Academic Rules, Student Conduct and Rights

General Standards of Conduct for Engineering Students

In establishing a standard of student conduct, the University of Michigan is committed to the basic principles of entrusting each student with a high degree of freedom to govern their life and conduct while enrolled at the University.

Being a successful member of the College of Engineering community involves intense, spirited innovation, and collaboration with groups of people from diverse backgrounds. Therefore, the College of Engineering embraces a spirit of acceptance and understanding so that our community enjoys a high quality educational and work experience that contributes not only to our technical expertise and accomplishments, but to our ability to interact effectively as a team across disciplines, perspectives, cultures and around the globe. Our goal is a welcoming environment of respect and courtesy for all members of our campus community. This goal takes the active involvement of all of our community members to create an environment that values our diverse community and fosters intercultural skills.

The College of Engineering encourages its students to protect and use this freedom with wisdom and good judgment, and to accept and discharge the responsibility inherent to such freedom.

Students are expected to respect the rights and property of others and to comply with University regulations and public laws.

The College of Engineering welcomes the participation of students in decision making relevant to their affairs and provides channels of communication, both at the College and department level, for that purpose. To benefit from such activity, each student should recognize their responsibility to fellow students and to the faculty and staff, and should discharge all duties with the standards that make such student-college relationships effective and valuable.

The College of Engineering reserves the right to discipline, exclude from participation in relevant activities, or dismiss any student whose conduct or performance it considers in violation of its standards. Such a decision will be made only after review by the appropriate student and faculty committees. During this review, the student will have full opportunity to present their position. A student also has the right of appeal to the Executive Committee of the College.

The Honor Code of the College of Engineering (below) bears witness to the deep trust that characterizes student-faculty relationships in one of the most important aspects of student conduct.

The College of Engineering Honor Code

College of Engineering Honor Code Prepared by the Engineering Honor Council and Faculty Committee on Discipline 

To the Faculty and Students of the College of Engineering: 

The Honor Code is part of our lives in the College of Engineering. The standards for personal integrity demanded by the Honor Code are a reflection of the standards of conduct expected of engineers. These standards allow fairness among students to ensure that no unfair advantage is gained and an equal learning opportunity is given to all students. Not only does the faculty have trust in the students with the implementation of their course policies, but the students have trust in one another. While the College of Engineering is a competitive environment, the College also holds an honorable environment in which students receive credit for their efforts and determination. For over 100 years the Honor code has been an indication of the mutual trust that characterizes student-faculty relationships in the College. 

Alumni of the College of Engineering have a truly outstanding record of accomplishments. We are convinced that this is in part due to the professional attitude fostered by the standards of the Honor Code. The Honor Code is a basic part of your everyday life at the College of Engineering, University of Michigan.  

In 1915, the students of the College of Engineering petitioned for the establishment of an Honor Code. The Code was promptly adopted with faculty approval in 1916 and has since been basic to life in the College of Engineering. The Honor Code outlines certain standards of ethical conduct for persons associated with the College of Engineering at the University of Michigan. The policies of the Honor Code apply to graduate and undergraduate students, faculty members, and administrators. 

The Honor Code is based on these tenets: 

i. Engineers must possess personal integrity both as students and as professionals. They must be honorable people to ensure safety, health, fairness, and the proper use of available resources in their undertakings. 

ii. Members of the College of Engineering community are honorable and trustworthy persons. 

iii. The students, faculty members, and administrators of the College of Engineering trust each other to uphold the principles of the Honor Code. They are jointly responsible for precautions against violations of its policies. 

iv. It is dishonorable for students to receive credit for work that is not the result of their own efforts. 

I. Responsibilities of the Engineer 

Faith of the Engineer, a statement widely accepted by the professional engineering societies, contains pledges that are relevant to the Honor Code of the College of Engineering: 

“As an Engineer, I will participate in none but honest enterprise. To those who engage by services, an employer or client, I will give the utmost of performance and fidelity.”

