Faculty & TAs

Teaching staff file well over 200 reports of alleged violations of the Honor Code every year.  The procedure for investigation and possible sanctions varies based on the severity of the allegations and the student’s prior disciplinary record.  The majority of these cases involve violations such as plagiarism, unpermitted collaboration, revising and resubmitting work, and unpermitted aid. The severity of the sanction ranges from a restorative meeting for low-level violations to suspension or delayed degree conferral for more serious violations.  While rare, expulsion is also an available sanction for the most serious offenses.  If a student is responsible for an Honor Code violation,  faculty and TAs may opt to give such students a "No Pass" or "No Credit" for the assignment or course involved.

• Discuss the Honor Code and its importance for your course, scholarship in the field, and Stanford.
• Specify what constitutes unpermitted aid for each assignment (including use of the Internet), and be available to answer questions.
• Specify citation expectations for each assignment.
• Include this information on the syllabus and in conjunction with online course materials.
• Ensure that faculty, teaching assistants, section leaders and students all have the same expectations. 
• Avoid assignments or exam problems where students might have access to past solutions.
• Report any potential Honor Code violations you discover.
• Be open to and seek out student suggestions on how to improve course requirements and procedures.

• Providing alternate versions of tests.
• Controlling what comes into the testing environment (prohibiting electronic devices, backpacks, etc.).
• Giving an exam early or late due to illness/emergency or a Stanford-sanctioned event (e.g., athletics) and OAE disability-related accommodations.
• Dispersing seating, assigning seating, and/or creating seating charts.
• Controlling whether students can keep copies of the exam.
• Copying student test submissions showing original work to compare against re-grade requests.
• With clear advance notice, using software to systematically compare work submitted to other sources.
• Assigning penalties for working “past time” on an exam.

• Proctoring (being present in the examination room during an examination), with the following exceptions:
  • Instructors and teaching assistants may remain in the examination room to distribute and explain the examination, to transmit additional information, to answer questions, to collect examination papers, or to investigate specific reports from students that cheating has been observed;or
  • If allowed pursuant to the pilot program under the auspices of the Academic Integrity Working Group
• Setting time limits for take-home exams (other than when they are due) unless electronic time-stamps are used. Please visit Exams and the Honor Code for further guidance about time limitations on take-home exams.
• Prescribing closed-book take-home exams. Please visit Exams and the Honor Code for further guidance about take-home examinations.
• Engaging in “penalty grading” (i.e. assigning a lower grade to a student due to suspicion of an academic integrity violation) as an alternative to reporting a potential Honor Code violation.

• Share some personal thoughts about why you value academic integrity and its importance in your discipline and profession. The most profound discussions often involve personal stories about your experiences with the Honor Code or issues of academic integrity.
• Consider allowing students to bring into an exam one blank sheet of paper or index card on which they can write whatever they wish. Deciding what to put on the card seems to help in exam preparation and also to reduce the temptation to use unpermitted notes.
• Assign seating, or ask students not to sit near their study partners. Study partners frequently do similar work and make similar mistakes. Sitting some distance apart ensures that copying is not a likely explanation for similarities in their work.
• To the extent possible avoid multiple-choice questions on quizzes and exams.
• The Honor Code prohibits students from submitting their own work in more than one class without explicit instructor permission. If you expect original work or conversely would permit a student to expand on previous work please be clear about what you would expect or permit.

• Do not assume your students know how to cite properly. Many upperclass students and even graduate students have been held responsible for plagiarizing. It is important to discuss plagiarism and to provide examples of adequate and inadequate acknowledgment of sources.
• If you are in a technical field it is important to emphasize that using the concepts, structures or computer code of another without acknowledgment is also plagiarism.

• If students are allowed to consult with each other about assignments, but are not allowed to submit group work for credit, be as clear as you can both orally and in writing about where the boundary lies between permitted and unpermitted collaboration or consultation. Explain that if students receive aid that they use in their assignment they should note that assistance.
• Instructors are increasingly recognizing the difficulty of setting limits on collaboration that students both understand and respect. Sometimes, guidelines are ignored. Students who recognize the educational value of working with others on intellectual tasks may view barriers to that collaboration as counterproductive. Therefore they may probably view such barriers as not seriously intended. Unfortunately these infractions are still Honor Code violations.

• Consider photocopying a 20% random sample of original graded work prior to returning the work to students. Announce this plan both orally and in writing before administering the assignment, and the rationale for doing so. Students and faculty in large science/math classes have reported to OCS that such random photocopying can be a deterrent to the temptation to alter graded work and submit it for re-grading.

• If you believe that a student has acted dishonestly, do something. Instructors and students together are responsible for the integrity of the academic process. While filing a concern and going through the OCS process can be stressful, the student can benefit from learning that his or her behavior appeared dishonest.
• Do not assign academic penalties on the basis of suspected dishonesty. The Honor Code prohibits so-called “penalty grading.” If after questioning the student about the problematic work, you continue to believe that cheating occurred, refer the situation to the Office of Community Standards. If the evidence of misconduct is weak, the student will get the benefit of the doubt.
• In an exam setting, the prohibition on proctoring does not prevent you from entering the room in response to a report that cheating has been observed. You may confiscate notes or other materials, ask students to change seats, quit talking to each other—whatever is appropriate given the particular circumstances. You may mark exams to allow later comparisons or to indicate the point at which notes were confiscated. But do not confiscate the exams themselves. (Should there not be adequate proof of dishonesty it is difficult to assign a course grade if the student was not allowed to complete the examination.)
• Whatever the setting, if you cannot figure out how best to handle a possible problem, consult with OCS. You can do so anonymously. We will preserve confidentiality. Seeking advice does not commit you to filing a concern.

