Academic Integrity

Yeshiva University strives to do much more than impart information and skills to undergraduate students. At the core of our educational goals include character development and preparation for graduate school and the workplace based on our Jewish tradition and values. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein zt”l ruled that one who gets a job using a cheated grade is considered to have stolen every dollar earned from that job. It is during college that students define who they are and who they will be after graduation. The academic integrity expectations and policies that follow are intended to help foster the traits of honesty and integrity that students will need throughout life.  

Given the critical importance of academic integrity across our institution, every potential breach of academic integrity must be addressed by formal process – without exception or special allowance. In this vein, the highest standards and expectations for integrity will apply across all of Yeshiva University’s undergraduate schools, colleges, and courses.

When issues of academic integrity arise, the situation can be stressful for both student and instructor. Students benefit from a chance to be heard by a neutral third party.  Instructors benefit from assistance in determining what, if any, academic infraction may have occurred. Thus, allegations of violations will be reviewed by a university-wide Academic Integrity Committee (AIC) comprised of representatives from each undergraduate school: Yeshiva College, Stern College for Women, Sy Syms School of Business, and Undergraduate Torah Studies. The AIC will work as a single body to ensure that consistent standards, procedures and penalties are maintained across the undergraduate colleges. 

The AIC will investigate and keep records of all reported potential violations. If the AIC finds that an allegation lacks sufficient merit, it will recommend that the charge be dismissed and the work in question be graded on its merit. If the AIC finds that there was a violation, it will recommend a proposed penalty to the Dean of the school in which the student is enrolled (or, in the case of non-matriculated students, to the Dean of the school in which the course was offered), who will accept, reject, or modify the recommendation (excluding cases handled  as “minor charges” as discussed below).  In recommending a penalty, the AIC will consider such factors as the severity of the violation, whether it was a first-time offense, and whether the student acknowledged wrongdoing. Academic integrity violations may be noted on a student’s official permanent record as may be recommended by the AIC. The process charts in Figures 1 – 4 document the review process which will be followed during academic integrity proceedings. The definitions, procedures, and penalties outlined in this document apply to all potential violations in any undergraduate course at Yeshiva University, regardless of credit status or home institution of the student.   

1.  Intentional Misrepresentation occurs when a student deliberately uses someone/something else's language (including, without limitation, ChatGPT and similar tools), ideas, or other original (not common knowledge) work without acknowledging the source.
   
   Examples include but are not limited to:

• Assignment downloaded from an Internet source and/or obtained from a paper mill or generator.
• Assignment obtained from someone else (including another student), with or without the consent of the other party.
• Assignment contains part or all of the writings of another person (including another student), without acknowledgment of the source.
• Assignment contains passages that were cut and pasted from an Internet source, without acknowledgement of the source.
• Assignment contains passages that were reworded from an outside source, without acknowledgement of the source.
   

2.  Unintentional Misuse of Sources is the unintentional misappropriation of the language, ideas, and work of others due to a lack of understanding of the conventions of citation and documentation, including paraphrasing, quoting, and the parameters of common knowledge.

Students are responsible for knowing how to quote from, paraphrase, summarize, and cite sources correctly. However, when a student has attempted to acknowledge a source but has not done so fully or completely, the faculty member (who, in their discretion, may consult with other faculty, administrators, or a member of the AIC) may determine that the issue is Misuse of Sources or bad writing, rather than Intentional Misrepresentation.  

C)    Unsanctioned Use of Artificial Intelligence

Definitions: The fundamental principle guiding Yeshiva University’s Academic Integrity Policy is that all work submitted by students should be their own. Artificial Intelligence (AI) represents a tool that has the potential to be used either in accordance with this principle or in conflict with it. For the purposes of this policy, AI technologies are parsed into Generative AI and Assistive AI. It is the student’s responsibility to know what type of platform he/she is using, if use of that platform is allowed in his/her course, and, if so, for what purposes.  Unsanctioned use of Generative AI or Assistive AI constitutes a potential academic integrity violation.

1. Generative AI is any AI platform that has the ability to create content from user inputs. Such platforms include but are not limited to: ChatGPT, Grok, CLAUD, Gemini, JASPER, Bard, DeepMind, DALL-E, Grammarly, etc. Because Generative AI can create content, it has significant potential to be used in ways that are inconsistent with the guiding principle of academic integrity. As such, students should be cautious. Students should assume that the use of any platform with generative capabilities is prohibited in their course, even if the platform is used for a non-generative purpose. 

Faculty members may choose to allow the use of Generative AI in their courses or on particular assessments as they see fit. Those who allow the use of Generative AI should specify, in writing, how it may be used in the course and on specific assessments. It is up to the student to be aware of institutional and course policies regarding the use of Generative AI as well as policies pertaining to individual assessments.  Content produced using Generative AI must be cited according to the conventions in the relevant subject area.  Using any program not expressly sanctioned by the faculty member or using approved programs for any purpose other than those expressly authorized by the faculty member is a potential violation of academic integrity.
 

