Honor Code

1.1 — Definitions:

A. Dean: The Dean of Penn State Dickinson Law.

B. Hearing Board: The panel, composed of three students and two faculty members drawn from the Honor Committee, convened to determine the validity of one or more alleged Honor Code violations brought against a Respondent and, when appropriate, to impose sanctions.

C. Honor Code Administrator: The administrator who is based at the location where the Respondent is enrolled at the time of the alleged violation and who is charged by the Dean with the responsibility of administering the Honor Code. Two individuals, one based at each location, shall be appointed to administer the Honor Code.

D. Honor Committee: The standing committee of the law school responsible for enforcing the Honor Code.

E. Honor Committee Chair: The student appointed by the Presidents of the SBA to assist with the administration of the Honor Code.

F. Law school: Penn State Dickinson Law.

G. Presenter: The Honor Code Administrator or the Administrator’s designee who presents the case against the Respondent during an honor proceeding.

H. President of the Hearing Board: The faculty member chosen by the Honor Committee Chair from the two faculty members on a Hearing Board to preside over an honor proceeding.

I. Reporter: Anyone affiliated with the law school who reports an alleged Honor Code violation.

J. Respondent: A student accused of an Honor Code violation by a Reporter.

1.2 — Purpose and Scope:

A. The goal of the Honor Code is to safeguard and promote the ideals of honor and integrity by protecting academic integrity and prohibiting lying, cheating, and stealing. Academic integrity is the pursuit of scholarly activity in an open, honest and responsible manner. Academic integrity includes a commitment by all members of the law school community not to engage in or tolerate acts of falsification, misrepresentation or deception. Such acts of dishonesty violate the fundamental ethical principles of the University community and compromise the worth of work completed by others.

B. The Honor Code does not relieve law students of the obligation to comply with other Penn State policies generally applicable to student conduct, nor does it relieve law students of the obligation to comply with federal, state, and local regulations and with the jurisdiction of law enforcement authorities.

C. Misconduct that may be subject to sanctions under the Honor Code, along with other misconduct, remains subject to the authority of the Dean and Faculty to maintain the educational process, the public reputation and institutional integrity of the law school, and the safety of the Law School Community. Such authority includes, without limitation, (1) the exclusion of a student from law school premises, (2) the imposition of grading sanctions, (3) the reporting of misconduct to law enforcement, bar admission authorities, and others, (4) the imposition of sanctions for misconduct in the law school admissions process, and (5) the imposition of sanctions upon former students who are no longer enrolled at the law school. In addition, the Honor Code does not preclude other remedies by authorities outside the law school, such as civil or criminal measures or bar-related sanctions, or by other units of The Pennsylvania State University or other educational institutions in which students subject to the Honor Code may be enrolled.

D. The procedures of this Code apply to all allegations of misconduct described herein.

E. An Honor Proceeding may be initiated until the law student's enrollment ends.

A. Giving or securing any information about the content of an examination except as authorized by the examining professor.

B. Consulting or copying from any books, papers, notes, or other materials of any kind during an examination except as authorized by the examining professor.

C. Taking more time for completing an examination than is permitted except as authorized by the examining professor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs (Associate Dean), or other person duly charged with exam administration.

D. Violating any other rules pertaining to the administration of examinations or the completion of course work.

E. Violating any rule applicable to clinics, field placements, the moot court programs, law review and journals, or any legal writing or skills competitions recognized or supported by the law school, regardless of whether academic credit is given.

F. Violations of academic integrity. Violations of academic integrity include, but are not limited to, copying, plagiarism, fabrication of information or citations, facilitation of acts of academic dishonesty by others, unauthorized possession of examinations, submitting work of another person or work previously used without informing the instructor, and tampering with the academic work of other students. Plagiarism is intentionally or recklessly submitting work that uses, without proper acknowledgment, words, ideas, results, methods, opinions, or concepts that do not originate from the student. It does not matter whether the appropriated information is published or unpublished, academic or nonacademic in content, or in the public or private domain. Plagiarism includes but is not limited to submitting work without proper citation, submitting as the student’s own work content produced by generative AI, and submitting content that results from such a degree of outside assistance that it cannot reasonably be deemed the student’s own work.

