Honor Code

Purpose

Duke University is a community dedicated to scholarship, leadership, and service and to the principles of honesty, fairness, respect, and accountability. Members of this community commit to reflect upon and uphold these principles in all academic and nonacademic endeavors, and to protect and promote a culture of integrity.

Members of The Fuqua School of Business community uphold these values in all academic, professional, and community activities. Individuals accept personal responsibility for living by these standards and a shared responsibility for sustaining a community that expects, supports, and protects honorable behavior. Recognizing that our choices shape the learning environment and the reputation Fuqua carries into the world, membership in the Fuqua community entails an obligation that endures throughout our time as students, alumni, and professionals.

The purpose of The Fuqua School of Business Honor Code (hereafter, “the Honor Code”) is to communicate, support, and promote these standards.

Scope

The Honor Code governs the conduct of master’s students of The Fuqua School of Business and others enrolled in Fuqua master’s courses, including those conducted jointly with other Duke schools or as part of joint-degree programs for which both schools have agreed the Fuqua Honor Code applies, regardless of location or modality. PhD students are members of The Graduate School of Duke University and are governed by its Judicial Code and Procedures.

Misconduct not explicitly covered by the Honor Code may fall under other Fuqua or Duke University policies, including the Fuqua Community Standard. Allegations involving discrimination, harassment (including sexual misconduct), domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking should be addressed through Duke’s Policy on Prohibited Discrimination, Harassment, and Related Misconduct and its applicable Duke University procedures.

Standards of Conduct

In all academic, professional, and community settings, Fuqua students are expected to demonstrate:

  • Academic Integrity: Submitting only their own work, properly attributing sources, and refraining from cheating, plagiarism, misrepresentation, or the use of unauthorized materials or collaboration. This includes responsible use of technology and AI tools, consistent with course instructor authorization and disclosure requirements.
  • Fairness: By neither seeking nor providing unfair advantage in academic, employment, or extracurricular endeavors.
  • Respect for Others’ Property and Information: Including the intellectual, physical, and digital assets of others and Duke University.
  • Personal Accountability: Accepting responsibility for one’s actions and their consequences, recognizing that accountability is essential to personal integrity and the community of trust. Students should acknowledge the impact of their conduct, accept outcomes that result from their choices, and take steps to restore trust when it has been compromised.
  • Shared Responsibility: Protecting community integrity by addressing or reporting conduct that undermines trust or violates these expectations.

Faculty share responsibility for upholding the Honor Code by clearly communicating academic expectations, designing assessments and learning experiences that reinforce academic integrity and equitable evaluation, and taking appropriate and prompt action when potential Honor Code violations arise.

Honor Code Procedures

All individuals involved in administering the Honor Code process described below, including Judicial Board members, Judicial Advisors, and administrators, must act impartially and avoid conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest exists when an individual has a personal, academic, professional, or other relationship with an accused student that clearly calls into question their impartiality. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • A faculty investigator or Judicial Board faculty member who served as the instructor for a course in which an alleged Honor Code violation occurred, and
  • A Judicial Board student member who was a teammate of an accused student on an assignment serving as the basis for an alleged Honor Code violation.

Any individual who believes they may have a conflict of interest must disclose it promptly. When a conflict is identified, the individual will be recused from participation in the matter, and an alternate will be assigned as appropriate by the Dean of The Fuqua School of Business or their designee.

Honor Code Violations

Any action that undermines the principles of integrity, honesty, or accountability may constitute an Honor Code violation, even if not explicitly described below. Students are responsible for understanding the standards and seeking clarification when unsure about appropriate conduct.

Specific violations of the Honor Code include, but are not limited to, the following:

Lying: Communicating untruths to gain an unfair academic or employment advantage. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • falsifying information on documents,
  • fabricating or falsifying data in academic work,
  • providing false information related to classroom attendance or missing course deadlines, and
  • providing deliberately misleading information during an Honor Code investigation or Judicial Board hearing.

Cheating: Engaging in any unauthorized action that grants oneself or others an advantage in an academic activity that is not available to all students under the same conditions. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • using unauthorized materials or resources to complete an assignment, including unauthorized use of AI tools,
  • copying the work of or unauthorized collaboration with another person,
  • unauthorized providing of material or information (e.g., proprietary course information) to another person, 
  • using the work of another without giving proper credit (e.g., plagiarism),
  • unauthorized submission of identical or highly similar work in more than one course, and
  • unauthorized work on course material outside the time constraints imposed by the instructor.

If a student is unclear about what constitutes unauthorized material and/or the appropriate time constraints, they have a duty to seek clarification from the course instructor. Instructors are responsible for defining how assignments should be completed.

Stealing: Taking or sharing the property of another, including physical or intellectual property, without consent or permission. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • taking the property, including academic work, of another member of the Fuqua community without permission, and
  • unauthorized sharing of academic materials, including exams, assignments, teaching notes, or other intellectual property.

Failure to Report: Failing to report conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the standards in this Honor Code. Good-faith uncertainty or situations involving ambiguous expectations do not, by themselves, constitute a failure to report. Individuals are encouraged to seek guidance from an instructor, administrator, or Judicial Board member when unsure how to proceed. Retaliation against any individual who raises a concern or participates in an Honor Code process is prohibited and may constitute a separate violation.

