appealable Disputes

Not all grading disputes constitute grounds for a formal appeal.  A student’s disagreement with a faculty member’s professional evaluation of the quality, completeness, or merit of submitted work does not, by itself, constitute grounds for appeal.  Similarly, dissatisfaction with course rigor, grading standards, or the weight assigned to particular assignments—provided those standards were disclosed in the course syllabus—is not appealable under this policy.

4.  Burden of Proof

The burden of proof rests with the student to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the assigned grade was inappropriate based on one or more of the grounds identified in Section 2.  At each stage of the appeal process, the student must submit a clear written statement of the specific grounds for appeal, accompanied by all relevant supporting documentation and a detailed explanation of why the prior decision should be reconsidered.

5.  Appeal Deadlines

All appeal activity, including the initial informal consultation with the faculty member, must be initiated within thirty (30) business days of the date the final grade is officially posted to the student’s academic record.  A student wishing to proceed to the Academic Standards & Appeals Committee must submit a formal written appeal within ninety (90) calendar days of the final grade being officially posted, regardless of where the matter stands in the informal or administrative stages.  Students are advised to track both deadlines from the date of grade posting.

6.  Appeal Procedure

Step 1 — Informal Consultation with Faculty Member

A student who believes a grade appeal meets one or more of the grounds listed in Section 2 must first consult directly with the faculty member who issued the grade.  This consultation must occur within thirty (30) business days of the final grade being posted (see Section 5).  The purpose of this step is to seek informal resolution before escalating the matter.  Many concerns can be resolved at this stage through direct communication.

Step 2 — Department Chair Review

If the matter is not resolved through informal consultation, the student may escalate the appeal to the Department Chair.  The Chair will respond within ten (10) business days of receiving the concern.  The student’s submission must comply with the documentation requirements described in Section 4 and must explain why the faculty member’s decision should be reconsidered.

Step 3 — Chief Academic Officer Review

If the matter remains unresolved after the Department Chair’s review, the student may appeal to the Chief Academic Officer (CAO).  The CAO will respond within ten (10) business days of receiving the concern.  The student’s submission must comply with the documentation requirements described in Section 4 and must explain why the decisions of both the faculty member and the Department Chair should be reconsidered.

Step 4 — Academic Standards & Appeals Committee

Should resolution not be achieved at the CAO level, the student may submit a formal written appeal to the Academic Standards & Appeals Committee using the official form available in the Office of the Chief Academic Officer.  This appeal must be submitted within ninety (90) calendar days of the final grade being posted (see Section 5).

7.  Committee Review and Final Determination

The Academic Standards & Appeals Committee will hear the student’s appeal and may receive testimony from individuals the student designates. The faculty member who issued the grade has the right to appear before the Committee and may also present witnesses.

All proceedings are confidential.  Access to student academic records in this process is governed by applicable law, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

The Committee may recommend a grade change but is not authorized to directly alter the academic record.  The Committee’s recommendation will be reported to the Chief Academic Officer, who will make the final determination, direct any necessary action through the Registrar, and provide written notification to the student within ten (10) business days.

For misconduct involving student or employee discrimination, harassment or retaliation pursuant to the College’s Policy Prohibiting Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation (Non-Title IX), please refer to the RBC Policy Manual for applicable policies and procedures.

For misconduct involving student or employee sexual and/or gender-based harassment and other forms of interpersonal violence pursuant to Title IX, please refer to the RBC website at https://www.rbc.edu/my-rbc/title-ix/ for applicable policies and procedures.