Syllabus

Master of Social Work

SSWO 673 – Social Work and the Law (Fall 2021)

Credits - 3

Description

This course, “Social Work Practice and the Law” is designed to introduce students to the various components of law and how the exchanges between legal professionals and a social worker coincides when an individual, family, or group is faced with legal issues. It provides an introductory examination of historical frameworks of both law/social work and how the two systems interact with one another within all of the legal and social work domains. This course showcases the systems perspective as well as practice techniques in communicating and collaborating across professional fields. The goal of this course is to understand the context of law, social work, and their continuing relevance to understanding and meeting a client’s legal needs.

Materials

Required Text(s)

Maschi, T., & Leibowitz, G.S. (2017). Forensic social work: Psychosocial and legal issues across diverse populations and settings. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, LLC.

Recommended Literature

Marx, J. D. (2003). Social welfare: The American partnership. Boston, MA: Pearson. 

Pocket Edition of the Original Constitution of the United States (with Index), and Declaration of Independence (2005). Malta, ID: The National Center for Constitutional Studies.

 

Learning Objectives and Outcomes

School of Social Work Program Outcomes:

Graduates of the UNE SSWO will demonstrate knowledge, skills, and leadership in the following:

  1. Practice social inclusion to enable people, populations, and communities to fully participate in society, enhance human bonds in the context of cultural diversity and ensure improved quality of life and equitable resource distribution. EPAS Competencies 2 & 3
  2. Engage in culturally-informed relationship building, being respectful of the complexity and diversity of contexts and circumstances. EPAS Competencies 3 & 6
  3. Utilize theories of human behavior, social systems and social inclusion when offering interventions with people and their environments. EPAS Competency 8
  4. Promote ethical reflection, critical consciousness and shared decision-making based in social work values and with consideration of the broader contexts of the world in which we live. EPAS Competency 1
  5. Balance the roles of helpers, activists, and advocates through collaboration with communities to build healthy and sustainable resources. EPAS Competencies 2, 5, & 6
  6. Engage as critical consumers and producers of research as it relates to assessment, intervention and evaluation of clinical and community practices. EPAS Competencies 4, 7, 8 & 9
  7. Practice person-centered and collaborative community partnerships across diverse settings. EPAS Competency 6

Course Outcomes

  1. Analyze the various components of law and how the exchanges between legal professionals and social workers coincide when an individual, family, or group is faced with legal issues and institutions. Program Outcomes 1 & 2 (As measured by Discussion, Course Papers, and PPT presentation).
  2. Synthesize the various pathways between social work practice and advocacy and the law and legal systems and the derivative influence of equity, equality, and effective delivery and allocation of resources Program Outcomes 4 & 6 (As measured by Discussion, Course Papers, and PPT presentation). 
  3. Justify the application of interdisciplinary research and evaluating social work and law and preventative and discriminatory and oppressive policies. Program Outcomes 3 & 6 (As measured by Discussion, Course Papers, and PPT presentation).
  4. Assess the impact of social work practice and the law on service utilization and outcomes for vulnerable groups. Program Outcomes 3 & 5 (As measured by Discussion, Course Papers, and PPT presentation).

Assignments

Discussion Forums 

Discussion Board: You will have whole class and small group discussions. For small group discussion boards, you will be pre-divided randomly into groups of 5 or so and will participate only in your group. 

Due Dates: You will have Small Group Discussions due in Weeks 2, 4, and 6. There will be Whole Class Discussions due in Weeks 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8.  All discussion questions require an initial response by Saturday, 11:59 PM ET and responses must be completed by Tuesday, 11:59 PM ET unless otherwise stated; however, feel free to post your work earlier in the learning week if you choose. 

What are initial response posts?

Initial responses are a direct response to the discussion forum question(s) and must include at least 200 words for each question and two references to the text or readings. You must follow APA for the discussion boards which means that for any source that is used you must include a reference at the end of the post which conforms to APA. 

What are response posts?

Responses are posts that demonstrate that you are responding to at least two students. You are expected to actively participate in the forums each week an assignment is due. 