“Jealous of the high repute of my calling, I will strive to protect the interests and the good name of any engineer that I know to be deserving; but I will not shrink, should duty dictate, from disclosing the truth regarding anyone that, by unscrupulous act, has shown himself unworthy of the profession.” 

“To my fellows, I pledge, in the same full measure I ask of them, integrity and fair dealing, tolerance and respect, and devotion to the standards and the dignity of our profession.”  

The Fundamental Canons for Engineers, as it appears on the National Society of Professional Engineers website

“Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties shall: 

1. Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public. 

2. Perform services only in areas of their competence. 

3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner 

4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. 

5. Avoid deceptive acts. 

6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically and lawfully so as to enhance the reputation and usefulness of the profession.” 

II. Applications of the Honor Code 

The Honor Code is intended to support and enforce course policies in the College of Engineering. Course instructors have exceptional latitude when preparing the policies for their courses. This can lead to variations between policies of different courses. It is the instructor’s responsibility to craft the course policies in accordance with the doctrine of the Honor Code.

Students are responsible for understanding the Honor Code and its implementation in the College of Engineering. Because the specific policies of different faculty members can vary significantly, it is the responsibility of faculty members to specify their policies in writing at the beginning of each semester. Students are responsible for understanding these policies and should consult the instructor if they are unclear. The Honor Code supports the individual course policy, whatever it may be. 

If a student feels that their instructor is not doing what the Honor Code calls for, the student should contact the instructor or a member of the Honor Council to discuss this, and consider further steps, if needed. 

Students of the College of Engineering enrolled in other colleges must abide by the policies of the school or college in which the course is offered. Any suspected policy violations will be referred to the appropriate authorities of the school in question. 

Students who are not members of the College of Engineering and who take a course offered by the College are bound by the policies of the Engineering Honor Code. Any suspected policy violations will be referred to the Engineering Honor Council and Faculty Committee on Discipline. The appropriate authorities of the school or college of the students involved will be notified. 

All alleged Honor Code violations may be investigated by either a member of the Honor Council or the Honor Council Administrative Team. 

When Taking an Examination 

The Honor Code holds that students are honorable and trustworthy people and encourages them to behave with integrity in all phases of university life. During examinations, the instructor is available for questions, but the examination is not proctored. 

The instructor will announce the time and place of the examination. At the start of the examination, the instructor’s whereabouts during the exam will be communicated to the class in case a question arises. 

Students have the right to have at least one empty seat between themselves and their neighbors. This helps ensure comfort during the examination and reduces the temptation to cheat. It is the instructor’s responsibility to ensure that there is adequate seating beforehand, and to obtain additional rooms if necessary. 

During the examination, students are free to leave the room. Minimal essential conversation is allowed. However, no communication regarding the examination is allowed inside or outside the room. All questions about the examination should be directed to the instructor. 

It is the instructor’s responsibility to inform the class prior to the examination if aids, such as calculators, notes, or textbooks, are allowed during the examination. 

After each examination, students must write the Honor Pledge in their test books and sign their names under it. The Honor Pledge is as follows: 

“I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid on this examination, nor have I concealed any violations of the Honor Code.” 

Instructors are not required to grade tests in which the signed Honor Pledge does not appear. The Honor Code remains enforced whether or not the student signs the Pledge. 

Use of Computers and Other Facilities 

Each department in the College of Engineering establishes its own general policies on the use of computers, laboratories, and other facilities. In addition, students should observe any specific instructions appearing in computer rooms, laboratories, or libraries. 

Students may not submit as their own work a computer program or part thereof which is not the result of their own thought and efforts. Contributions to a program from external sources must be acknowledged and properly documented in accordance with the course policies. 

Students may not attempt to access or tamper with the class account of another student unless permission to do so has been given by both the class instructor and the student to whom the account is assigned. 

