Academic Integrity Policy: Non-Credit Learners
I. Policy Statement
As members of an academic community, both learners and instructors share responsibility for maintaining high standards of personal and professional integrity. If a learner violates these standards, the Academic Integrity Process ensures a fair resolution. The Academic Integrity Committee (AIC) may be called upon to hear cases where a breach of academic integrity is alleged by an instructor or peer. In all cases, RIT Certified representatives are responsible for rendering fair and appropriate decisions that uphold the standards of academic integrity.
II. Definitions and Roles
- Academic Integrity: Academic integrity refers to the commitment to honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility in all academic work. It requires that students, faculty, and staff uphold ethical principles in learning, teaching, research, and assessment.
- Academic Integrity Committee (AIC): A panel responsible for reviewing and determining outcomes in cases of academic integrity breaches. Staff or learner members on the committee must recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest or bias, and alternates will be appointed as needed. The committee shall consist of
- One (1) or two (2) members from the Academics team
- The RIT Certified Registrar
- A learner advisor of choice as a non-voting party (as requested by the learner)
- Executive Director Designee
- Business Day: A business day is defined as Monday through Friday throughout the year including during the summer, excluding official RIT holidays when the university is closed.
- Communication: Email is considered the official form of communication for all correspondence related to alleged or confirmed breaches of academic integrity.
- Disciplinary Actions: When an academic integrity violation is suspected, the instructor that discovers the alleged violation will recommend a disciplinary action which can include:
- A warning
- An Educational Action
- Reduced credit on the offending activity
- A grade of 0 on the offending activity
- An F grade in the course
- Executive Director Designee: The Executive Director (ED) shall identify a designee to facilitate and manage the hearing process as the Academic Integrity Committee chair. The Executive Director Designee serves as a voting member for the AIC, oversees procedural fairness, schedules hearings, and ensures all parties are notified and supported throughout the process. In the case a committee cannot reach a majority agreement (i.e. a tie), the Executive Director's Designee will determine the final decision based on consultation with the committee.
- Advisor of Choice: A learner involved in an academic integrity case may be assisted by an Advisor of Choice, who must be a member of the RIT faculty, staff, alumni network, or peer body. This individual may advise and support the learner but may not serve in a legal capacity or act as legal counsel during the hearing. A learner’s designated Advisor of Choice may fully participate in the hearing in accordance with the provisions of this policy.
- Instructor: The course facilitator who identifies and reports suspected academic misconduct. An instructor is responsible for assembling evidence and making an initial determination of appropriate action to be taken, up to and including failing the learner in the course. This authority aligns with RIT Certified’s Grading Policy, which defines failure as a potential academic outcome based on course expectations or violations of academic integrity.
- Learner: Any individual enrolled in an RIT Certified non-credit offering.
- Meeting: Academic integrity meetings and hearings may be conducted in person or via synchronous technology, such as video conferencing or teleconferencing, to accommodate accessibility and scheduling needs.
III. Breaches of Academic Integrity
Breaches of academic integrity fall into the following categories:
- Cheating: Cheating is any fraudulent or deceptive act that provides an unfair academic advantage. It includes, but is not limited to:
- Falsifying data, including tampering with graded materials to request a regrade without permission.
- Citing sources that were not actually used, including misattributing or fabricating citations.
- Having another person complete an assignment or exam on one’s behalf.
- Uploading, distributing, or contributing to unauthorized collections of completed work (e.g., sharing assignments on third-party websites for other learners to use).
- Engaging in unauthorized communication during exams and quizzes including copying material from another student during a test, whether in-person or online.
- Sharing information on assignments when prohibited by the instructor – all involved parties will be held accountable. Examples include:
- Copying work intended for individual assessment.
- Paraphrasing another’s work and submitting it as one’s own.
- Having someone else complete an assignment and submitting it as one’s own.
- Allowing another student to copy and submit work meant for individual assessment.
- Using unauthorized materials, sources, or tools, including unapproved artificial intelligence (AI) methods for assignments, exams, or assessments. Learners must follow AI usage guidelines outlined in the course syllabus.
- Hacking or tampering with academic systems to alter grades.
- Duplicate Submission (Self-Plagiarism): Submitting the same or substantially similar work for multiple courses – including at different institutions – without the explicit prior approval of the current instructor(s).
- Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the unauthorized use or appropriation of another’s ideas, writings, artistic designs, code, or any form of intellectual property without proper attribution. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:
- Presenting another person’s work or ideas as one’s own, without appropriate acknowledgment or citation.
- Inadequate citation of sources, including failure to give proper credit when paraphrasing.
- Copying direct text without quotation marks and a proper citation.
- Using AI-generated content without authorization or citation. Learners must follow AI usage guidelines outlined in the course syllabus.
- Fabrication: Fabrication involves creating or altering false information. Examples include:
- Knowingly making false statements to faculty, staff, or fellow learners.
- Altering academic records, data, or other materials to misrepresent performance or research results.
- Creating false research data or experimental results.
- Citing non-existent or incorrect sources.
- Altering academic records or transcripts.
- Falsifying attendance or participation in academic activities.
- Misrepresentation: Misrepresentation is the act of knowingly providing misleading or false information to an instructor. Examples include, but are not limited to:
- Providing a false excuse for missing an exam, quiz, or assignment deadline, such as submitting forged medical documentation.
- Submitting an empty or corrupted digital file and later claiming that the assignment was submitted correctly.
- Submitting false medical or emergency documentation.
- Falsifying internship or service hours.
- Claiming false authorship on group projects or research papers.
- Facilitation of Academic Dishonesty: Helping others commit academic misconduct is also a violation. Examples include:
- Allowing someone to copy one’s work.
- Providing answers or solutions to another learner.