Responses to others must add substantively to the discussion by building upon classmates’ ideas or posing critical questions to further the discussion. For example, a posting of “I agree with what people are saying” is not sufficient. What is considered sufficient is initiating further discussion; promoting further thought; providing critical or integrative dialogue; providing effective support or encouragement; challenging by showing supporting literature or other documentation, and/or self-reflecting regarding the topic.

In the discussion boards, what you write is subject to the NASW Code of Ethics 2.01(a-c) (2017) as students are as bound by the Code as any licensed social workers. You are expected to be respectful to each other when agreeing or disagreeing about a policy or legal point and to respond with research, literature, evidence, or data not personal invective or any use of profanity. If you use personal experience please de-identify any other person or organization to protect your privacy and that of any third person or entity. You are also expected to maintain the confidentiality of any postings and not share any of that information outside the course. 

Your instructor will grade each discussion forum using the criteria listed in the “College-Wide Discussion Rubric”.

Major Assignments

Short Paper 1

This is a 4-5 page paper (not counting cover sheet and APA reference page) due at the end of Week 2. The paper will be double-spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman font. This is not an essay paper, nor a short answer paper. Please do not underestimate the value of the assigned readings as sources for these papers. You may reference outside sources but you should make sure that you answer each section and apply the readings or other assigned material. This paper requires a critical analysis of the connections between the assigned topics.  

In Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (2013), a majority of the United States Supreme Court, in a badly divided Court, wrote the following: 

“This case is about a little girl (Baby Girl) who is classified as an Indian because she is 1.2% (3/256) Cherokee. Because Baby Girl is classified in this way, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that certain provisions of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 required her to be taken, at the age of 27 months, from the only parents she had ever known and handed over to her biological father, who had attempted to relinquish his parental rights and who had no prior contact with the child. The provisions of the federal statute at issue here do not demand this result.” 

One of the Justices, dissenting from the majority wrote that: 

“The Court’s opinion, it seems to me, needlessly demeans the rights of parenthood. It has been the constant practice of the common law to respect the entitlement of those who bring a child into the world to raise that child. We do not inquire whether leaving a child with his parents is “in the best interest of the child.”  It sometimes is not; he would be better off raised by someone else. But parents have their rights, no less than children do. This father wants to raise his daughter, and the statute amply protects his right to do so. There is no reason in law or policy to dilute that protection.” 

  1. What was the “intentional act” of policy [law] which was being argued about in this case and why was it enacted?
  2. As a social worker, how would you advocate for the human rights of the child and social justice for that child [see text pp. 5-6]? 
  3. If you, as a social worker, were advocating for a change in ICWA, what aspects of the arguments by Hodge, or Lundy & Van Wormer do you think most effective? 

Short Paper 2

This is a 4-5 page paper (not counting Title and Reference pages) due before the start of Week 5. The paper will be double-spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman font. This is not an essay paper, nor a short answer paper. Please do not underestimate the value of the assigned readings as sources for these papers. You may reference outside sources but you should make sure that you answer each section and apply the readings or other assigned material. This paper requires a critical analysis of the connections between the assigned topics.  

In Voisine v. United States (2016), the Supreme Court held that a domestic violence conviction is a misdemeanor crime of violence for purposes of limiting access to firearms. The petitioners argued that domestic assaults committed recklessly—but not knowingly or intentionally—do not qualify as a “crime of domestic violence as defined by 18 U.S.C. §§921(a)(33)(A) and 922(g)(9), and that reckless domestic assaults do not involve the “use of physical force” as necessitated by the law. 

The majority held that reckless assaults satisfy the definition of “use of physical force” and stated that “[a] person who assaults another recklessly ‘use[s]’ force, no less than one who carries out that same action knowingly or intentionally.” As such, the holding established that the federal ban on firearms possession applies to any person with a prior misdemeanor conviction for the “use of physical force” in a domestic violence context, including actions committed recklessly.

The dissent wrote that “The ‘use of physical force’ against a family member includes cases where a person intentionally commits a violent act against a family member. And the term includes at least some cases where a person engages in a violent act that results in an unintended injury to a family member. But the term does not include nonviolent, reckless acts that cause physical injury or offensive touching.” 