G. Authorizing the plagiarism of one's work and its submission by another student in any academic pursuit that is recognized or supported by the law school, regardless of whether academic credit is given.

H. Removing, concealing, withholding, destroying, mutilating or otherwise abusing any library material or other law school property without authorization.

I. Taking, using, concealing, withholding, destroying, mutilating, or otherwise abusing, without authorization, the academic property of another, including books, briefs, class notes, outlines, or any other items.

J. Misrepresenting any material fact in order to gain an unfair academic advantage or a benefit or service to which the student would otherwise not be entitled. This includes misrepresenting the student's academic achievement, record, or other activities in connection with seeking employment, financial aid, scholarships, scholarly awards, or admission into any program at an educational institution.

K. Disruption or obstruction of teaching, research, administration or discipline.

L. Interfering with the investigation and disposition of any violation or alleged violation of the Honor Code, including but not limited to a knowingly false accusation, a misstatement to the investigating team, an unprivileged failure to testify, perjury, interference with witnesses, or intimidation of witnesses.

M. Failing to comply with a sanction imposed by the Honor Committee.

N. Alteration, fabrication, or misuse of, or obtaining unauthorized access to Penn State or law school documents, identification cards, or computer files or systems.

O. Falsely representing class attendance or participation in curricular and co-curricular activity.

The Respondent has the right, at their own expense, to secure legal representation for any stage of the Honor Proceeding. The Respondent has the right to the assistance of a law school faculty member willing to serve in a representative capacity without functioning as legal counsel. The Honor Code Administrator at each location will maintain a list of faculty members willing to serve as a representative in Honor Proceedings and will provide that list to the Respondent. The Respondent has the right to assistance of another student willing to assist. These rights are cumulative.

3.1 — Pre-Hearing Rights:

A. The Respondent has the right to all evidence possessed by the Honor Code Administrator, including exculpatory evidence, at least fourteen days prior to the Hearing. The Honor Code Administrator shall immediately provide the Respondent with any evidence obtained within fourteen days of the Hearing and, at the request of the Respondent, postpone the Hearing if necessary to avoid substantial prejudice.

B. The Respondent has the right to request an open hearing, subject to the provisions of the Federal Education Right to Privacy Act (FERPA).

C. The Respondent has the right to challenge potential Hearing Board members for cause.

3.2 — Hearing Rights:

A. The Respondent has the right to offer any relevant evidence.

B. The Respondent has the right to call witnesses.

C. The Respondent has the right to examine the Reporter and other witnesses.

D. The Respondent has the right to testify or to remain silent during any stage of the hearing.

E. The Respondent has the right to make a closing argument.

3.3 — Appeal Rights:

A. The Respondent has the right to a copy of the Hearing Report within 7 days after the Hearing.

B. The Respondent has the right to appeal (see Chapter 7).

A. Sixteen students, who shall be elected by the student body in a manner and to terms as determined by the SBA Constitution, and are eligible for reelection as Honor Code Representatives. Four Representatives will be elected from each J.D. class, two of whom will be enrolled at each law school location. Four LL.M. students will be elected regardless of location. The SBA presidents shall each select one Representative to serve as Honor Committee Chairperson (Chair). If at any time the Honor Committee consists of fewer than sixteen (16) students, the SBA presidents shall appoint as many students as are necessary to carry out the functions of the Honor Committee.

B. Five faculty members who shall be appointed in accordance with the Faculty Bylaws of the law school and who are tenured or who have been continuously employed by Penn State University for at least four years. At least two of the faculty members shall be based in each location. If at any time the Honor Committee consists of fewer than five faculty members, other faculty members eligible to serve on the Honor Committee may be appointed in accordance with the Faculty Bylaws to carry out the functions of the Honor Committee.

