BCA Guidance: Definitions and Clarifications

For the purposes of the Student Judicial Charter of 1997 and the Stanford Judicial Affairs process only, the term 'student' refers to any person who has accepted an offer of admission or for whom the University maintains educational records, as defined by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 and related regulations, and who, in the case of degree-seeking individuals, has not yet been awarded his or her current degree from the University. For some time we have been invoking a much narrower jurisdictional scope. The current scope is those students enrolled in Stanford degree-seeking programs or visiting/exchange students here under an agreement with their home institutions. Alleged Honor Code violations discovered after a degree has been conferred are subject to adjudication.

• If a student is charged with violation of a university policy, such as the University's Controlled Substances and Alcohol policy, then the Judicial Panel must look to the policy, which may or may not reference the law.
• If a student is charged with violation of the Fundamental Standard, then the Judicial Panel must look to the Fundamental Standard itself:Students at Stanford are expected to show both within and without the University such respect for order, morality, personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens.

Conduct that poses a risk of significant harm to people or property will generally violate this standard. Driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs is an example of such conduct. If the legal standard for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is met, the risk is particularly clear, but meeting a legal standard is not necessary for finding a violation of the Fundamental Standard. Additionally, if an outside court or District Attorney's Office, for whatever reason, permitted a student to plea bargain down from a charged DUI offense, judicial panels must still decide for themselves what conduct the student engaged in and whether that conduct violates the community's standard for "order, morality, personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens."

Students and faculty often ask about the issue of intent. In particular, they usually want to know if a careless act can be considered a violation of the Honor Code. The answer is "yes," depending on context and other circumstances.

The governing standard on intent (and the reasoning for it) was set forth in a 1977 Opinion by the Stanford Judicial Council, which was the student-faculty adjudicating body for contested and/or precedent-setting cases under the former Legislative and Judicial Charter of 1968. A copy of this Opinion—see pertinent excerpts of it below (under "a statement adopted by the Board on Judicial Affairs")—is given to all Judicial Panel Pool members as part of their training.

A Judicial Advisor would be happy to discuss with you how the issue of intent may impact your specific situation, as well as to describe in more detail how panelists under the present Student Judicial Charter of 1997 have dealt with this issue. We also encourage you to talk with a Judicial Counselor about how best to prepare your case, particularly if you are claiming lack of intent. If you want the names of available Judicial Counselors, please call or email a Judicial Advisor.

• Additional Information
  • For information on the role of Judicial Counselors, please access Judicial Counselor Guidelines
  • Please do not hesitate to contact the Office of Community Standards (community_standards@stanford.edu, or 650.725.2485), if you have questions.
  • For information specifically about plagiarism, access "What is Plagiarism?"

The Board on Judicial Affairs has reviewed in pertinent part a 1977 Opinion by the Stanford Judicial Council. The SJC was the student-faculty adjudicating body for contested and/or precedent-setting cases under the predecessor to the current Student Judicial Charter of 1997 (which was known as the Legislative and Judicial Charter of 1968). The pertinent excerpts read:

"...The present case was referred to the SJC by the Dean of Student Affairs because he felt that, should he decide the matter, there was a reasonable chance that he could find an absence of guile, a knowing disregard of examination instructions yet an absence of intent to deceive. The Council was asked to face an issue never before addressed: the level of intent required to violate the Honor Code....

The defendants argue that only a willful violation of the Code can constitute an infraction. They contend that if they did not know at the time that their activities amounted to unpermitted aid, they cannot be guilty. We disagree. We conclude that a violation of the Honor Code does occur when persons give or receive aid on an examination under circumstances in which a reasonable person should have known that such aid was not permitted by the Honor Code.

We stress that the 'reasonable person' category articulated is a narrow and exceptional one. In Honor Code cases, if the defendant admits to or is proven to have engaged in giving or receiving unpermitted aid, this behavior should be presumed to be the product of conscious intent.... What we suggest, ...is that even where the defendants are able to demonstrate that they did not willfully intend to violate the Honor Code, they are still liable if a reasonable person in their situation should have been aware that their activities were wrong...."