  1. The Second Amendment, which protects the “right to bear arms,” was invoked in this case as an argument in the media. As a social worker advocating, under the NASW Code of Ethics, for the right of self-determination and autonomy for individuals, what do you argue for clients who may have committed a reckless act of domestic violence but still want to legally hunt in his or her state? 
  2. Applying the analysis from Gilfus, et al., do you agree or not agree that, “An additional limitation of the family violence method of studying IPV is the possibility of reporting bias. Kimmel (2002) argues that women tend to overreport their own use of violence and underreport their partner’s, while men tend to underreport their own use of violence and overreport their partner’s. If this is, in fact, the case, gender matters methodologically (p. 251). 
  3. Should there be any exception to an act of IPV as a matter of policy and what you would argue for a policy change and, if no policy change, why? 

Final Short Paper

This is a 4-5 page paper (not counting Tile and Reference pages) due before the start of Week 7. The paper will be double-spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman font. This is not an essay paper, nor a short answer paper. Please do not underestimate the value of the assigned readings as sources for these papers. You may reference outside sources but you should make sure that you answer each section and apply the readings or other assigned material. This paper requires a critical analysis of the connections between the assigned topics.  

This year the United States Supreme Court decided FLOWERS v. MISSISSIPPI on June 21, 2019. The majority wrote that: 

“Four critical facts, taken together, require reversal. First, in the six trials combined, the State employed its peremptory challenges to strike 41 of the 42 black prospective jurors that it could have struck—a statistic that the State acknowledged at oral argument in this Court. Second, in the most recent trial, the sixth trial, the State exercised peremptory strikes against five of the six black prospective jurors.  Third, at the sixth trial, in an apparent effort to find pretextual reasons to strike black prospective jurors, the State engaged in dramatically disparate questioning of black and white prospective jurors. Fourth, the State then struck at least one black prospective juror, Carolyn Wright, who was similarly situated to white prospective jurors who were not struck by the State.”

The dissenting opinion wrote the following: 

“The majority’s opinion is so manifestly incorrect that I must proceed to the merits. Flowers presented no evidence whatsoever of purposeful race discrimination by the State in selecting the jury during the trial below.  Each of the five challenged strikes was amply justified on race-neutral grounds timely offered by the State at the Batson hearing. None of the struck black jurors was remotely comparable to the seated white jurors. And nothing else about the State’s conduct at jury selection—whether trivial mistakes of fact or supposed disparate questioning— provides any evidence of purposeful discrimination based on race.”

For purposes of this paper, please review Exhibit 1.2 in the text (pp. 17-18) and answer the following questions: 

  1. As a social worker helping victims of crime and working for the prosecutor’s office, what do tell the family about this decision as policy and that a new trial (after 6 prior trials) is required because the jury selection was unconstitutional? 
  2. This section must include how social workers or professionals intersecting with legal systems can play a key role in supporting the proposal or action of change. Integrating your readings, and as a social worker, what policy change, which is feasible, would you implement to reduce the “school to prison pipeline”? 
  3. What ethical issues would you find most challenging working in prison systems with someone accused of such a crime and facing the death penalty? Be specific as to the Principle and its nexus to the NASW Code of Ethics. 

Testimony Presentation

Choose one of your papers and create a policy presentation in the form of a testimony. Your presentation should include five PowerPoint slides and you will record a five-minute video of yourself giving the presentation. Your presentation should be created as if you are arguing for a policy change in the law before Congress.

You must follow the five-minute time limit. The PPT must include the following:

  1. First Slide: The cover slide containing your name, degree(s), the title of the presentation, date, and contact information. 
  2. Second Slide: What is the specific social problem you are describing such as poverty, crime, child abuse, IPV, and what is the policy (legislation) you are discussing in the context of that social problem?
  3. Third Slide: Is there any evidence-informed research which describes the efficacy (or not) of the policy you are testifying about? You only need to cite one or two papers for this slide, but it must be research and not simply opinion. 
    • Example: Cho, H., & Wilke, D. J. (2005). How has the Violence Against Women Act affected the response of the criminal justice system to domestic violence. Journal of Society & Social Welfare, 32, pp. 125-139.
    • Example: Price, J. M., Chamberlain, P., Landsverk, J., & Reid, J. (2009). KEEP foster parent training intervention: Model description and effectiveness. Child & Family Social Work, 14(2), pp. 233-242.
  4. Fourth Slide: What is your specific policy change in this law which is consistent with social justice and the NASW Code of Ethics? The policy change must be feasible in that it can be enacted into law (not has to be, but can be) and is not just about tossing funding at a social problem.
  5. Fifth Slide: Explain the core lessons you learned in this course with at least four bullet-points in the slide.