2.  Assistive AI is any AI platform that aids the user in producing his/her own original content or refining the user’s original content without generating any substantive content itself.  Examples of Assistive AI include, but are not limited to, Hemmingway, MS Editor, etc. Because such platforms do not create substantive content themselves, the use of Assistive AI is not assumed to represent a potential academic integrity violation. However, individual faculty members or departments may choose to limit or prohibit the use of Assistive AI in their courses or on particular assessments. Using any technology or assistance not expressly sanctioned by the faculty member or using approved technology or assistance for any purpose other than those expressly authorized by the faculty member, is a potential violation of academic integrity. It is the responsibility of the student to know what Assistive AI technologies are sanctioned by their instructors and the specific purposes for which their use is permitted. 

D)    Other Violations of Academic Integrity
In addition to plagiarism, other examples of academic integrity violations include, but are not limited to:

• Assisting or attempting to assist another student in an act of academic dishonesty.
• Providing papers, essays, research, or other work to aid another student in an act of academic dishonesty.
• Engaging in unauthorized cooperation with other individuals in completing assignments or examinations.
• Submitting the same assignment, in part or whole, in more than one course, whether at YU or another institution, without prior written approval from both instructors.
• Selling or posting copies of course materials (including examinations) that may be the intellectual property of the faculty member.
• Using falsified or unethically acquired data in laboratory assessments. 
• Knowingly submitting group projects/assessment containing academic integrity violations by any group member. 

If students are unsure of what constitutes a violation of academic integrity in a particular course, it is their responsibility to ask for clarification from the instructor.

All instances of alleged violations of academic integrity should be reported to the AIC. Instructors should not penalize students suspected of academic integrity violations without going through one of the formal processes outlined in this policy. Students whose work has been called into question and a penalty assigned without formal process may contact the Academic Integrity Committee at academicintegrity@yu.edu.  

Instructors who believe an academic integrity violation may have occurred should complete an Integrity Case Referral Form available on the academic integrity website.  Students or other members of the YU community may report academic integrity issues anonymously through the academic integrity website. Reporting persons may seek guidance by emailing the AIC (academicintegrity@yu.edu). 

In the case of an anonymous report, such report will be investigated to the extent possible. However, all anonymous reporters should be aware that reporting anonymously may affect the AIC’s ability to investigate and respond effectively.

Upon receipt of an integrity case referral, the AIC will notify the student in writing that a report has been filed.  A hearing of the AIC will be convened according to the processes described below. A summary chart of the timeline for processing cases brought to the AIC for full hearing as outlined in IV.B can be found in Figure 2.  Any changes to the typical timeline will be communicated to students in writing. Charges filed during summer terms may be processed through a modified timeline. Students who are under investigation are not permitted to drop the course or opt for a P/N grade during or after the pendency of proceedings under this policy unless found innocent of charges

A)     For Unintentional Misuse of Sources

If a faculty member determines that a student unintentionally misused sources on an assignment or examination, he/she should report the incident to the AIC by submitting the Integrity Case Referral Form available on the academic integrity website, request that the matter be handled as a minor charge, and propose an appropriate penalty when submitting the Integrity Case Referral Form. The AIC may approve the request as is, suggest modifications to the proposed penalty, or deny the request. 

Handling of a case as a minor charge does not involve a formal AIC hearing and only applies to minor infractions best treated as teachable moments.  An infraction may only be handled as a minor charge if the student admits in writing to the infraction, and the AIC approves the request. 

If the request to handle the infraction as a minor charge is approved by the AIC, the faculty member should provide guidance to the student on the issue that led to the charges (and notify the AIC after the guidance is provided) and should impose the penalty approved by the AIC, such as lowering the grade on the assignment (or examination) in question (including lowering to a grade of "F”). No additional penalty should be imposed. 

The AIC will maintain a record of the incident and that the student has received instruction on proper practices. The incident will not be part of the student’s official permanent record at that time but will be used to inform whether leniency is appropriate should academic integrity issues arise with the student again in the future. If the request to handle the violation as a minor charge is denied by the AIC, or if the student denies the charge, the infraction will be processed as described below for cases of Intentional Misrepresentation and Cheating which require hearings.

The process chart in Figure 1 documents the process which will be followed during academic integrity proceedings for Unintentional Misuse of Sources

B)    For Intentional Misrepresentation and Cheating 
Initiation of Process
If a faculty member, student, or other member of the YU community suspects that a student has engaged in intentional misrepresentation,  cheating on an assignment, or an infraction covered under section III.D, he/she should endeavor to report the potential violation by submitting an Integrity Case Referral Form or—if a student—an anonymous report  to the AIC within seven business days of coming to such a determination. The AIC will then endeavor to determine if a violation likely did or did not occur. 

