To the Yale Community:
I call to your attention an important document stating Yale's policies on allegations of academic fraud, which have been in place since 1982. In response to comments from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services the University recently made minor revisions to the statement. We present the full text of the revised policy here for the information of the community.
Alison Richard, Provost
"The Scholar works within an environment that has been developed for conducting, supporting, and evaluating scholarly research in the single-minded pursuit of truth. . . . Academic fraud is more than error; it may take the form of falsification or fabrication of data, plagiarism, or grossly negligent data collection or analysis. It is hardly possible to exaggerate the damage that can result from such a breach of the academic commitment to truth. Academic fraud . . . not only shatters individual careers, but besmirches the entire cause of objective research, undermines the credibility of scholarship and rends the fragile tissues of confidence between scholar and scholar, teacher and student, the university and the public. . . .
All forms of academic fraud must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. All scholars have an obligation to disclose what they believe, in good faith, to be well-founded suspicions of academic fraud. Allegations of fraud must, of course, be made with great caution; yet those who come forward with such allegations must understand that the University respects the honest exercise of their judgment. At the same time, the rights of those whose scholarship or research is questioned must also be scrupulously protected, all in accord with a process that responds to such allegations with the utmost care, diligence, sensitivity, and respect for the rights of all concerned."
Yale University first formally addressed the issue of academic fraud in its Policy Statement on Collaborative Research published in 1982 from which the above statements are taken. The University believes that the academic community must do everything within its power to guard against academic fraud, and as part of that responsibility should have in place detailed and well-established procedures for dealing with allegations of academic fraud in a timely and fair manner. The procedures are necessary not only to protect the academic community from fraud, but also to protect individuals who may be unjustly accused.1 They do not supplant existing disciplinary procedures, but rather establish an initial process for the review and investigation of allegations, which may result in the initiation of disciplinary action if warranted, in accordance with applicable procedures.
Three general principles must govern the response when allegations of academic fraud are brought forward. They are 1 that any well-founded accusation of scholarly misconduct made in good faith must be given serious consideration; 2. that an accused person must be assumed innocent until the weight of evidence requires a conclusion to the contrary; and 3. that every effort should be made to protect the privacy and reputation of both the accuser and the accused, to provide for fair process, and to restore the good name of an unjustly accused individual.
The procedures to be followed are as follows:
Initiation of Allegation
1. Any allegation of academic fraud, including but not limited to falsification or fabrication of data, plagiarism, or gross negligence in the conduct, proposing or reporting of research, whether lodged from within or outside the University, that is directed against a faculty or staff member or postdoctoral fellow or associate of any School of Yale University, will be directed to the Dean of the School in which the accused hold appointments.2,3
2. The Dean, in a timely manner but no longer than two weeks following receipt of an allegation, with the advice of two senior faculty members designated by him or her, will determine whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the allegation was made in good faith, is non-trivial and if true would constitute academic fraud. If it is necessary to consult with others in order to make this decision, the Dean will seek to maintain, if possible, the anonymity of all individuals involved, including those who have made the allegations, and in any event will require all those consulted to treat the matter as strictly confidential.
3. If the Dean determines that the allegation does not warrant further attention, the results of the Dean's evaluation and the reasons therefor will be set forth in a written report which will be for a period of three years maintained in a locked file. The Dean will promptly inform the persons who made the allegations of this decision.
Inquiry
4. If the Dean determines that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the allegation was made in good faith, is non-trivial and if true would constitute academic fraud, or if the Dean is unable to reach a determination in a timely manner, the Dean, will appoint an ad hoc Inquiry Committee to examine the allegation. The Inquiry Committee will be comprised of tenured faculty members of the School, but in consideration of the privacy of all concerned, will be limited to the minimal number required for competent completion of the task. A faculty member will not be appointed to the Inquiry Committee if the Dean believes that individual to have a potential conflict of interest in relation to the matter at hand or the individuals involved. The Dean will promptly inform the accused that an allegation has been made and will be subject to an inquiry and will provide to him or her the names of members of the Inquiry Committee and sufficient information about the allegation so as to permit the accused to prepare to respond.