- Selling or distributing academic materials (e.g., test answers, essays).
- Impersonating another learner in an exam or online course.
IV. Initial Instructor-Learner Resolution Attempt
When an instructor identifies a potential breach, they are responsible for determining whether the allegation is credible and supported by evidence. The instructor will:
- Document the evidence (e.g., text comparisons, screenshots, communication records)
- Notify the learner of the allegation via email, outlining the rationale for the action being taken
- Offer to meet with the learner to discuss the allegation and proposed resolution
If the learner accepts the outcome, the matter is considered closed. The instructor must submit all documentation, including the gathered evidence, a summary of the discussion with the learner, and the agreed-upon outcome, to certreg@rit.edu within five (5) business days of the learner’s acceptance. If the learner contests the allegation or the instructor believes the severity of the breach warrants additional review, either party may refer the case to the Academic Integrity Committee.
V. Reporting to the Academic Integrity Committee (AIC)
To escalate a case, the instructor or learner must do so within five (5) business days of their meeting if a mutual resolution is not reached:
- A written report and relevant evidence must be emailed to certified@rit.edu by the instructor or learner
- The AIC chair will review the submission and notify both parties within two (2) business days if the report warrants further action
A formal hearing will be scheduled and notice will be provided to the learner, including:
- A summary of the allegations
- Names of committee members expected to be present
- A link to this policy
Learners have the right to choose an advisor of choice to sit on the AIC as an ad-hoc non-voting member to provide support. Once notified of the escalated case, learners have three (3) business days to designate a non-legal advisor of choice to participate in the hearing. If no advisor of choice is selected, the AIC will proceed without one.
VI. Accessibility and Accommodations
RIT Certified is committed to ensuring that all learners can fully participate in the academic integrity process. If you need access services or accommodations for a hearing (such as sign language interpretation, captioning, or other support) please email certified@rit.edu as early as possible after receiving your hearing notification.
We will work with you and RIT’s Access Services team to ensure your needs are met throughout the process.
VII. Academic Integrity Hearing
Hearings are not a court of law or legal proceedings, and legal representation is not allowed. The AIC chair determines what testimony and evidence will be considered. Hearings will be scheduled in formats amenable to all participants.
Participants will be notified at least three (3) business days in advance. Hearings include:
- The learner
- AIC members
- A learner-designated advisor of choice (optional)
- Relevant witnesses (with prior notice and limited speaking time)
The learner cannot be found responsible for breaches of academic integrity solely for failing to answer the charges or appear at the hearing; in such cases, evidence to support the charges will be presented to the AIC and a determination will be made based on the evidence.
Written statements may be submitted in lieu of live attendance and will be read into the record.
VIII. Recording and Documentation
All hearings are recorded (audio or video). Hearing participants will be informed when recording begins. Transcripts or recordings may be reviewed upon request to certified@rit.edu. All materials are property of RIT Certified and will be retained for 10 years.
RIT Certified values academic integrity as a core institutional principle and maintains internal documentation of all potential, unfounded, and confirmed breaches reported through the Academic Integrity process. Only cases that have been initiated via formal instructor reporting or learner submission, regardless of outcome, will be tracked. Informal communications, advisories, or undocumented concerns that do not result in an official report will not be recorded in institutional records.
Tracking both confirmed and unfounded cases supports pattern identification, promotes transparency, and informs future academic integrity education and policy development.
Learners have the right to request access to records pertaining to their academic integrity case, including hearing documentation and final determinations. Learners may also request a correction to factual inaccuracies in those records by submitting a written request to certified@rit.edu. Requests will be reviewed by the Registrar and Academics team, and any updates or corrections will be reflected in the institutional record as appropriate.
IX. Hearing Participants
- Advisor of Choice: Learners may bring an instructor, staff, or peer advisor of choice (non-lawyer) to participate.
- Lawyers: Practicing lawyers are not permitted to participate in the Academic Integrity Process as a representative of the learner or instructor.
- Parents/Guardians: May observe and/or provide quiet counsel if the learner is under the age of 18.
- Witnesses: Must be pre-approved by the ED Designee. Speaking time is limited to five (5) minutes. Names and contact information for anyone presenting information must be submitted in advance of the meeting and in time to be documented in hearing materials. RIT Certified maintains the right to limit the number of meeting presenters and attendees.
X. Hearing Outcome
The AIC will render a decision by simple majority within two (2) business days after the hearing. If a breach is confirmed:
- Sanctions may include resubmission, grade penalties, course failure, or involuntary withdrawal from RIT Certified.
- The Executive Director may also be advised to consider academic suspension from RIT Certified.
- A written outcome will be sent to both learner and instructor within three (3) business days.
For RIT Certified learners that are also matriculated RIT students, a referral to the Office of Student Conduct will be submitted following the hearing outcome.
If the AIC determines no breach occurred, the instructor will reassess the grade in accordance with course policies. If a learner withdraws from the course after a case has been initiated, the grade will be recorded as:
- W if not yet adjudicated
- F if the breach is later confirmed
XI. Appeals and Procedural Reviews
Findings of the AIC are final. However, learners may request a procedural review if they believe there was a significant error in the hearing process. Requests must:
- Be submitted in writing to the Executive Director through certified@rit.edu within five (5) business days of the outcome
- Include specific claims of procedural error (not a disagreement with the outcome)
The Executive Director will determine whether further review is warranted.
Policy History
- April 25, 2024 – Policy Created
- December 11, 2025 – Policy Approved
- January 1, 2026 – Policy Implemented
- June 5, 2026 – Extensive edits in Sections II and III to align with updated RIT policy
- June 11, 2026 – Edits approved by Executive Director
- December 1, 2026 – Planned Annual Review