Regarding the first incident involving the calculator, that matter appears to be concluded. The use of the calculator was acknowledged, and a form accepting responsibility was signed. As such, the resulting outcome on that examination is unlikely to be revisited.
Attention now shifts to the second incident. This allegation arises in the context of a prior complaint concerning the professor, which raises the possibility that it may be perceived as retaliatory. Additionally, the current matter appears to lack supporting evidence. These factors may be relevant considerations in preparation for the upcoming hearing.
In academic environments, retaliation is a significant problem. It occurs when a student exercises their rights such as complaining, contesting a grade, or taking part in a disciplinary procedure, and a faculty member or institution takes adverse action against them as a result. Even while it may seem overwhelming, it’s crucial to keep in mind that schools and institutions typically have explicit anti-retaliation policies. You have some protection.
Understanding Retaliation in Academia
When a student does something protected, such as reporting wrongdoing, submitting a complaint, or contesting unjust treatment, a faculty member or institution may retaliate against them. Retaliation in cases of academic misconduct could include a second false charge, unjust grades, undue scrutiny, or other forms of attacking the student after they have used their rights.
Standard Law and Policy (Title IX & Others)
Federally funded educational programs are protected from retaliation under Title IX. Institutions must prohibit retaliation, look into complaints alleging retaliation, and provide grievance processes in accordance with 34 CFR section 106.71.
Title VI, Title IX, and other civil rights laws that forbid retaliation are enforced by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Education. Language protecting students who report wrongdoing or discrimination from retaliation must be included in school policy.
Examples of Retaliation in Academic Policies and Cases
Oregon State University
According to this policy, retaliation is expressly forbidden “in any education program or activity that it operates, including in admission and employment,” according to the university’s policy. This implies that a student cannot be held accountable for academic misconduct just because they previously reported something else.
Student Discipline Defense
They explore cases in which students who voiced concerns or filed complaints were later accused of other crimes. These conversations demonstrate how the new charge’s timing (shortly after a complaint) and dearth of supporting documentation frequently point to retaliatory actions.
How These Concern Your Circumstance
- A retaliation claim may be supported if your second allegation was made shortly after you acknowledged the calculator problem, particularly if you had voiced your concerns or complaints.
- The notion that the new accusation is retaliatory rather than a valid charge is also supported if it is backed up by scant or nonexistent reliable proof.
- You have the right to be shielded from such retaliation thanks to policies like those at Oregon State. You can use similar text from your school’s policy as support if it exists.
Why Intent and Timing Matter
Timing is always a strong indicator in retaliation cases. Let’s say a new allegation comes to the surface right after you’ve reported a professor. Maybe you challenged the grade, or experienced a prior misconduct process. It may raise suspicion that the charge is not genuine misconduct. But it could be about the payback. So if a professor comes forward with a second accusation right after you admitted to the calculator incident, because it’s a close sequence to the prior event, you can claim retaliation.
Intent also plays a major role. The professor may have been targeting students personally rather than enforcing academic integrity if the second accusation is unsupported by proof, such as no independent witnesses, no documentation, or only general assertions.
One of the cases at Yale University occurred about “False AI Use Accusation & Retaliation Allegation”. On a final exam, a Yale EMBA student was charged with inappropriately employing artificial intelligence. After he supposedly complained about discrimination, the student said the accusation was untrue. He sued Yale, claiming that some of the disciplinary actions were motivated by retaliation rather than academic dishonesty.
Patterns of behavior are also recognized by courts and academic institutions. A case for prejudice is made if the same professor treats you differently than your colleagues, picks you out for inspection on a regular basis, or makes numerous unfounded charges. This pattern-based evidence aids in demonstrating that the conduct was retaliatory rather than neutral enforcement.
Burden of Proof in Retaliation Claims
You must demonstrate that you participated in a protected activity (such as complaining, reporting unfair treatment, or asserting your rights during the misconduct process) that led to the professor’s action.
Universities typically apply the “preponderance of the evidence” criterion. Accordingly, the decision-makers just need to conclude that there is a greater than 50% chance that retaliation took place. It is not necessary to establish it “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The majority of the evidence will be circumstantial because professors rarely acknowledge retaliation. For instance:
- The second allegation was made immediately following your complaint.
- Lack of reliable proof to back up the latest accusation.
- A pattern of unjust examination, such as being picked out in comparison to your peers.