5. The Dean will notify the Provost that an inquiry has been initiated and the nature of the alleged fraud. If warranted, in the Dean's judgment, based upon an overriding need to protect the health, safety, reputation or financial interest of others or when required by Federal regulations, the Dean will notify relevant funding, regulatory or other agencies of the initiation of the inquiry. Where Federally funded research is involved, the Dean will take such interim administrative actions during the inquiry or during any later investigations as are appropriate, in his or her judgment, to protect Federal funds and ensure that the purposes of the Federal financial assistance are being carried out, as required under Federal regulations.
6. The Inquiry Committee immediately will request and secure all materials it believes directly relevant to the allegations. The Inquiry Committee will seek to interview the accusers and the accused so as to hear first hand the allegations as well as the response of the accused.4 The Inquiry Committee also may interview or otherwise request information from others within or without the University, including persons uninvolved in but knowledgeable about the matter under inquiry, and may seek expert advice. All persons requested to participate in the Inquiry or to provide documents are expected to cooperate. The members of the Inquiry Committee will make every effort to maintain the confidentiality of their materials and deliberations. All correspondence, minutes, and other records will be marked "confidential" and kept in locked files. In seeking information, the Inquiry Committee, insofar as it can, will require confidentiality of those with whom it must communicate. The Inquiry Committee will give due regard to preserving the privacy of the persons bringing the allegations; however, if the Inquiry Committee determines that confidential disclosure of the identity of the accuser to any person --including the accused-- is necessary in order for it to proceed fairly with its deliberations, the Inquiry Committee, after first informing the accuser, may make such disclosure.
7. As soon as practicable, and normally within 60 days after receiving its charges, the Inquiry Committee will prepare a written report for the Dean setting forth its conclusions and the evidentiary basis for those conclusions --including summaries of interviews. If circumstances clearly warrant extending the inquiry beyond 60 days, the report shall include documentation of the reasons for the extension. The Inquiry Committee may reach one of two conclusions:
a. If the Inquiry Committee concludes that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the allegation may be true, the Dean will maintain the written report as described in paragraph 3 above. In that event, the Dean will inform the accuser, and to the extent appropriate, persons consulted by the Inquiry Committee, of that conclusion and the reasons for it and will provide a copy of the report for the accused. The Dean will also determine what steps, if any, should be taken to restore the reputation of the accused.
b. If the Inquiry Committee concludes that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the allegations may be true and that a formal investigation is required, it will provide to the Dean along with its report a formal written statement detailing the specific charge or charges of academic fraud that should in its judgment be the subject of an investigation. The Dean will convey the report and this statement to the accused.
8. If the inquiry substantiates academic fraud which is admitted by the accused, the Dean will determine what actions should be taken, including any further investigation, and the sanctions to be imposed or recommended, consistent with applicable disciplinary procedures. If fraudulent scholarship or research has been published, the Dean will see that the facts are submitted to the appropriate journals in sufficient detail to allow for correction of the relevant public record. The Dean will notify the applicable funding, regulatory or other agencies of the outcome, as required by law or regulation.
Investigation
9. The Dean will initiate a formal investigation, if he deems one warranted, as soon as practicable after receiving the report from the Inquiry Committee containing its conclusions and its statement of charges. Normally this will be within 30 days. The Investigation will be carried out by an ad hoc investigation committee consisting of three or more individuals whom the Dean will appoint and which may include, in addition to or in lieu of tenured members of the faculty of the School, qualified individuals from outside the School or University. The Dean will not appoint to the Investigation Committee any individuals whom he or she believes have a potential conflict of interest with respect to the matter under review or the individuals involved. The Dean will inform the accused of the membership of the Investigation Committee, and will consider any objection promptly raised by the accused based on conflict of interest. However, the Dean's evaluation of any such objection shall be final. The Dean will promptly inform the Provost of the initiation of the Investigation and will also report the Investigation to the applicable funding, regulatory or other agencies as may be required by law or regulation.
10. The Investigation Committee will gather, review and assess relevant evidence and will determine whether the charge or charges are substantiated.