• RESOLVES, that, even in cases where a Judicial Panel finds that an accused student did not willfully intend to violate the Honor Code, such student still does violate the Honor Code if a reasonable person in his/her situation should have been aware that his/her activities were wrong.
• RESOLVES FURTHER, that, regardless of the accused student’s intent, it is his/her responsibility to follow the rules set forth by the instructor and/or under the Honor Code whenever he/she submits academic work.
• RESOLVES FINALLY, that, in submitting academic work even a student’s “mistakes” and “accidents” are to be included as part of his/her responsibility to be aware of activities that are wrong and violate the Honor Code.

• The Honor Code is agreed to by every student who registers at Stanford University and by every instructor who accepts an appointment.
• The Honor Code provides a standard of honesty and declares that compliance with that standard is to be expected. It does not contemplate that the standard will be self-enforcing but calls on students, faculty, and administration to encourage compliance and to take reasonable steps to discourage violations. If violations occur, procedures are prescribed by the Student Judicial Charter of 1997. However, the Honor Code depends for its effectiveness primarily on the individual and collective desire of all members of the community to prevent and deter violations rather than on proceedings to impose penalties after violations have occurred.
• In interpreting and applying the general provisions of the Honor Code, it should be kept in mind that although primary responsibility for making the Code effective rests with the students, faculty cooperation is essential, since the faculty sets the academic requirements which students are to meet. The faculty should endeavor to avoid academic requirements and procedures which place honorable and conscientious students at a disadvantage. The faculty should also be ready and willing to consult with students and should be responsive to their suggestions in these matters.
• While an instructor's failure to observe these guidelines might be viewed as an extenuating circumstance in evaluating penalty options for a student's misconduct, it would not preclude the initiation of an otherwise warranted charge against the student.

Unpermitted academic aid is defined as academic aid that a reasonable member of the Stanford community would conclude unfairly benefits a student in completing that student's graded work.

• Unpermitted academic aid includes but is not limited to:
  • Actions or resources expressly prohibited in university policy, the course syllabus, or on the instructions for a given assignment.
  • Collaboration between students not explicitly allowed by the instructor.
  • The use of another person’s work product without attribution (which is plagiarism as defined by the Board on Conduct Affairs).
  • Copying from or consulting a classmate’s work, with or without their knowledge or consent, when it is not expressly permitted by the instructor.
  • One student permitting another student to copy work that is or will be graded, without permission of the instructor.
• Permitted academic aid includes but is not limited to:
  • Resources that are already in open, general use by the community, and not usually subject to prohibitions on use.
  • Aid that is explicitly allowed by an instructor.

Instructors means all members of the Stanford teaching staff, including faculty, adjuncts, lecturers, TAs, or any other Stanford instructional staff in a position to grade or assess student work.

A primary responsibility assumed by students is to discourage violations of the Honor Code by others. Various methods are possible. Drawing attention to a suspected violation may stop it. Moral suasion may be effective. Initiating formal procedures is a necessary and obligatory remedy when other methods are inappropriate or have failed. Faculty members have like responsibilities when suspected violations come to their attention.

Proctoring means being present in the examination room during a written examination, with the following exceptions:

• The prohibition against proctoring should not be construed to prohibit an instructor or teaching assistant from remaining in the examination room for the first few minutes to distribute and explain the examination; or from visiting the examination room briefly to transmit additional information; or from returning at the end of the examination to collect examination papers.
• Nor does the prohibition against proctoring prohibit an instructor or teaching assistant from visiting the examination room in response to specific reports from students that cheating has been observed, to investigate the basis for such reports.
• The instructor or teaching assistant may also visit the examination room briefly and infrequently in order to answer students' questions.