Grading Policy

The School of Social Work uses the following grading system for all courses with the exception of field education courses. Students are expected to maintain a “B” (3.0) average over the course of their study. Students with less than a GPA of 3.0 will be placed on academic probation. Students must have an overall GPA of 3.0 in order to receive their Master’s Degree.

Your grade in this course will be determined by the following criteria:

Grade Breakdown

AssignmentPoint Value% of Grade
Whole Class Discussion Boards (4 @ 2.5 points each)1010
Small Group Discussion Boards (2 @ 3 points, 1 @ 4)1010
Short Paper 11015
Short Paper 21515
Final Short Paper2525
Testimony Presentation2525
Week 8 Reflection Post55
Total100 points100

Grade Scale

Grade Points Grade Point Average (GPA)
A 94 – 100% 4.00
A- 90 – 93% 3.75
B+ 87 – 89% 3.50
B 84 – 86% 3.00
B- 80 – 83% 2.75
C+ 77 – 79% 2.50
C 74 – 76% 2.00
C- 70 – 73% 1.75
D 64 – 69% 1.00
F 00 – 63% 0.00

Schedule

Course Dates: Wednesday, August 25 – Sunday, October 17

Week 1: Social Justice – What is it and why does this matter to Social Workers?
Dates: Aug 25 – Aug 31

  • Readings and Multimedia:
    • Maschi, T. & Leibowitz, Ch. 1
    • ICWA Information Sheet: Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (2013) 133 S. Ct. 2552 and Its Application Under California Law
      • Optional: US Supreme Court majority and dissent in Adoptive Couple case
    • Hodge, D.R. (2007). Social justice and people of faith: A transnational perspective. Social Work, 52(2), 139-148. 
    • Lundy, C. & Van Wormer, K. (2007). Social and economic justice, human rights, and peace: The challenge for social work in Canada and the USA. International Social Work, 50(6), 727-739.
    • Websites:
      • Federal Law v. State Law
      • Federalism
    • Video:
      • School House Rock: America – I’m Just a Bill
  • Discussion:
    • Week 1 Whole Class Discussion Forum (Due Saturday)
  • Assignments:
    • Course Assignments Introduced – Looking Ahead: Upcoming Major Assignments

Week 2: Judicial System – Civil / Criminal Law and Intersectionality 
Dates: Sep 1 – Sep 7

  • Readings and Multimedia:
    • Maschi, T., & Leibowitz, Ch. 2-3, 24-25. 
    • Danis, F. S. (2003). The criminalization of domestic violence: What social workers need to know. Social Work, 48(2), 237-246.
    • Gumz, E. J. (2004). American social work, corrections and restorative justice: An appraisal. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(4), 449-460.
    • Van Wormer, K. (2009). Restorative justice as social justice for victims of gendered violence: A standpoint feminist perspective. Social Work, 54(2), 107-116.
  • Discussion: 
    • Week 2 Small Group Discussion (Due Saturday)
  • Assignment:
    • Short Paper 1 (Due Tuesday)

Week 3: Law, Ethics, and the Social Work Profession – Interdisciplinary Challenges
Dates: Sep 8 – Sep 14

  • Readings and Multimedia:
    • Maschi, T., & Leibowitz, Ch. 4, 19. 
    • Donovan, K., & Regehr, C. (2010). Elder abuse: Clinical, ethical, and legal considerations in social work practice. Clinical Social Work Journal, 38(2), 174-182.
    • Kisthardt, M. K. (2006). Working in the best interest of children: Facilitating the collaboration of lawyers and social workers in abuse and neglect cases. Rutgers L. Rev., 30, 1-77. 
    • Reamer, F. G. (2005). Ethical and legal standards in social work: Consistency and conflict. Families in Society, 86(2), 163-169.
    • NASW Code of Ethics (2017)
  • Supplemental Readings:
    • Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (creating psychotherapist-patient privilege by US Supreme Court decision).
  • Video:
    • Beyond the Cliff, Laura van Dernoot Lipsky
  • Discussion: 
    • Week 3 Whole Class Discussion (Due Saturday)

