BCA Guidance & Recommendations

Attendance is limited to panel members, Reporting Parties and Responding Students, OCS staff members, approved support people, and witnesses. Witnesses are only permitted to attend during their testimony.

Reporting Parties, Responding Students, and witnesses may bring a support person to the hearing, as permitted by the Charter. A Responding Student or Reporting Party may bring additional support people only if the Conduct Advisor approves. In conformance with the Bylaws, the Responding Student and the Reporting Party are expected to speak for themselves at hearings. A support person may only provide private advice to the person they accompany.

1. In general, Alternative Resolution is the appropriate forum for most first-time Honor Code concerns, including but not limited to the following:
   • a. Giving or receiving unpermitted aid on an assignment or exam.
   • b. Copying another’s work and submitting it as one’s own.
   • c. Improper citation of sources amounting to plagiarism.
   • d. Submitting an assignment with falsified data.
   • e. Claiming to be present at a lecture, lab, section, or other course component not attended, or assisting another student in such a deception.
   • f. Submitting work for academic credit in multiple courses without the prior consent of each instructor (access the dual submission policy).
2. A Concern is ineligible for Alternative Resolution if any of the following conditions obtain.
   • a. The Responding Student has been found responsible for a previous concern.
   • b. The Responding Student does not accept responsibility for (i.e., contests) the concern.
   • c. The concern is specifically listed in this Guidance as appropriate for Mid-Level or High-Level Review.
   • d. There appear to be aggravating circumstances that warrant investigation.

1. In general, Mid-Level Review is appropriate for an Honor Code concern when the Responding Student has accepted responsibility for a prior violation and has been through the AR process.
2. Additionally, Mid-Level Review is appropriate for first-time Honor Code concerns that involve an aggravating factor, including but not limited to the following:
   • a. Stealing and claiming credit for another student’s work without that student’s knowledge (i.e., theft).
   • b. Arranging for someone else to take an exam on one’s behalf (i.e., identity impersonation).
   • c. Pervasive disregard for the Honor Code across multiple courses.
3. Finally, a Concern will be designated for Mid-Level Review when either:
   • a. Alternative Resolution is not available because the Responding party does not accept responsibility, or
   • b. The Responding party has been found responsible in a previous Mid-Level Review but, in the view of the OCS Director, extenuating circumstances warrant a second Mid-Level Review. 

A concern will be designated for High-Level review when either:

1. The Responding Student has been found responsible for an Honor Code violation in a previous Mid-Level Review and the OCS Director does not believe extenuating circumstances warrant a second Mid-Level Review; or
2. The concern alleges unconscionable behavior toward the university community and/or egregious disregard for academic standards, including but not limited to the following:
   • a. Plagiarism on a thesis, dissertation, or similar project.
   • b. Falsifying data on a thesis, dissertation, or similar project.
   • c. Receiving unpermitted aid on any academic work through fraud, intimidation, or unauthorized access.
   • d. Attempting to cast blame for an Honor Code concern on an innocent student.
   • e. Creating and submitting fabricated evidence to OCS.
   • f. Threatening, harassing, or intimidating anyone associated with the conduct review process in connection with an OCS case.

OCS is to recruit qualified individuals to serve as Hearing Examiners as described below. 

• a. The Hearing Examiners will be drawn from a pool of lawyers with relevant experience who are willing to serve pro bono for the Stanford community, and who will be trained in preparation for their service.
• b. In all events, these individuals must agree to act as neutral aids and advisers to the Panel, which is the only body with decision-making authority.
• c. Hearing Examiners must have no familial or personal relationship to any of the parties or witnesses in the matter. 

 In any hearing in which a Hearing Examiner is participating, the Hearing Examiner will conduct the initial cross-examination of all parties and witnesses. The Hearing Examiner is to function as an impartial actor, conducting cross-examinations in a thorough and respectful manner with the lone objective of ensuring that all testimony is subject to appropriate inquiry so as best to support the search for the truth. 