5.1 — Reporting Procedure:

Any person affiliated with the law school may report a violation by submitting a memorandum to the Honor Code Administrator. The written report shall include: (1) the name of the Reporter; (2) the name of the Respondent; (3) the alleged violation; (4) the date of the alleged violation (if known); and (5) all facts relevant to the alleged violation, including the name of any person who may know of relevant facts.

5.2 — Notice of Alleged Violation:

The Honor Code Administrator shall in writing notify the Respondent of a credible alleged violation, the scheduling of a Preliminary Meeting, and the rights of the Respondent as specified in Chapter Three.

5.3 — Preliminary Meeting:

A. The Honor Code Administrator shall meet with the Respondent as soon as practicable after receiving a report of an alleged violation.

B. The Respondent and the Honor Code Administrator may resolve the matter by written agreement at any time. Any agreement resulting in the sanction of suspension or expulsion must be approved by the Dean.

C. If no agreement is reached, the Honor Code Administrator, in consultation with the Honor Committee Chair, shall determine whether probable cause exists to believe the Honor Code has been violated. If so, a Hearing shall be convened no fewer than fourteen days after the determination. If not, the case shall be dismissed.

D. Notwithstanding Section 5.3.C, a Respondent who does not reach an agreement with the Honor Code Administrator may waive a finding of probable cause, admit to the violation(s), and proceed to Hearing on the issue of sanctions only.

5.4 — Hearing Board:

A. Upon a finding of probable cause, the Chair shall appoint members of the Hearing Board, schedule the time and place of a Hearing Board proceeding, and notify the Reporter, the Respondent, and any witnesses to be called. The purpose of the proceeding shall be to determine whether the Respondent has committed the charged violation of the Honor Code and, if so, to determine the appropriate sanction.

B. The Hearing Board shall consist of five Honor Committee members, three student members and two faculty members, appointed by the Chair. At least two of the student members and one of the faculty members shall be based at the law school location at which the Respondent is based. The Honor Code Administrator and Chair shall not serve on a Hearing Board.

C. The Chair shall select one of the faculty members to be President of the Hearing Board.

D. The Honor Code Administrator, or duly designated substitute, shall be deemed the Presenter and shall present the case against the Respondent.

5.5 — Pre-Hearing Procedure:

A. Prior to the hearing, the Presenter shall distribute the report of alleged violation and any other relevant information to the members of the Hearing Board.

B. The Presenter and the Respondent must provide the President of the Hearing Board with a list of all witnesses that they intend to question at the Hearing no fewer than three days in advance of the Hearing.

C. The Presenter and the Respondent must arrange for their witnesses to testify at the Hearing; the Honor Committee shall provide reasonable assistance.

5.6 — Conduct of the Hearing:

A. Except as provided in Section 3.1.B, only persons involved in the Honor Proceeding may attend.

B. The Presenter shall present the case against the Respondent and shall have an opportunity for rebuttal.

C. The Respondent may present their case.

D. Witnesses shall be called individually and subject to examination, cross examination, and redirect examination by the parties. Hearing Board members may question witnesses.

E. The President of the Hearing Board shall arrange for testimony to be electronically preserved.

F. The President of the Hearing Board shall have the power to rule on procedural matters.

G. At the conclusion of testimony, the Hearing Board shall deliberate privately. The Hearing Board may reconvene, together with the parties, to ask additional questions or reexamine witnesses. Only the Hearing Board may recall witnesses. The Hearing Board shall vote upon the factual elements that are essential to a finding of whether the Respondent violated the Honor Code. A violation is established only if at least four of the five members of the Hearing Board so find.

H. If the Hearing Board does not find that a violation of the Honor Code has occurred, it shall dismiss the charges and immediately notify the Respondent.

I. If the Hearing Board finds that a violation of the Honor Code has occurred, it shall immediately notify the parties.

J. In the event a violation is found, the Hearing Board shall reconvene for the imposition of the sanction(s) within 48 hours of the conclusion of the prior Hearing. The Respondent shall then be afforded the opportunity to address the issue of the appropriate sanction(s). Prior to proposing any sanction, the Presenter may consult the Honor Code Administrator at the other location. At the conclusion of this presentation, the Hearing Board shall determine what sanction(s) to impose in accordance with Chapter 6.