Week 4: Social Workers in the Judicial System – Malpractice, Liability, and Mandated Reporting
Dates: Sep 15 – Sep 21

  • Readings and Multimedia
    • Maschi, T., & Leibowitz, Ch. 11, 16. 
    • Kimball, E., & Kim, J. (2013). Virtual boundaries: Ethical considerations for use of social media in social work. Social Work, 58(2), 185-188.
    • Knight, C. (2015). Trauma-informed social work practice: Practice considerations and challenges. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(1), 25-37.
    • Rodríguez, M. A., Wallace, S. P., Woolf, N. H., & Mangione, C. M. (2006). Mandatory reporting of elder abuse: Between a rock and a hard place. The Annals of Family Medicine, 4(5), 403-409.
  • Discussion: 
    • Week 4 Small Group Discussion (Due Saturday)
  • Assignment:
    • Short Paper 2 (Due Tuesday)

Week 5: Families and the Law – Child Custody and Protection, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence
Dates: Sep 22 – Sep 28

  • Readings and Multimedia: 
    • Maschi, T., & Leibowitz, Chs. 9, 12.
    • Amato, P. R., & Afifi, T. D. (2006). Feeling caught between parents: Adult children’s relations with parents and subjective well‐being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(1), 222-235.
    • Gilfus, M. E., Trabold, N., O’Brien, P., & Fleck-Henderson, A. (2010). Gender and intimate partner violence: Evaluating the evidence. Journal of Social Work Education, 46(2), 245-263.
    • Patterson, C. J., & Riskind, R. G. (2010). To be a parent: Issues in family formation among gay and lesbian adults. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6(3), 326-340.
  • Discussion: 
    • Week 5 Whole Class Discussion (Due Saturday)

Week 6: The School to Prison Pipeline and Mass Incarceration – Law and Social Work
Dates: Sep 29 – Oct 5

  • Readings and Multimedia: 
    • Maschi, T., & Leibowitz, Chs. 14-15, 29. 
    • Fasching-Varner, K. J., Mitchell, R. W., Martin, L. L., & Bennett-Haron, K. P. (2014). Beyond school-to-prison pipeline and toward an educational and penal realism. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(4), 410-429.
    • Gross, K. N. (2015). African American women, mass incarceration, and the politics of protection. Journal of American History, 102(1), 25-33.
    • Sun, A. P. (2004). Principles for practice with substance-abusing pregnant women: A framework based on the five social work intervention roles. Social Work, 49(3), 383-394.
  • Discussion: 
    • Week 6 Small Group Discussion (Due Saturday)
  • Assignment: 
    • Final Paper (Due Tuesday)

Week 7: Immigration, Refugees, Federal, and State Courts Policy
Dates: Oct 6 – Oct 12

  • Readings and Multimedia:
    • Maschi, T., & Leibowitz, Ch. 18. 
    • Furman, R., Ackerman, A. R., Loya, M., Jones, S., & Egi, N. (2012). The criminalization of immigration: Value conflicts for the social work profession. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 39(1), 169-185.
    • Martinez, O., Wu, E., Sandfort, T., Dodge, B., Carballo-Dieguez, A., Pinto, R., … & Chavez-Baray, S. (2015). Evaluating the impact of immigration policies on health status among undocumented immigrants: a systematic review. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 17(3), 947-970.
    • Websites:
      • How the United States Immigration System Works: American Immigration Council
      • Fact Sheet: U.S. Refugee Resettlement – National Immigration Forum
  • Discussion:
    • Week 7 Whole Class Discussion (Due Saturday)
  • Assignment: 
    • Testimony Presentation (Due Tuesday)

Week 8: Course Wrap Up
Dates: Oct 13 – Oct 17

  • Readings and Multimedia: 
    • Bride, B. E. (2007). Prevalence of secondary traumatic stress among social workers. Social work, 52(1), 63-70.
    • FitzGerald, C., & Hurst, S. (2017). Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: A systematic review. BMC Medical Ethics, 18(1), 19.
    • Newheiser, A. K., & Olson, K. R. (2012). White and Black American children’s implicit intergroup bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 264-270.
    • Nkansah-Amankra, S., Agbanu, S. K., & Miller, R. J. (2013). Disparities in health, poverty, incarceration, and social justice among racial groups in the United States: A critical review of evidence of close links with neoliberalism. International Journal of Health Services, 43(2), 217-240.
  • Video:
    • Beyond the Cliff, Laura van Dernoot Lipsky
    • TED Talks: We Need to Talk About an Injustice, Bryan Stevenson
  • Discussion: 
    • Week 8 Whole Class Discussion (Due Friday)