11. The Investigation Committee will impound any materials, including laboratory notebooks, data and other research or scholarly materials which it believes are relevant. The Investigation Committee will make every effort to hear directly from the accused as well as the accusers. It may call witnesses who may be any persons within or without the University who may be knowledgeable about the matters under investigation, may seek expert advice and may review the records of the Inquiry Committee. The Investigation will follow the same procedures as described in paragraph 6 to maintain confidentiality and protect the privacy of those involved. The Investigation Committee will provide to the accused the opportunity to inspect all documents which it will consider, except where there is a compelling need to protect the confidentiality of a communication, in which case the Committee will inform the accused of the substance of the document. The Investigation Committee also will provide the accused the opportunity to submit evidence and suggest witnesses. The Investigation Committee at its discretion may permit the accused to be present during the hearing of testimony from other witnesses or may exclude the accused, provided that the accused is given an opportunity to rebut or respond to the substance of all testimony.
12. The Investigation Committee will complete its work as soon as possible and will ordinarily take no longer than 120 days from the date it receives its charges. If the Investigation cannot be completed within that time, the Investigation Committee will report to the Dean on the status of the Investigation and he or she will notify the Provost as to an estimated timetable for completion of the Investigation. The Dean will also notify and request any necessary extension of time from any funding, regulatory or other agencies as may be required by applicable law.
Report of Investigation
13. Upon completion of its Investigation, the Investigation Committee will prepare a written report consisting of the following three parts:
a. A summary of the substance of the documents, the testimony and the other forms of evidence which the Investigation Committee relied upon in reaching its conclusion.
b. A statement of the Committee's findings of fact and the conclusions it has drawn from those facts.
c. The Committee's recommendation, if any, as to what actions the Dean should undertake.
The report of the Investigation Committee will be adopted upon the majority vote of the members of the Committee.
14. The Dean will permit the accused to inspect the Committee's summary of documents, testimony and other evidence in the report and its findings of fact and conclusions, and to indicate in writing what clarification or corrections, if any, he or she believes are appropriate. The Dean, solely at his or her discretion, may allow a similar opportunity to the accuser. The Dean, after receiving the comments on the report, may ask the Investigation Committee to supplement its report. The Dean also may request the Committee to advise him or her on steps which should be taken to restore the reputation of the accused if the Investigation does not substantiate the charges.
15. The Dean will accept the findings of fact and conclusions of the report, as supplemented, of the Investigation Committee and will determine in light of the report, what actions, including disciplinary action, he or she will take or recommend to the Provost and President be taken or initiated in accordance with University procedures. The Dean will notify the accused of his or her decision in writing. The Dean also will notify any funding, regulatory or other agencies as required by law or regulation of the outcome of the Investigation and the action that will be taken or initiated and will submit such reports as may be required. In the event that the Investigation concludes that charges are not substantiated, the Dean will determine what measures reasonably can and should be taken to help restore the reputation of the accused, and will see that they are taken.
Appeal
16. Any person who has brought an allegation of academic fraud, or any person accused of academic fraud who believes that the allegation was improperly reviewed, may appeal in writing to the Provost. In considering such an appeal, the Provost will limit his or her review to determining whether appropriate procedures and standards were applied.
1. Retaliation against an individual for having made in good faith an allegation of academic fraud is a violation of University policy and an offense subject to discipline. On the other hand, an individual who maliciously or in bad faith brings such an allegation also will be subject to discipline.
2. In the case of joint appointments, the complaint should be directed to the School of primary appointment; if neither School is primary, the Provost will determine to which Dean the complaint should be directed.
3. An allegation that a student has committed academic fraud in the course of proposing, conducting or reporting of research supported by the Federal government will also be addressed under these procedures, and will be directed to the Dean of the School in which the accused is enrolled. If Federally supported research is not involved, the Dean may address the matter either under these procedures or under the student disciplinary procedures of the School, in the Dean's discretion.
4. When being interviewed by the Inquiry Committee, an accused may be accompanied by an adviser, who may be any member of the Yale Community, but not by legal counsel.
5. The accused may be accompanied before the Investigation Committee by an adviser who may be any member of the Yale University community. If the accused has engaged legal counsel, then counsel instead will be permitted to accompany the accused to consult with him or her as an adviser. However, the Investigation is not a trial-type proceeding and legal counsel will not be permitted to direct questions or answers or offer argument on behalf of the accused.