There are two levels of the appeals process. The All-University Judicial Board is the first level, and the Provost is the second and final level of appeal. At each level, an appealed case merits being heard based on the following conditions. 

• An excessive sanction when compared with previous sanctions for similar violations under similar circumstances.* 
• The discovery of significant new information relevant to the case. 
• Procedural error regarding the student’s rights involving error in the administration of judicial procedures by the faculty, Department Chair or Judicial Coordinator. 

The appeals process is not for retrying or rehearing a case. Decisions made during the appeals process can result in one of the following: 

• The sanction being altered based on a finding that the sanction is not consistent with past practice. 
• A new hearing being granted based on new information. 
• A new hearing being granted because the Protocol for Adjudicating Alleged Violations of Academic Honesty was not applied appropriately. 

No grade penalty should be assigned by the faculty member until the judicial process determines that an act of academic dishonesty has occurred. If the charges cannot be resolved prior to the end of the current semester, a grade of ‘I’ should be assigned pending the outcome of the hearing. The ‘I’ will remain on the student’s transcript until the charges are resolved. If the charges are still not resolved before the time frame for the ‘I’ expires, the faculty member will request from the Registrar’s Office an extension of the grade of ‘I’. The faculty member and the Department Chair will be notified of the outcome of the disciplinary case in order to assign a grade for the course. If the student is found not to be in violation of the Academic Honesty Policy, neither the faculty member nor any other member of the University community may take any other action against the student. 

*Specific sanctions in syllabus are not subject to appeal.