Student Resources

Online Student Support

Your Student Support Specialist is a resource for you. Please don't hesitate to contact them for assistance, including, but not limited to course planning, current problems or issues in a course, technology concerns, or personal emergencies.

Questions? Visit the Student Support Social Work page

UNE Libraries:

Information Technology Services (ITS)

ITS Contact: Toll Free Help Desk 24 hours/7 days per week at 1-877-518-4673

Accommodations

Any student who would like to request, or ask any questions regarding, academic adjustments or accommodations must contact the Student Access Center at (207) 221-4438 or pcstudentaccess@une.edu. Student Access Center staff will evaluate the student's documentation and determine eligibility of accommodation(s) through the Student Access Center registration procedure.

Policies

Essential Academic and Technical Standards

Please review the essential academic and technical standards of the University of New England School Social Work (SSW): https://online.une.edu/social-work/academic-and-technical-standards-une-online-ssw/

Technology Requirements

Please review the technical requirements for UNE Online Graduate Programs: Technical Requirements

Confidentiality Statement

Student and faculty participation in this course will be governed by standards in the NASW Code of Ethics relating to confidentiality in sharing information from their placement sites and practice experiences. Students should be aware that personal information they choose to share in class, class assignments or conversations with faculty does not have the status of privileged information.

Attendance Policy

Online students are required to submit a graded assignment/discussion prior to Sunday evening at 11:59 pm ET of the first week of the term. If a student does not submit a posting to the graded assignment/discussion prior to Sunday evening at 11:59 pm ET, the student will be automatically dropped from the course for non-participation. Review the full attendance policy.

Late Policy

Assignments: Late assignments will be accepted up to 3 days late; however, there is a 10% grade reduction (from the total points) for the late submission. After three days the assignment will not be accepted.

Discussion posts: If the initial post is submitted late, but still within the discussion board week, there will be a 10% grade reduction from the total discussion grade (e.g., a 3 point discussion will be reduced by 0.3 points). Any posts submitted after the end of the Discussion Board week will not be graded.

Please make every effort ahead of time to contact your instructor and your student support specialist if you are not able to meet an assignment deadline. Arrangements for extenuating circumstances may be considered by faculty.

Student Handbook Online - Policies and Procedures

The policies contained within this document apply to all students in the College of Graduate and Professional Studies. It is each student's responsibility to know the contents of this handbook.

UNE Online Student Handbook

UNE Course Withdrawal

Please contact your student support specialist if you are considering dropping or withdrawing from a course. The last day to drop for 100% tuition refund is the 2nd day of the course. Financial Aid charges may still apply. Students using Financial Aid should contact the Financial Aid Office prior to withdrawing from a course.

Academic Integrity

The University of New England values academic integrity in all aspects of the educational experience. Academic dishonesty in any form undermines this standard and devalues the original contributions of others. It is the responsibility of all members of the University community to actively uphold the integrity of the academy; failure to act, for any reason, is not acceptable. For information about plagiarism and academic misconduct, please visit UNE Plagiarism Policies.

Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to the following:

  1. Cheating, copying, or the offering or receiving of unauthorized assistance or information.
  2. Fabrication or falsification of data, results, or sources for papers or reports.
  3. Action which destroys or alters the work of another student.
  4. Multiple submissions of the same paper or report for assignments in more than one course without permission of each instructor.
  5. Plagiarism, the appropriation of records, research, materials, ideas, or the language of other persons or writers and the submission of them as one's own.

Charges of academic dishonesty will be reviewed by the Program Director. Penalties for students found responsible for violations may depend upon the seriousness and circumstances of the violation, the degree of premeditation involved, and/or the student’s previous record of violations.  Appeal of a decision may be made to the Dean whose decision will be final.  Student appeals will take place through the grievance process outlined in the student handbook.