Computers available for students to use are the property of the University of Michigan. Software available for students to use is the property of the University of Michigan or is licensed to the University of Michigan. Any unauthorized attempt to copy software or to tamper with computers or software is a violation of federal law, as well as the Honor code.

All laboratories, classrooms, office equipment, and libraries are meant for instruction and learning. Misuse of these facilities is a violation of the Honor Code. 

Homework and Laboratory Assignments 

The principles of the Honor Code apply to homework and laboratory assignments as well as to examinations. The instructor may allow collaboration among students on such assignments. The instructor is to make clear how much, if any, collaboration is permissible. The instructor may also require that students write and sign the Honor Pledge on their homework and lab reports. 

It is a violation of the Honor Code for students to submit, as their own, work that is not the result of their own labor and thoughts. Work that includes material derived in any way from the efforts of another author, either by direct quotation or paraphrasing, should be fully and properly documented. To avoid plagiarism, it is necessary to cite all sources of both ideas and direct quotations, including those found on the internet. The basic principle is to provide enough information so that the original source of the material can be located. The University of Michigan English Language and Literature Department website provides a thorough discussion of plagiarism.

University Documents 

Official academic forms and records are the property of the College of Engineering and/or the University of Michigan. Tampering, alteration, or other misuse of these documents is a violation of the Honor Code, as is submitting falsified or altered documents. 

Course Registration 

The University Registrar’s Office provides students with a registration date in accordance with their own policies. Registering for a course, or asking another student to register for a course, in order to hold a seat for yourself or someone else is a violation of the Honor Code.  

III. The Engineering Honor Council 

The Engineering Honor Council is composed of students from the College of Engineering. The primary purpose of the Honor Council is to investigate suspected violations of the Honor Code. 

Members of the Engineering Honor Council also visit classes every year to answer questions about the Honor Code and acquaint students with its ideals. Openings may occur on the Honor Council as members graduate and leave the University. At such times, the Honor Council accepts membership applications from students, and arranges interviews with prospective members. The Honor Council can be contacted at [email protected] Also, see the Honor Council website.

IV. Reporting Honor Code Violations 

The Honor Code works to the benefit of students, instructors, and administrators in the College of Engineering at the University of Michigan. It is based on the mutual trust that all those bound by it will uphold its principles and enforce its policies. 

However, this makes it the duty and responsibility of students and instructors to report promptly any suspected violations of the Honor Code. The College of Engineering Honor Code requires that students take the following steps if a violation of the Honor Code is observed: 

1) Obtain the names of the people involved. 

2) Inform the instructor of the incident. To ensure uniformity and fairness, the instructor is required to take the appropriate actions in accordance with the Honor Code if the instructor feels there is just cause to do so. 

3) If the instructor refuses to submit the case for an investigation, the student may contact the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education who will refer the case to the Honor Council. 

If the instructor becomes aware of the possible violation of the Honor Code, it is their responsibility to contact the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education (273 Chrysler Center 2121 Bonisteel Blvd, Ann Arbor, Michigan; [email protected]) to report this accusation. Suspected Honor Code violations must be reported no later than two months after the end of the term in which the potential violation occurred

The Honor Council will investigate the suspected violation. The student and any witnesses to the incident may be asked to recall their impressions and thoughts concerning the case when they appear at the inquiry. The Honor Council will report its findings and make a recommendation to the Faculty Committee on Discipline. 

NOTE: The proceedings of the Honor Council are confidential. Therefore, the students and faculty involved are obligated to refrain from discussing the case with persons not directly involved in the case. Disclosure of confidential information is a violation of the Honor Code. 

V. Being Accused of an Honor Code Violation

If a student is suspected of an Honor Code violation, the following steps will be taken: 

1) The instructor is instructed to report a grade of ‘I’ to the accused student while the student is under investigation. Once the case has been resolved, a final grade will be assigned. 