K. In the event that the Hearing Board finds a violation of the Honor Code, the President shall prepare the Hearing Report. The Hearing Report shall include a description of both the evidence supporting the finding that the Respondent violated the Honor Code and any factors the Hearing Board considered in choosing the sanction(s) it imposed.

L. An Honor Case shall be closed when no violation of the Honor Code was found to have occurred; a violation was found to have occurred, and no appeal is requested; or an appeal is terminated. Imposition of any sanction(s) shall commence once the case is closed.

5.7 — Rules of Evidence:

A. The President of the Hearing Board shall rule on the admissibility of evidence based on relevance and fairness; the Hearing Board shall not be bound by formal rules of evidence.

B. The Hearing Board may draw an adverse inference against a Respondent who possesses or controls evidence but refuses to produce it.

C. The Hearing Board may draw an adverse inference against the Respondent for remaining silent during any stage only in determining the appropriate sanction(s) after finding a violation.

5.8 — Burden of Persuasion:

The Presenter must prove the facts of the case by clear and convincing evidence. In order to find the Respondent guilty of an Honor Code Violation, four of the five members of the Hearing Board must be persuaded that (1) the Presenter proved the alleged facts and (2) the conduct proved by the Presenter violates the Honor Code. Following a determination of violation, the Hearing Board may impose sanctions. Four of the five members of the Hearing Board must approve sanctions that are imposed. When the Hearing Board imposes a sanction of suspension or expulsion, however, all members of the Hearing Board must agree.

In choosing a sanction, the Hearing Board must consider the items in Section 6.1 but may also consider any other relevant information. Additionally, the sanctions that may be imposed by the Hearing Board or agreed upon with the Honor Code Administrator pursuant to Section 5.3.B upon finding of a violation of the Honor Code are not limited to those in Section 6.2.

6.1 — Criteria:

A. The nature and seriousness of the violation, including the potential harm to the academic integrity of the law school community.

B. The circumstances of the violation, including any aggravating or mitigating factors.

C. The need to uphold and promote respect for the Honor Code and to deter future violations by the Respondent and others.

D. The opportunity afforded in fashioning a sanction to make amends for the Respondent’s transgression(s) against the law school community.

E. The extent to which the Respondent cooperated or was forthright during the investigation and/or Honor Proceeding.

F. Any comments relevant to sanctions that the Respondent and their representative make.

G. Whether the Respondent gained, or acted with the intent to gain, academic benefit.

6.2 — Possible Sanctions:

A. An order to return, replace or pay for the property of the victim.

B. An oral or written reprimand not to be included in the student's record.

C. A written reprimand to be included in the student's record.

D. With the concurrence of the faculty member, denial of credit for a course, with an appropriate transcript entry.

E. Suspension or denial of library or other privileges or offices.

F. Suspension from academic and/or non-academic law school activities for a stated period.

G. Loss of any merit scholarship that may have been awarded by the law school.

H. Expulsion from the law school.

A. A written Appeal must be submitted to the Dean within 14 days of the Respondent’s receipt of the Hearing Report. The Appeal must include the reason for review and the remedy sought.

B. The Dean has full discretion to consider any materials relevant to the case. The Dean has the power either to remand the case to the Hearing Board for further consideration, to impose lesser sanctions than those imposed by the Hearing Board, or to affirm the sanction(s) imposed by the Hearing Board. The Dean shall provide a written rationale when remanding a case or imposing a lesser sanction. The Dean shall not have the authority to impose sanctions that are more severe than those imposed by the Hearing Board.

The Honor Code Administrator shall periodically publish reports on the matters disposed consistent with FERPA.

A. Any person affiliated with the law school may submit a written proposal to amend the Honor Code to the Honor Committee, providing the rationale for the proposed change.

B. The Honor Committee shall determine which proposed amendments to refer to the SBA for a student vote.

C. Amendments approved by a majority of students voting shall be submitted to the faculty for final approval. No amendment can take effect without the approval of a majority of students voting and the approval of the faculty pursuant to the faculty bylaws.