Instructor discretion includes the following:

• exam location
• alternate times for exams
• alteration of due dates
• with the consent of the instructor, tests may be taken from the classroom

(Based on Interpretations of the Honor Code, 2002 )

For additional information, please examine the rest of our website, which includes

• The Stanford Student Conduct Charter of 2023,  which outlines the rights and responsibilities of all participants in our process,
• The Fundamental Standard
• The Honor Code

Instructional staff may be present for laboratory-style practical examinations. There is a compelling interest in lab-practical exams for instructional staff to be present. Instructional staff may, among other things, need to preserve exam specimens, handle timing, evaluate performance and deal with any problems that arise. Moreover, lab practicals can be considered akin to oral exams, which do not fall within the Honor Code's prohibition on proctoring. Before a lab-practical exam is administered, however, course staff should talk to students about the reasons for being present—and provide a written explanation in the syllabus.

• Departmental Solutions - We also recommend that instructors check with their department chair or program director for any local practices.

The Office of Accessible Education (OAE) website offers a wealth of resources to assist you, including information on the Faculty & Teaching Staff Role and Faculty FAQs. Faculty are encouraged to contact the disability adviser named on a student’s accommodation letter if there are any questions or concerns about those accommodations. General questions can also be addressed by the Office of Accessible Education via email or telephone at 650.723.1066.

As stated in the Interpretations of the Honor Code, “If take-home examinations are given, they should not be closed-book examinations…” Open-resource exams place no limitations (including use of the internet) on the materials or resources that a student may access during the exam.  For clarification on the types of resources that are appropriate to use during a take home exam, please see the BCA guidance issued for online exams during the pandemic - Does open book also mean open internet? What is the difference between open resource and collaboration? - which is equally applicable to the normal take home exam environment.  

Take-home exams should give very clear and specific rules about what students are allowed and not allowed to do—including that the exams are subject to the provisions of the Honor Code. Be explicit. Announce your guidelines in class before the take-home exam is administered and explain your rationale for collaboration, citation, unpermitted aid, etc. Attach your guidelines to the exam. Ask if there are questions about the exam before it is administered, and let students know how to get in touch with the instructional staff, during the take-home exam period, should they have questions.

As stated in the Interpretations of the Honor Code,  take-home exams should not have "a specific time limit less than the full period between the distribution of the examination and its due date."  This is because under the Honor Code students cannot be expected to self-report their start and end times on take-home exams, as this would create a temptation to violate the Honor Code.

Take-home exams can be administered with time limits and align with the Honor Code if electronic time-stamps are used that record when a student opened the exam and when they submitted the exam.

While this is a new experience for students and instructors, the tenets of the Honor Code still apply. Students may only use resources/aid that is permitted in completing course assignments, and instructors continue to have an obligation to avoid, as far as practicable, academic procedures that create temptations to violate the Honor Code. As such, it is crucial to clearly set forth your expectations for the course and each assignment. For example:

• Define permitted vs. unpermitted collaboration. When students are allowed to consult with each other about assignments, but are not allowed to submit group work for credit, be as clear as possible both orally and in writing about where the boundary lies between permitted and unpermitted collaboration or consultation. Clarify if/when the final work product must be exclusively the individual student’s own work and not shared with any other students.
• Clarify your citation expectations for each assignment/exam. Clearly state these expectations in your syllabus and directions for each assignment/exam.
• Discuss plagiarism. Do not assume your students know how to cite properly. Many upperclassmen and even graduate students have been found guilty of plagiarizing. It is important to discuss plagiarism and to provide examples of adequate and inadequate acknowledgment of sources. If you are in a technical field it is important to emphasize that using the concepts, structures, or computer code of another without acknowledgment is also plagiarism.



Share some personal thoughts about why you value academic integrity. Link your support of the Honor Code to its importance in your discipline and profession. The most profound discussions often involve personal stories about your experiences with the Honor Code or issues of academic integrity.

Communicate with teaching staff including teaching assistants and section leaders to ensure that there is consistent communication and shared expectations for students. Give clear, advance notice if you will be using plagiarism detection software.

We suggest holding virtual office hours so that students can regularly connect with you for questions about course/assignment expectations.  Be open to student suggestions on how to improve requirements and procedures.

Avoid assignments or exam problems where students have access to past solutions.

It is impermissible to engage in penalty grading as an alternative to reporting a potential Honor Code violation. Report any potential violations you discover to the Office of Community Standards (OCS). Similarly, remind students of their obligation to take action if they are aware of other students violating the Honor Code. This may include reporting a problem to the teaching staff or directly to the OCS.