2) If the violation is reported while the full Honor Council is adjourned for the Spring and Summer terms a case may be processed via a shortened traditional process by meeting directly with the Faculty Committee on Discipline. Respondents who elect to not participate in this abridged Spring/Summer process will have their cases handled as soon as possible when cases resume being heard in the Fall semester. 

3) An Honor Council member will be assigned to investigate the allegations. At this time, the accused student is given written notice of the suspected violation. The investigating member will go over the evidence with the accused student and ask for an explanation of the incident. The accused student has the right to request another investigator if the student feels uncomfortable with the investigator originally assigned to the case. 

4) Accused students are invited to prepare a brief written statement for use in their defense, if they feel that this is necessary. 

5) The Honor Council will invite the student to appear before the Council when it considers all the evidence. At that time, the student will be given a second written notice of the suspected violation. The student will be asked to describe actions and motivations relevant to the incident. If the student fails to appear for the hearing, the Honor Council has the right to pass judgment in their absence. 

a. The accused student has the right to waive the Honor Council hearing and go directly to the Faculty Committee on Discipline. (The student must first meet with their assigned Honor Council investigator before this option is available).

6) The Honor Council will make a recommendation to the Faculty Committee on Discipline regarding the responsibility of the accused, and a suitable sanction, if applicable. The student will be notified of the recommendation and the reasons for the decision. 

7) The Faculty Committee on Discipline will review the recommendation made by the Honor Council. The Committee will ask the student to appear for the hearing. If the student fails to appear for the hearing, the Committee has the right to pass judgment in the absence of the student. The Faculty Committee will render a decision and will notify the student by written communication. The student may appeal the Committee’s decision to the Executive Committee of the College. 

8) Typical sanctions for a first violation may include a zero on the assignment, a reduction in grade for the course, and community service. For especially serious or repeated violations of the Honor Code, the sanctions may also include suspension or expulsion from the College of Engineering. 

9) Missed deadlines for Community Service sanctions can result in withholding your registration and/or your diploma. 

VI. Decision of an Honor Code Violation 

The Honor Council investigates each suspected violation of the Honor Code and recommends action to the Faculty Committee on Discipline. Appointments to the Committee are rotated to ensure representation of all Engineering Departments. The Faculty Committee considers the recommendations of the Honor Council and follows up with appropriate disciplinary action. The decision of the Committee is ordinarily final. It may, however, be appealed to the Executive Committee of the College of Engineering on the following grounds 

  • Proper procedures were not followed;
  • Sanctions are not consistent with past practice; 
  • There is new evidence not reasonably available at the time of hearing before the Faculty Committee on Discipline 

The College of Engineering Executive Committee shall not review findings of fact made by the Faculty Committee on Discipline. 

The College of Engineering Executive Committee has sole discretion to determine if sufficient grounds exist for consideration of an appeal. 

If the request for appeal has merit, the College of Engineering Executive Committee shall review the appeal as soon as practical after it has been filed and will give the student, along with the Chair/Associate Chair of FCD, an opportunity to address the Committee in person. 

Following the review, the College of Engineering Executive Committee may sustain or reverse the finding of an Honor Code violation. If the finding of academic dishonesty stands, the Committee may sustain, modify, or increase the sanction imposed. The student will be informed by email/letter of the Committee’s decision.

Students have 1 week from the receipt of their Honor Code decision to submit their letter of appeal to the Executive Committee. 

Completed appeal letters should be emailed to the Honor Council Administrator at [email protected] and should be addressed c/o: Professor Kevin Pipe Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education College of Engineering University of Michigan 

Cases involving suspected violations on the part of students registered in another school taking an Engineering course, or involving Engineering facilities, will be reviewed by the Engineering Honor Council and Faculty Committee on Discipline. The appropriate authorities of the school or college of the students involved will be notified. 

When graduate students are suspected of Honor Code violations, the College of Engineering Honor Code process will be followed. In addition, communications will be sent to the Dean of Rackham School or Graduate Studies. 

