Types of Faculty Misconduct

Faculty misconduct is defined as any professional misconduct committed by an academic faculty member as described in the following categories: Academic Misconduct, Research Misconduct, Misconduct in Patient Care, Non-academic Misconduct, and Retaliation. Examples of conduct that could fall within each category are provided below. Note that the dean has discretion in categorizing a particular conduct, and the information provided here is just guidance. Each case is unique and should be handled according to its specific circumstances.

1. Academic Misconduct

By definition, academic misconduct includes, and is not limited to the following examples. Some behaviors may fall in more than one category. Judging the severity of these actions is left to the discretion of the faculty committees and deans.

• Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism related to academic functions other than research. Examples include gross misrepresentations of the facts on a CV or promotion dossier, using another scholar’s materials in a course and labeling it as their own without permission, or fabricating grades.
• Compromising the integrity of a faculty governance process. Examples include contacting potential referees to ensure they are supportive before submitting their names for promotion review, violating the confidentiality of an evaluation committee proceedings, or leveraging one’s seniority to influence the search committee to hire one’s student. 
• Abuse of power for academic benefit. Examples include abusing academic authority to improperly attribute authorship for a research article, requiring students to write a letter in support of the faculty member, or unduly pressuring a junior colleague to support the faculty member’s student.
• Abuses and violations of principles of academic freedom (the faculty member’s and others’) as defined in the Faculty Handbook. By the AAUP definition and our Faculty Handbook, abuses of a faculty member’s own right to academic freedom include “persistently intruding material which has no relation to the subject” in a course and misleading an audience by persistently failing “to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution” when speaking publicly. Violations of others’ academic freedom include a lack of “respect for the opinions of others” (AAUP) and restricting others’“freedom to speak, write, inquire, listen, challenge, and learn” (UVA Statements on Free Expression and Free Inquiry).

2. Research Misconduct

Research misconduct is defined narrowly in RES-004: Research Misconduct to align with federal sponsor requirements as “fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.” While faculty will perceive these as academic in nature, they have been separated in the policy because these types of behavior must be investigated using precise standards issued by government agencies. The NIH describes research misconduct as making up data or results (fabrication), changing or misreporting data or results (falsification), and using the ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate credit (plagiarism). 

3. Misconduct in Patient Care

When a faculty member’s conduct in a clinical setting impacts the quality of patient care, it may be considered Misconduct in Patient Care. The expected behavior of health providers and actions that may be classified as misconduct are described in detail in three Medical Center policies: [MCP-0262, Standards for Professional Behavior for Practitioners]; [MCP-0283, Behavioral Code of Conduct; and MCP-0291], [Code of Conduct for Providers Who Hold Clinical Privileges]. 

4. Non-academic Misconduct

Nonacademic misconduct encompasses any other conduct not described above. A rule of thumb for identifying academic versus nonacademic misconduct is to determine whether a similar action (from an academic perspective) could be committed by any University employee. For example:

• Bullying, disrespect, or other acts that create a hostile work environment, whether the activity occurs in a class setting, faculty meeting, or elsewhere.
• Neglecting duties, such as absenteeism or insubordination, whether the activity is academic in nature or not. Thus, a faculty member persistently missing class or refusing to teach an assigned course is considered a failure to fulfill their assigned duties.
• Misconduct in a clinical setting that does not impact patient care is considered nonacademic for the purposes of this policy.
• Violations of law or University policy, such as the Code of University Ethics, Conflict of Interest, PADHR, Title IX, Restrictions on Certain Romantic or Sexual Relationships at the University, and Use of Working Time and University Equipment for Personal or Commercial Purposes, that do not fall into other types of misconduct, fall within non-academic misconduct.

5. Retaliation

In the context of this policy, retaliation is when a faculty member harms, or threatens to harm, another individual directly because of any procedure described in this policy. Examples include a faculty member:

• not supporting a colleague’s promotion solely because they accused the faculty member of misconduct, 
• submitting a false misconduct report against someone who testified in an investigation, or failing to approve a PhD student’s defense because that student’s supervisor was part of a faculty review committee assessing the validity of a misconduct claim.

The supervisor, dean, or provost may respond to minor unacceptable conduct by a faculty member (whether alleged or investigated) with actions that are not disciplinary. These types of actions do not result in material consequences, but any documentation in writing resulting from these actions will become a part of a faculty member’s departmental or school personnel file.

Verbal Counseling

A supervisor may use verbal counseling when the alleged misconduct is very minor and does not merit a letter of expectation. Verbal counseling cannot result in any punitive or material consequences and cannot be used as evidence in future disciplinary proceedings unless documented in a letter of expectation.

Letter of Expectation  

A letter of expectation may be used in cases of alleged or confirmed minor misconduct. Its purpose is to convey clear expectations regarding conduct; it includes a description of the alleged or confirmed misconduct and the applicable policies. A letter of expectation is issued by the faculty member’s supervisor or dean (or designee). The faculty member is asked to sign the letter to acknowledge receipt and confirm that they understand the expectations specified in the letter; signing the letter does not imply agreement with the allegations described therein. A faculty member may submit a written response to the letter. Both the letter of expectation and the faculty member’s response, if any, remain in the faculty member’s departmental or school personnel file. 

In and of itself, a letter of expectation cannot carry any punitive or material consequences. Coaching, professional development, or other nonpunitive actions may be recommended. In the case of future allegations of misconduct, the letter may serve as evidence that the faculty member was made aware of policies and expectations regarding conduct. 

Performance Improvement Plan

A faculty member may be placed under a performance improvement plan (PIP) by their supervisor or dean (or designee) in cases of confirmed conduct violations. (A PIP may also be used in cases of documented poor performance, which is not addressed in PROV-035: Misconduct and Discipline of Academic Faculty.) A PIP is a formal document that outlines areas where the faculty member’s conduct does not meet expectations and describes specific actions needed to address these deficiencies. The PIP must include precise expectations and a reasonable timeline for achieving them. The PIP must also describe how the subsequent conduct will be evaluated and the consequences if the expectations stated in the PIP are not satisfactorily met. A PIP is normally accompanied by a letter of expectation (non-disciplinary action) or written reprimand (minor disciplinary action described in policy).

The flowchart provides information on the paths leading to faculty disciplinary and nondisciplinary actions.