In interpreting and applying this provision, consideration should be given to standard procedures which are customary to Stanford and the need for cooperation between students and faculty in making the Honor Code effective. The following situations are cited as examples:

• An instructor may set policies regarding items that may be brought into the testing environment (e.g., prohibiting electronic devices, backpacks, etc. per prior guidance) and may ask students to leave those materials outside of or at the front of the examination room. An instructor should not require students to be searched for notes or other materials, or maintain surveillance upon students who leave the examination room.
• An instructor may require students to identify themselves upon entering an examination room, provided clear advance notice is given. When identification is required, all students entering the examination room must present identification. Any generally recognized photo identification shall be accepted (e.g., a Stanford ID or government-issued driver's license or identification card, or their official digital equivalents).
• An instructor should not take deliberate steps to invite dishonesty in order to entrap students. Procedures of this kind would be unusual and unreasonable. On the other hand, an instructor may require copies of an examination or test to be returned after the examination.
• When possible, alternate seating should be provided and used for all examinations.
• To avoid controversy in any rereading or regrading of students' work, the instructor may take measures by which the original work may be clearly identified.
• With clear advance notice, an instructor may systematically compare work submitted to current or previous submissions.
• An instructor who requires students to make up a missed test or examination may administer a different test or examination of equivalent range and difficulty. Such procedures are not to be construed as unusual or unreasonable.

Although students are expected to resist temptations to cheat, the faculty should endeavor to minimize inducements to dishonesty. Examples of undesirable procedures include the following:

• failure to give clear directions and instructions concerning course requirements and the limits of acceptable collaboration in coursework;
• treating required work casually as if it were unimportant;
• carelessness or inconsistency in maintaining security of examinations or tests;
• reusing an examination which is neither kept secure from public exposure nor made available to all students.

If take-home examinations are given, they should not be closed-book examinations, nor should there be a specific time limit less than the full period between the distribution of the examination and its due date. Such procedures place honorable and conscientious students in a difficult position and often at a disadvantage, and could be interpreted as mitigating by a judicial panel.

Students are not to be penalized for violations of the Honor Code without adjudication under the procedures specified by the Student Judicial Charter of 1997. An instructor may not, therefore, lower a student's grade or impose any other academic penalty on the grounds of dishonesty in the absence of such formal proceedings.

Procedures falling under instructor discretion would include exam location, alternate times for exams, and alteration of due dates. Tests will be taken from the classroom only with the consent of the instructor.

All student work in a course or independent study (exams, quizzes, problem sets, drafts of papers, oral presentations, internet/websites, research, classroom discussions, etc.) forms the basis for evaluating and/or grading. The Honor Code applies to all academic work whether or not the work is given a letter grade, and whether or not the Honor Code is cited and/or signed. Therefore, regardless of the nature or extent of an assignment, academic dishonesty of any type is expressly prohibited and should always be considered a violation of the Honor Code.

One of the principal motivations behind the Honor Code is to prevent one student from taking unfair advantage over the other students in a class. For example, receiving unpermitted aid on an assignment or consulting notes on a closed book exam gives a student an advantage that students who adhere to the Honor Code do not have. In much the same way, submitting the same work in more than one course without the knowledge of the instructor undermines fairness because faculty assume that student work prepared for a course is done for that course alone. To this end, the Interpretations of the Stanford Honor Code shall include the following:

No student may submit substantially similar work in more than one class without the approval of any instructors who might otherwise assume that the work has been undertaken in their classes alone. Thus, submitting work that was prepared for a previous class requires the approval of the current instructor. Submitting substantially similar work in concurrent classes requires approval, in advance, from each instructor.

• Council of Writing Program Administrators: “Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices”
• Dartmouth College: “Sources and Citations at Dartmouth”
• Georgetown University: “What is Plagiarism?”
• Northwestern University: “How to Avoid Plagiarism”
• Purdue University Online Writing Website: “Avoiding Plagiarism” and "Plagiarism and Paraphrasing"
• University of California, Davis: “Avoiding Plagiarism: Mastering the Art of Scholarship”

• Stanford's Department of Computer Science utilizes MOSS (Measure Of Software Similarity), among other things, to detect software plagiarism.
• The Stanford Honor Code and Computer Science

• Consult this page for more information on writing and citing from Stanford's Hume Center for Writing and Speaking.