Protection of the Suspected Student 

During the Honor Council hearing, the suspected student deals at first only with other students. This creates an atmosphere where the case can be stated fully without any inhibitions caused by the presence of faculty members or administrators. Although the hearings are confidential, the suspected student may bring a friend or advisor. The College of Engineering maintains records of all Honor Code convictions. However, all Honor Council and Faculty Committee on Discipline records are strictly confidential and are kept separate from the student’s regular file. 

Conclusion 

The students, faculty, and administrators of the College of Engineering believe that living under the guidance of the Honor Code contributes to the success of engineers from the University of Michigan. Each student admitted to the College of Engineering is subject to the tenets of the Honor Code. Students are reminded that the principles on which the Honor Code rests apply to life in the professional world as well as on campus. Students enrolled in the College of engineering are expected to conduct themselves in such a manner as to be a credit to the University and to the community, and most importantly, to themselves.

A student who wishes to admit responsibility may elect to participate in an expedited process:

  1. A respondent with no previous honor code violations that resulted in a finding of responsibility, who also accepts responsibility for the alleged violation, may elect an expedited hearing process.
  2. This process is available to any student in a College of Engineering course who has not already been found responsible for an Honor Code violation.
  3. A student electing to participate in the expedited hearing process is accepting responsibility formally for the alleged violation.
  4. A standard punitive sanctioning policy will be used in developing restorative action plans for student respondents. (Typically a 0 on the assignment(s) in question and 1/3 letter grade reduction, which means that the final class grade would be lowered by a third of a grade, such as going from a B+ to a C-.)
  5. All decisions and action plans are subject to the review for final approval by the Faculty Committee on Discipline. 
  6. In an expedited hearing meeting facilitated by a member of the Engineering Center for Academic Success, a respondent will provide details about their alleged violation. 
  7. A finding of “responsible” as a result of the expedited or non-expedited (Honor Code Formalized) adjudication process will count as a first violation and will make a respondent ineligible for an expedited process as the result of any future actions.
  8. Expedited review of potentially “Not Responsible” respondents as the result of expedited hearing information collected. 
    1. In a case with multiple students, the respondent may identify those students they believe to be potentially not responsible.  
    2. In a case with multiple students, if at such time it becomes likely that a student is not responsible for an alleged Honor Code violation as the result of testimony and evidence collected in expedited hearings, those individuals may be eligible for their case to be considered for an expedited Honor Council review of their potential violation.
    3. This expedited review is conducted by an approved investigator as designated by the Honor Council, and a staff member of the Office of Retention and Academic Support Services. These reviews will be conducted weekly as needed.
    4. A determination of not responsible can be made at this time similar to the investigation phase of the current Honor Council review process. 

Any finding other than “not responsible” will result in the case being processed through the full Honor Code process, with this meeting serving as an investigation whereas a formal hearing will be scheduled at a later non-expedited date.

The Honor Council has prepared a booklet that explains the principles and operation of the Honor Code. The Honor Code booklet is available in the Engineering Center for Academic Success, 273 Chrysler Center and on the College of Engineering website: Honor Code Pamphlet.

Sanctioning Policies

To have consistency among decisions rendered by either the Expedited or Traditional Honor Code case proceedings, the following guidelines represent previous case precedent in assigning sanctions.  These are considered to be the minimally punitive actions by the College of Engineering and are dictated as such for consistency in sanctioning.  Additional restorative sanctioning including but not limited to reflective essays, letters of apology, and educational seminars are considered to be appropriate additional restorative actions for all violations of The Honor Code.

Home programs of any student taking a College of Engineering class will be notified providing the program has a Memorandum of Understanding with the College of Engineering.  Home programs may increase or add sanctions. 