The AIC generally will notify the student that a referral has been made  within five business days of receiving the Integrity Case Referral Form. The student will then have three business days to respond to the AIC. After evaluating the nature and circumstances of the violation, in their discretion, the AIC, in consultation with the faculty member, may agree to forgo a hearing and recommend a penalty under the following circumstances:

• The student admits to the allegations in his/her response to the AIC

• The student’s account of the potential violation does not differ substantially from the allegations in the report

• The allegations do not include the charge of colluding with others

Possible penalties include, but are not limited to, dismissal from the University, suspension, failure in the course, failure on the assignment or examination, lowering of the grade on the assignment or examination, and/or a notation in the student's permanent record. However, if the AIC has questions or concerns, it may determine that a hearing is  warranted, although  the circumstances noted above have been met.  Students also may choose to attend a hearing if they prefer. The process chart in Figure 2 documents the process which will be followed during academic integrity proceedings for Intentional Misrepresentation and Cheating.

Hearing
Hearings are an opportunity for students to speak to the AIC, address their instructor’s concerns about their work, and provide other information about the case to the AIC.  A hearing will be convened before the AIC under the following circumstances: 

1. If the student requests a hearing
2. If the student denies the charges
3. If the student accepts responsibility for the violation but the AIC believes a full investigation is warranted
4. If the faculty member suspects students of collusion 
5. The AIC will notify the student in writing of the charges and the date, time, and place of the hearing. Students are expected to respond within three business days after receipt of the notification. Hearings are held regularly each month, and students are expected to prioritize the scheduling of a hearing. Students who repeatedly fail to respond to notifications (the AIC will make a total of 3 attempts to notify the student) and/or cooperate with scheduling attempts will waive any expectation to a hearing.  The student may bring written materials and witnesses, but no advocates or advisors (including parents or attorneys) to the hearing. 
   
   At least three members of the AIC must be present for a hearing. The AIC will consider all the facts and circumstances, may ask for further information from the relevant parties, and will determine whether the student committed an act violating academic integrity.

After the hearing, students must provide any additional information requested by the AIC within three business days of the request.  If the requested information is not received, the AIC will proceed with processing the case. The AIC generally will provide a written summary of the hearing and findings, along with its recommendation for an appropriate penalty, to the Dean of the school in which the student is enrolled (or, in the case of non-matriculated students, to the Dean of the school in which the course was offered) within seven business days of the hearing. In the event additional information was requested, the written summary generally will be provided within seven business days of the receipt of the additional information (or the deadline for submission of the additional information in case it is not provided).  

Decision
The Dean may accept, reject, or modify the AIC’s recommendation, and will notify the student in writing of the decision. However, the Dean is still responsible for ensuring that outcomes and penalties are consistent with overall policy and practice, and that no favoritism is shown.  In general, the Dean will render a decision within five business days after receipt of the AIC’s recommendation.

Appeal

Within ten business days of receipt of the Dean's letter, the student may file an appeal by submitting it in writing to the designated appellate Dean. No appeal will be considered if received after the ten-day deadline. The appellate Dean will consider the merits of the appeal and will consult with the Chair of the AIC and the Dean. The appellate Dean may interview the student but will not conduct a new hearing. The standard for review will be whether the student received appropriate notice and had an opportunity to be heard (i.e., whether there was a fair hearing), and whether the school and the AIC followed this policy. The student generally will receive notice of the decision in writing within ten business days from the receipt of the appeal. This decision is final. Figure 3 illustrates the process for appeals. 

*For Non-Matriculated Students, the College of Student Enrollment will be deemed to be the school which offered the course in which the academic integrity violation occurred.

Records
Copies of the final decision (after appeal) will be sent to the Dean of the undergraduate school in which the student is enrolled and the Office of the Registrar if the penalty includes a note on the student’s permanent record and the Dean of Students. The AIC will keep a record of all charges and proceedings regardless of the outcome. 

Readmission
Students who have been dismissed as a result of an academic integrity violation may apply for readmission after one semester of non-attendance. An application for readmission should be made directly to the Dean or Associate Dean of the school from which the student was dismissed. The application should state the reasons for readmission and include a statement of steps the student has taken or changes he/she has made to merit readmission. Any readmission may require conditions of probation and/or academic or other counseling.

Note: Students are not permitted to drop the course or opt for a P/N grade during or after the pendency of proceedings under this policy unless acquitted of charges.

In addition, the school, the AIC and Deans will exercise due diligence in complying with the stated time limits set forth in this policy. However, stated time limits may be extended depending on the nature of the allegations, the time of year, and any other unforeseen or extenuating circumstance. Any such changes will be communicated to the student. 

Last Updated 3/8/2026