• Information on Bibliography Management from Stanford University Libraries
• Stanford University Libraries support four citation-management systems:
  • EndNote and EndNote Web
  • Mendeley
  • RefWorks
  • Zotero

A student was charged with plagiarizing a portion of a paper. The original source was part of the available evidence. The student did not contest the facts or the violation. A Judicial Panel found the student responsible for violating the Honor Code.

• Sanctions: One-quarter suspension and 40 hours of community service.

A student turned in a paper that was identical (except for cover sheet and typographical errors) to a paper submitted by another student to a different course the previous quarter. A teaching assistant who happened to TA both courses discovered the plagiarism. The student did not contest the facts or the violation. A Judicial Panel found the student responsible for violating the Honor Code.

• Sanctions: One-quarter suspension and 40 hours of community service.

A student submitted an essay written for a previous class, in its entirety, to another faculty member for a course taken the following quarter. The syllabus for the second course specifically prohibited using an assignment submitted to another course. The instructor became concerned because the essay did not cover the material discussed in the course. The student claimed not to have read the syllabus but, once it was pointed out, the student did not contest the facts or the violation. A Judicial Panel found the student responsible for violating the Honor Code.

Sanctions: One-quarter suspension and 40 hours of community service.

Two students submitted a computer program containing over 70% of the same code. The similarity was detected by the MOSS (Measure of Software Similarity) system. Student A admitted to finding a copy of the other student B’s code on a public computer and using it to complete the assignment. Student B was not involved in giving the unpermitted aid and therefore was not charged. Student A did not contest the facts or the violation. A Judicial Panel found the student responsible for violating the Honor Code.

• Sanctions: One-quarter suspension and 40 hours of community service.

A student turned in an essay that had substantial and extensive copying from a published source. A TA noticed that the composition of the essay was problematic. The student acknowledged failing to properly cite sources, but contested that it was an Honor Code violation on the basis that he misunderstood the directions and did not intend to plagiarize. A Judicial Panel found the student responsible for violating the Honor Code.

• Sanctions: One-quarter suspension and 40 hours of community service.

A professor was concerned about a final paper submitted by a student because

1. the paper did not answer the question that had been posed
2. the paper covered portions of the book the students had not been asked to read, and
3. several sentences were far from the normal writing style of Stanford undergraduates.

After searching the web the professor found at least one of the web sites from which the work had been plagiarized. The student did not contest the facts or the violation. A Judicial Panel held the student responsible for violating the Honor Code.

• Sanctions: Two-quarter delay in the conferral of degree and 40 hours of community service.

Most cases of plagiarism are detected by a faculty member or TA because the "voice" of the paper does not sound like the "voice" of the student or the paper does not address the question(s) asked on the assignment. Faculty frequently say they become suspicious when one or more of the following occurs:

• The instructor recognizes the original source as that of another author.
• The paper is not written in a voice consistent with the student’s other work or that of a Stanford undergraduate.
• There is a voice or style change within the paper (i.e. some language is very basic and other sentences are very complex or technical).
• The assignment does not answer the question asked.
• The assignment does not cover material addressed in the course.
• More than one student turned in a paper with the same, especially if unusual or wrong, material.

Once a faculty member becomes suspicious, they will often search online to see if the original source can be located. Otherwise, the Judicial Officer will conduct the investigation and try to find the original source.

The standard penalty for a first-time violation of the Honor Code is a one-quarter suspension and 40 hours of community service. If the student is in their final quarter of enrollment the standard practice is to convert the one-quarter suspension into a two-quarter delay in degree conferral.

• Note Regarding Grades - While a case is pending instructors are advised to assign a "GNR" until completion of the case. If a student is not charged or found not responsible by a Judicial Panel then the grade earned is assigned without penalty. If a student is found responsible by a Judicial Panel then the faculty member has the sole authority to determine the appropriate grade. While the majority of faculty issue a NP in the course, some choose to give a zero on the assignment/exam in question.