Sanctions for common first-time violations:

This category of sanctioning represents the most common responses to violations of The Honor Code that do not directly violate The Statement, described in the next sectionThese sanctions are to be prescribed as they are considered the minimum punitive actions in the scenarios below.  In most cases, a first-time violation does not result in a notation on a respondent’s transcripts.   Please note this is not an exhaustive list but covers the most common responses for actions of inappropriate collaboration, copying/ plagiarism, or seeking an unfair advantage. 

If a respondent was enrolled in the course during the term in which the violation occurred the following sanctions are considered standard minimum sanctions.

  • A grade/score of a zero for the entirety of any homework, assignment, project, or test where the submitted product was not entirely of the respondent’s creation. 
  • A ⅓ letter grade decrement on the respondent’s final course grade (eg. a grade reduction from an “A-” to a “B+”). 

If the respondent was not enrolled in the course during the term in which the violation occurred the following sanctions are considered standard minimum sanctions. 

  • 10 hours of community service to be completed before graduation. 

If the respondent has graduated, was not enrolled in the course during the term in which the violation occurred, and assisted in the resolution of the case (eg: by providing an admission of responsibility, removing their work from public forums, or assisting investigators in identifying the distribution of work to resolve a case) no further sanctions are required.  

Supplemental sanctions can be assigned when the student admits to actions that otherwise may have infringed upon the rights of another student.  In these occurrences, a student may have gained access to another student’s work without their explicit permission (eg. looking at another student’s work, copying or taking files without permission, or photographing/ screen capturing work without the other party’s permission). 

  • A 1,000 word reflective essay on a topic most closely related to the offense in question. 
  • A letter of apology to the aggrieved party.

Sanctions for common second-time violations:

This category of sanctioning represents the most common responses to violations of The Honor Code that do not directly violate The Statement when a student has been found responsible for a second separate course or case.  

A second incident is defined as any action deemed in violation of The Honor Code that a respondent engages in after having had the opportunity to meet with a member of The Honor Code stakeholder team (the Honor Council, Faculty Committee on Discipline, or the Engineering Center for Academic Success).  For example, a student meets with the member of the ECA Steam to admit responsibility for a violation of The Honor Code.  Any act that violates The Honor Code after that meeting would be considered a second offense. However, an act that violates The Honor Code that has occurred prior to that meeting but reported after that meeting would be collectively considered a first-time offense for sanctioning purposes.    

These sanctions are to be prescribed as they are acceptable punitive actions in the scenarios below.  Please note this is not an exhaustive list but covers the most common responses for actions of inappropriate collaboration, copying/ plagiarism, or seeking an unfair advantage. 

  • A notation of the respondent’s transcript indicating that they have been found responsible for violating The Honor Code.
  • Public disclosure of their current and previous violations upon request by 3rd parties.

If a respondent was enrolled in the course during the term in which the violation occurred the following sanctions are considered standard minimum sanctions.

  • A grade/score of a zero for the entirety of any homework, assignment, project, or test where the submitted product was not entirely of the respondent’s creation. 
  • A 2/3 letter grade decrement on the respondent’s final course grade (eg. a grade reduction from an “A” to a “B+”). 

If the respondent was not enrolled in the course during the term in which the violation occurred the following sanctions are considered standard minimum sanctions. 

  • 20 hours of community service to be completed before graduation

Guidelines for acceptable administrative actions for second violations. 

  • Probationary status placed on the respondent’s records if the action was not a repeated offense. 
  • Suspension: repeating violations but repentant actions displayed by the respondent. 
  • Expulsion: repeating violations and unrepentant actions displayed by the respondent. 

Sanctions for violations that explicitly violate The Statement and/or for those who have violated The Honor Code more than two times:

This category of sanctioning represents the most common responses to violations of The Honor Code that also directly violate The Statement.  These are acts that are beyond a simple occurrence of copying or misinterpretation of class policy wherein a respondent is accused of actions that directly infringe upon the rights of others or have become habitual (eg: threats towards, forcibly taking another student’s work through malicious means such as hacking or theft, fabrication of records, assuming another individuals identity, violating The Honor Code more than twice).  This is a similar sanctioning standard by LSA’s conduct teams. 

