Bylaws to Charter

To have a person of their choice accompany them throughout the investigative and adjudicative process. This individual may assist the responding student during judicial procedures. The Board on Judicial Affairs [Board on Conduct Affairs] shall have the power to enact bylaws establishing policies and guidelines specifying the nature of the adviser's role.

To have a person of their choice accompany them throughout the investigative and adjudicative process. The individual may provide advice and counsel, but may not speak on behalf of, or otherwise represent the reporting party during judicial procedures.

The responding student and the reporting party are expected to speak for themselves at hearings. Both the responding student and the reporting party are entitled to personal advisers, who may assist them throughout all proceedings and who may accompany them at all hearings. During any hearing, the personal advisers of both reporting party and responding student must limit their participation to private advice to the person they accompany.

To call witness on their behalf at Judicial Panel [Conduct Panel] hearings and to cross-examine witnesses against them. The Board on Judicial Affairs [Board on Conduct Affairs] shall have the power to specify in its bylaws limited types of evidence that shall be considered admissible without cross-examination. In all other cases, evidence provided by a witness who is unwilling or unable to be cross-examined will be disregarded.

Types of evidence that shall be considered admissible without cross-examination include, for example: official records, reports, or data compilations by Stanford University offices, other educational institutions, or public agencies; final factual or legal rulings in any civil or criminal court; medical or related records in official clinic, hospital, or office files; or regularly compiled business or financial records.

The Board has the authority to adopt and/or modify the Student Conduct Penalty Code.

After a thorough study of the Penalty Code and after considering the recommendations of the Judicial Panel [Conduct Panel], the Board determined that its first penalty-related priority was to modify the Penalty Code to reflect current practice and to provide Judicial Panels [Conduct Panels] with some flexibility with respect to probationary penalties. Next year the Board will develop some guidelines for applying penalties in particular cases and for publicizing to the community the kind of penalty applied to different cases involving different kinds of misconduct. This document attempts neither of those tasks. It is merely a list and definition of penalties available to Judicial Boards.

• (b) Actions by the Board shall require a majority vote of those present and voting.
• (c) The Board shall have the power to adopt rules of procedure to govern its own actions, provided that a two-thirds majority of those present and voting agree.

The Board will form subcommittees as needed to make recommendations to the Board. Subcommittees will attempt to reach a consensus, but may offer as many "minority reports" as necessary to reflect the view of their members. The Board will promulgate bylaws by consensus where possible, and by voting where not. The Charter requires that the Board have a quorum for votes, a majority for substantive decisions, and a thirds majority for decisions on procedures governing the Board's own actions.

Presentation of evidence and testimony, as well as, questioning of the responding student and of witnesses at Judicial Panel [Conduct Panel] hearings shall be conducted in a manner that is courteous to all participants, that is devoid of intimidation and harassment, and that limits discussion to information relevant to the facts and issues of the case.

The Chair of the Judicial Panel [Conduct Panel] has the duty to ensure that participants in the hearing act with courtesy and civility and avoid any intimidation or harassment.

• NEW EVIDENCE means evidence that the Final Appeals Panel [Appeals Panel] determines was not available to the student or not known or reasonably discoverable by the student at the time of the Judicial Panel [Conduct Panel] hearing.  (That is, evidence does not become new at the appeals level if the student could have but did not – for whatever reason – present it to the Judicial Panel [Conduct Panel].)
• COMPELLING NEW EVIDENCE means evidence that the Final Appeals Panel [Appeals Panel] determines is not only NEW but also evidence that likely would have changed the Judicial Panel’s [Conduct Panel's] decision(s).

To call witnesses on their behalf at Judicial Panel [Conduct Panel] hearings and to cross-examine witnesses against them. The Board on Judicial Affairs [Board on Conduct Affairs] shall have the power to specify in its bylaws limited types of evidence that shall be considered admissible without cross-examination. In all other cases, evidence provided by a witness who is unwilling or unable to be cross-examined will be disregarded.

To ensure that hearings operate in this manner, the Board has adopted the following provision: Witnesses must be able to provide information that is relevant to the case. All witnesses must submit statements to the Office of Judicial Affairs [Office of Community Standards] in a timely fashion, as determined by the Judicial Officer [Conduct Investigator], prior to the start of the hearing. The hearing panel shall be the arbiter as to whether a witness meets these criteria, and if approved, shall have the power to limit witness testimony if it strays beyond, or does not add substantially to, the facts and issues of the case.

Both the reporting party and the responding student are expected to cooperate fully with an investigation of the facts of a case and with the adjudicative process. Similarly, in keeping with the principles set forth in the Honor Code and Fundamental Standard, all parties with knowledge of facts pertaining to a case of alleged student misconduct are expected to cooperate fully with the investigation of the facts of the case and must appear, if requested, at Judicial Panel [Conduct Panel] hearings. In addition, all parties are expected to be respectful of the confidential nature of any knowledge or information they may have about a judicial case or the other parties involved. No person shall be required to engage in self-incrimination as part of any judicial proceeding.

Therefore, the Board adopts the following bylaw to amplify the meaning of the Charter provision regarding cooperation of all parties: Students who fail to cooperate in the adjudicative process may be subject to a Fundamental Standard charge and/or, in appropriate cases, non-cooperation may be considered an aggravating factor, except in respect of the exercise of their fundamental right to refuse to engage in self-incrimination. Non-student witnesses who fail to cooperate may be referred to authorities with appropriate jurisdiction.

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.

Proctors oversee the administration of the exam, document observations of student conduct, and serve as a resource for student questions. All proctors should complete the brief self-paced online Stanford Proctor Training before proctoring at Stanford.

While supervising the exam, proctors should be minimally obtrusive and make reasonable efforts to limit distractions for students. Proctors should have a clear means of identifying students, so that they can make diligent observations of potentially concerning behavior during the exam, taking care not to misinterpret normal behaviors that may introduce unintentional bias (e.g., stretching, fidgeting, clothing adjustments). Proctors will not prevent students from completing the exam; they may, however, remove any unpermitted aid. Proctors may deviate from these procedures when circumstances warrant, provided they act in good faith, with the goal of maintaining fairness, consistency, and minimal disruption to students.

Proctors should report any observations to the primary instructor, who should review potential evidence and submit all reasonable suspicions of potential Honor Code violations to the Office of Community Standards.

Students should expect that most in-person exams will be proctored. While the Honor Code does not require students to report violations, they are encouraged to share any concerns with proctors or their instructor during or after the exam.

If a department or program elects to proctor examinations for a course, that practice should be applied consistently across all offerings of the course, including all quarters, sections, instructors, and alternative examination arrangements (e.g., OAE, Athletics, etc.) during an academic year. To facilitate consistent exam administration, course instructors must communicate clear exam instructions to any other entities administering exams (e.g., Centralized Testing Center, Athletics, etc.).