The Judicial Panel (composed of four students, one faculty and one staff) hearing the case considers precedent/past practice, the circumstances surrounding the case, and the student’s individual circumstances, when deciding the appropriate sanctions. Stanford’s Student Conduct Penalty Code limits the range of sanctions a Panel can consider. The Dean of Students reviews all penalties for consistency with the Penalty Code and with precedent/past practice. The Dean of Students can ask a Panel to reconsider its decision but cannot overturn it. (The only penalty that can be overturned is expulsion, which must be approved by the provost.)

The Judicial Officer keeps the faculty member/TA apprised of the investigation and the student’s explanation. Additionally, the reporting party attends the hearing to present the evidence. Faculty members are informed of the outcome of the hearing and they issue the appropriate grade for the course (as stated above).

Almost all plagiarism cases are reported by faculty or TAs. Students have reported a few cases to the teaching staff (usually because it is their own work that was plagiarized).

No. The Student Judicial Charter of 1997 guarantees students confidentiality. No one is informed to "watch out" for a student who has violated the Honor Code. If a Judicial Panel imposes probation it means there is a "suspended" sanction that will go into effect IF the student is found to have violated the Honor Code again. The second Judicial Panel's members would not be notified of the first violation unless and until they reached the sanctioning phase of the second case.

To have a charge filed no more than six months after the alleged misconduct occurred or should reasonably have been discovered. In cases involving an alleged hate crime or physical assault, to have a charge filed no more than two years after the alleged misconduct occurred. If compelling new evidence becomes available after these stated times, a case may be charged since a Panel maintains the ultimate authority to dismiss or allow a case.

University judicial policy applies year-round to all on campus activities, and to any acts that threaten the safety and integrity of the university community regardless of where such acts occur.

"Any acts that threaten the safety and integrity of the university community regardless of where such acts occur" will be interpreted as those acts meeting each of these criteria:

1. the act involves an allegation of a serious crime, which, if true, would rise to the level of creating a substantial threat to the safety of the Stanford community;
2. there is a significant nexus to Stanford, such as the victim is a Stanford student, faculty or staff member; and
3. the Office of Judicial Affairs will have the ability to conduct a thorough investigation and have access to necessary witnesses and documents.

Note that nothing in this amendment diminishes the university's ability to place an immediate Administrative Hold on an individual student immediately removing the student from campus and suspending all student privileges for reasons relating to the safety or health of the student or the Stanford community or to safeguard the integrity of the institution.

The Board on Conduct Affairs (BCA) has been asked to address the Honor Code implications of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Bard, DALL-E, and Stable Diffusion. These are novel tools, and both students and instructors have been experimenting with their use in academic settings.  

While these tools have applications that foster student learning and understanding, these tools can also be used in ways that bypass key learning objectives.

To give sufficient space for instructors to explore uses of generative AI tools in their courses, and to set clear guidelines to students about what uses are and are not consistent with the Stanford Honor Code, the BCA has set forth the following policy guidance regarding generative AI in the context of coursework:

Absent a clear statement from a course instructor, use of or consultation with generative AI shall be treated analogously to assistance from another person. In particular, using generative AI tools to substantially complete an assignment or exam (e.g. by entering exam or assignment questions) is not permitted. Students should acknowledge the use of generative AI (other than incidental use) and default to disclosing such assistance when in doubt.

Individual course instructors are free to set their own policies regulating the use of generative AI tools in their courses, including allowing or disallowing some or all uses of such tools. Course instructors should set such policies in their course syllabi and clearly communicate such policies to students. Students who are unsure of policies regarding generative AI tools are encouraged to ask their instructors for clarification.

The BCA will continue to monitor developments in these tools and their use in academic settings and may update this guidance. Members of the community are encouraged to contact the BCA to provide input, suggestions, and comments on this policy.