If a respondent were to deny a specific action that is potentially a violation of The Statement, the action itself should be reported to the Office of Student Conflict Resolution for an impartial review.  Honor Code case proceedings may continue in parallel up to the Faculty Committee on Discipline.  Final FCD determinations should be postponed until a determination is made by OSCR so all evidence can be considered.  

These sanctions are to be prescribed as they are considered the minimum punitive actions in the scenarios below.

  • A notation of the respondent’s transcript indicating that they have been found responsible for violating The Honor Code.
  • Public disclosure of their current and previous violations upon request by 3rd parties.

If a respondent was enrolled in the course during the term in which the violation occurred the following sanctions are considered standard minimum sanctions.

  • A grade/score of a zero for the entirety of any homework, assignment, project, or test where the submitted product was not entirely of the respondent’s creation. 

Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities

Introduction

The University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (the University) is dedicated to supporting and maintaining a scholarly community. As its central purpose, this community promotes intellectual inquiry through vigorous discourse. Values which undergird this purpose include civility, dignity, diversity, education, equality, freedom, honesty, and safety.

When students choose to accept admission to the University, they accept the rights and responsibilities of membership in the University’s academic and social community. As members of the University community, students are expected to uphold its previously stated values by maintaining a high standard of conduct. Because the University establishes high standards for membership, its standards of conduct, while falling within the limits of the law, may exceed federal, state, or local requirements.

Within the University, entities (such as schools and colleges; campus, professional, and student organizations) have developed policies that outline standards of conduct governing their constituents and that sometimes provide procedures for sanctioning violations of those standards. This Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities (the Statement) does not replace those standards; nor does it constrain the procedures or sanctions provided by those policies. This Statement describes possible behaviors which are inconsistent with the values of the University community; it outlines procedures to respond to such behaviors; and it suggests possible sanctions which are intended to educate and to safeguard members of the University community.

Student Rights

Students at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (the University) have the same rights and protections under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Michigan as other citizens. These rights include freedom of expression, press, religion, and assembly. The University has a long tradition of student activism and values freedom of expression, which includes voicing unpopular views and dissent. As members of the University community, students have the right to express their own views, and must also take responsibility for according the same right to others. 

Students have the right to be treated fairly and with dignity regardless of race, color, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion, height, weight, or veteran status, and as revised in the University of Michigan Nondiscrimination Policy. The University has a long-standing tradition of commitment to pluralistic education. Accordingly, the University, through this Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities (the Statement), will not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of protected group status. 

Students have the right to be protected from capricious decision-making by the University and to have access to University policies which affect them. The University has an enduring commitment to provide students with a balanced and fair system of dispute resolution. Accordingly, this Statement will not deprive students of the appropriate due process protections to which they are entitled. This Statement is one of the University’s administrative procedures and should not be equated with procedures used in civil or criminal court. 

Students also have a right to be educated about this Statement, and the University has a responsibility to provide education to students about the contents of this Statement. Students shall be made aware of their rights as outlined in this Statement, in addition to their responsibilities. Specifically, the Division of Student Life will proactively inform new students of the Statement, including, sanctions/interventions they may face if found responsible for violating this Statement. 

The University’s commitment to providing students appropriate dispute resolution avenues means that in addition to formal conflict resolution processes, the University also provides informal, adaptable conflict resolution pathways. Related procedures are outlined in VI.2.B. Adaptable Conflict Resolution.

Student Responsibilities

Along with rights come certain responsibilities. Students at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (the University) are expected to act consistently with the values of the University community and to obey local, state, and federal laws.

For complete information on Students Rights and Responsibilities see the Office of Student Conflict Resolution, Division of Student Affairs.