• a. Parties are invited (but not required) to suggest to the Hearing Examiner areas of questioning and proposed questions to cover. The Hearing Examiner has the unreviewable discretion to decide whether to adopt those suggestions. All suggestions are to be submitted through OCS, by a deadline fixed by OCS.
• b. In any event, following the Hearing Examiner’s cross-examination, parties are entitled to conduct cross-examinations of their own, provided they may not ask questions that are functionally repetitive of those the Hearing Examiner already asked, and provided they comply with principles of relevance, admissibility, and civility. The Panel will enforce these rules as described in Section 3. 

In any hearing in which a Hearing Examiner is participating, the Hearing Examiner will be responsible for assisting the Panel to identify and analyze issues regarding relevance and general admissibility of evidence, as well as to maintain civility during the hearing. 

• a. When a party seeks a Panel ruling on an evidentiary issue, the Hearing Examiner will serve as a neutral resource to answer panelists’ questions about principles relating to the question. At no time should the Hearing Examiner instruct the Panel how to decide the question. That responsibility rests always with the Panel.
• b. When the Hearing Examiner determines that there is an evidentiary issue worthy of the Panel’s attention, the Hearing Examiner shall recess the hearing momentarily to confer privately with the Panel (in a neutral manner as described above).
• c. Once the Panel has decided a general issue, the Hearing Examiner may enforce that decision without pausing the proceeding to consult with the Panel each time a party is contravening the Panel’s ruling. However, any panelist is free to call for a recess so that the Panel can assess the question.
• d. The Hearing Examiner is not permitted to be present when the Panel deliberates on the ultimate questions of responsibility and possible sanctions. 

In any hearing in which a Hearing Examiner is participating, the Hearing Examiner will be responsible for assisting the Panel to decide issues that arise regarding interpretations of the 2023 Charter and /or BCA Bylaws. The Hearing Examiner will not be the one deciding such issues or instructing the panelists how to decide them. That responsibility rests always with the Panel. Rather, the Hearing Examiner is to provide the panelists impartial objective assistance on various ways to approach the issue, enabling the panelists to achieve a full understanding of the available interpretive tools and the competing considerations as the Panel renders its decision. 

It is the intent of the BCA that during the Fall Quarter of the 2027-2028 academic year, OCS will submit to the BCA an evaluation of the pilot program. The BCA will use this evaluation, together with information the BCA itself gathers, to decide whether the Pilot Program should be made permanent, should be abandoned, or should be modified in specified ways. 

 Accordingly, the Charter provides that, during the course of the investigation, the Conduct Investigator may request that the Director “assign a higher level of review for the concern.” Section IVB.3. And, in the opposite direction, if the actual evidence reveals that no charge is appropriate after all, the Charter instructs the Conduct Investigator not to pursue charges—regardless of any decision the Director made based on the preliminary information available during the initial five days. The Charter does not, however, explicitly address whether, based on facts that emerge during an investigation, the Conduct Investigator may request that the Director assign a lower level of review for the concern.

With this Guidance, the BCA confirms that, just as a concern can be dropped based on facts learned through the investigation, and just as the level of review can be increased based on facts learned through the investigation, the level of review can be decreased based on facts learned through the investigation. Therefore, the BCA now makes it clear that OCS is empowered to reduce the level of a violation whenever the OCS Director concludes that the level would not have been set that high had the Director been privy at that time to the information that has emerged in the time since the level was initially set.

With this Guidance, BCA confirms that, in deciding whether a concern should go forward and, if so, under what level of review, the Director is entitled to make reasonable inquiries to secure an adequate understanding of the basic allegations into the “nature of the concern.” The Charter defines “nature of the concern” to include “the apparent severity and pattern of the alleged activity and its impact on other community members.” The BCA cautions that the Director’s role in this regard is not to conduct a full investigation into the weight of evidence supporting or undermining the allegations of the concern.