Documenting Patterns of Retaliation
The best defense strategy if you think the second accusation is retaliatory is to keep track of tendencies. A timeline supported by evidence demonstrates consistency and intent, whereas a single episode may be written off as a coincidence.
Maintain a timetable
Note down the precise times that the professor made the new accusation, when you acknowledged the calculator infraction, and when you filed a complaint, if you did. A retaliation claim is supported by the timing of the second charge if it occurred shortly after your complaint.
Save correspondence
Save all of the professor’s emails, grade reports, and comments. For instance, it matters if your complaint was followed immediately by an abrupt change in marking or exceptionally negative feedback.
Compare treatment
Examine how you are treated by the professor in comparison to your peers. It can be biased if you were picked out while others were not reported for comparable activity.
Witness accounts
If staff members, teaching assistants, or fellow students saw the professor mistreating you, their testimonies may support your allegation. Your case can be strengthened by even casual remarks, such as “the professor seemed to watch only your screen during the exam.”
Requesting Fair Procedures
The right to a fair and unbiased process is one of your most significant protections as a student. You can, and should, ask for another professor to assess the case if the same professor who handled your first one is now the target of a second, unrelated charge. In addition to ensuring that the judgment is founded solely on the evidence and not on personal prejudice, this helps avoid conflicts of interest.
Impartial adjudication: The majority of universities mandate that proceedings on academic misconduct be conducted impartially. You are entitled to request that your matter be handled by an academic integrity board, another faculty member, or an impartial administrator.
Policies regarding conflicts of interest: University handbooks frequently forbid those who have a personal stake in the result from managing a case. Your professor might not be in the best position to objectively consider a second accusation if they have already reprimanded you previously.
How to make a request for it: Be courteous and professional in your request. For instance: “I would like this new allegation to be reviewed by an impartial party given the prior incident in order to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest.”
Presenting Your Retaliation Claim in a Hearing
Stay Professional
Although it’s normal to be frustrated, professionalism is important during a hearing. Calmly go over the timeline with the committee, pointing out when the new claim surfaced, what happened next (your complaint or concern), and what happened first (the calculator infraction). Reviewers can more easily comprehend the wider picture when the events are presented in chronological order.
Focus on Evidence
Evidence is your best defense. Emphasize any areas where the evidence is lacking, such as ambiguous statements or incomplete records. Stress the questionable timing, such as if the additional charge was made right after you lodged a complaint. Such patterns frequently have a stronger voice than feelings.
Avoid Personal Attacks
It can backfire to accuse a professor of harboring resentment or “hating you.” Let your timeline, emails you’ve kept, inconsistent grading, or a dearth of reliable evidence speak for you instead. By being true to the facts, you demonstrate to the committee that your argument is supported by facts rather than conjecture.
Case Law and Precedent
Even though it might be challenging to prove, retribution is acknowledged as a serious problem by both courts and universities. Students have successfully claimed that because they exercised their rights or filed a complaint, a lecturer or institution took action against them. Here are a few instances from real life:
Michigan University v. Graduate Student (2019)
A graduate student who reported sexual harassment claimed to have been the victim of retaliation. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Education concluded that the university had not adequately shielded the student from reprisals. This case demonstrates how a retaliation claim can be established by timing and repeated unfavorable acts after a complaint.
Professor Retaliation Lawsuit, Fresno State (2017)
This example demonstrates how retribution is treated seriously in academia, despite the fact that it involves a faculty member rather than a student. A professor at Fresno State was awarded $1.54 million after demonstrating that she had suffered reprisals for disclosing wrongdoing. Students can apply a similar reasoning: whether it is aimed at faculty or students, retaliation compromises academic integrity and fairness.
Conclusion
Even though the calculator incident has already been settled, every new accusation should still be investigated. The second charge merits careful examination for its justice as well as the supporting evidence or lack thereof.
Retaliation is expressly forbidden by federal guidance and higher education rules. You have the right to voice your concerns and demand protection if you think you may be in danger. The most effective defenses are fact-based and include maintaining a clear timetable, archiving correspondence, requesting unbiased reviewers, and raising issues when needed.
Above all, resist the urge to give in to frustration or fear. Students who calmly make their case and provide strong documentation and supporting evidence frequently succeed in demonstrating that some accusations are the result of bias or retaliation rather than real misconduct. Your rights and voice are important, and the greatest protection is frequently to stand your ground professionally.