Obstruction: Engaging in conduct that obstructs, distorts, or compromises the integrity of an Honor Code investigation or hearing. This includes, but is not limited to, discouraging others from participating truthfully and providing false or misleading information.

Reporting Possible Honor Code Violations

The Honor Code relies on each member of the Fuqua community to uphold its principles. When a student, faculty member, or staff member becomes aware of a potential violation, they share the responsibility to address it appropriately and in good faith.

If someone suspects that a violation may have occurred, they may choose to first approach the individual involved to clarify what happened. In some instances, an open conversation between those involved may clarify a misunderstanding. If, after that discussion, the person who raised the concern determines that no violation occurred, the matter may be dropped with no further action.

If the concern remains unresolved or appears to involve a clear violation, it should be reported promptly to the course instructor, a program administrator, or a Judicial Board member. Alternatively, an Academic Dishonesty Referral Form may be submitted through Duke’s Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards. In all cases, reports should include sufficient detail to allow for an informed review. The purpose of reporting is not to assign guilt or blame, but to ensure that concerns are evaluated fairly, consistently, and confidentially.

Preliminary Review

When a potential Honor Code concern is raised, the Senior Associate Dean for the relevant program will review the information to determine whether it contains sufficient detail to proceed. At this stage or at any later point in the process, the Senior Associate Dean may designate a Fuqua faculty or staff member to process the case. In the remainder of Section IV, “Senior Associate Dean” refers to this program dean or such a designee.

Preliminary review helps ensure that all concerns are evaluated consistently, promptly, and fairly before a formal investigation begins. The review confirms that the concern identifies the key elements necessary for further consideration:

  • The individual or individuals involved;
  • The assignment or assignments at issue (if relevant);
  • Specific actions or behaviors in question; and
  • A specific potential Honor Code violation.

If these elements are clearly present, the Senior Associate Dean will initiate an investigation. If any element is missing or unclear, the Senior Associate Dean may request clarification or determine that the information is insufficient to establish a potential Honor Code violation.

Investigation

When an investigation begins, the individual will be notified and offered the opportunity to have a Judicial Advisor assigned to them. Until the matter is resolved (by dismissal of the investigation, Administrative Resolution, or a Judicial Board decision), the individual is presumed to have acted in accordance with the Honor Code. Students are encouraged to participate fully in all aspects of the Honor Code process. If a student declines to participate or fails to attend a scheduled meeting or hearing, the process may proceed in the student’s absence, and the student will be bound by any resulting determinations or sanctions.

Upon notification of an investigation, the individual will be given an opportunity to meet with the Senior Associate Dean to provide an explanation and any relevant information regarding the potential Honor Code violation, including any evidence or potential witnesses. This meeting may occur in-person or via phone/video conference, at the discretion of the Senior Associate Dean. Following this meeting, the Senior Associate Dean will investigate as needed to gather additional information and assess the credibility and relevance of available evidence.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Senior Associate Dean will determine whether the case should be dismissed, resolved through an Administrative Resolution, or referred to a formal hearing before the Judicial Board. If an investigation proceeds to a Judicial Board hearing, a temporary administrative hold will be placed on the student’s academic record, preventing the release of the official transcript, but not affecting access to classes, grades, or participation in Fuqua activities. This hold is removed immediately upon completion of the hearing.

Administrative Resolution

An Administrative Resolution provides a means to resolve certain Honor Code violations without a Judicial Board hearing when specific criteria are met. This resolution may include sanctions.

An Administrative Resolution may be considered when all the following conditions apply:

  • The individual has acknowledged responsibility and provided a full accounting of the conduct under investigation;
  • The case represents the individual’s first violation of the Honor Code; and 
  • The Judicial Board Chair determines that sanctions other than suspension, expulsion, or degree revocation are warranted within the context of an Administrative Resolution.

The Senior Associate Dean may offer an Administrative Resolution to the individual if all the above conditions apply. The Judicial Board Chair will be informed before an Administrative Resolution is offered and may provide advisory input to the Senior Associate Dean regarding the appropriateness and consistency with precedent of proposed sanctions.

If the individual accepts the Administrative Resolution, they must sign a Voluntary Agreement to Sanctions. After that, the matter is considered resolved, no hearing will occur, and the decision is not subject to appeal. If the individual declines the Administrative Resolution, the case proceeds to a Judicial Board hearing.

Judicial Advisors

To ensure that every individual understands the Honor Code process and has access to informed support, a Judicial Advisor will be available to any individual involved in a formal investigation or hearing. Judicial Advisors are trained faculty, staff, or students in the Fuqua community who are not otherwise connected to the case.

Judicial Advisors are equipped to assist individuals in understanding procedures, expectations, and available options. They may serve as a confidential resource throughout the investigation and hearing process, help the individual prepare for meetings, and, if appropriate, act as a liaison between the individual and those administering the process. Judicial Advisors are bound by confidentiality and may not share information related to a case except as required by the Honor Code process. Their role is to help the individual understand and navigate the process, not to serve as defense counsel or argue the facts of the case.

Individuals under investigation may request assignment of an advisor at the start of a formal investigation or at any later stage in the process. The Senior Associate Dean oversees the assignment of Judicial Advisors.

Judicial Board

The Judicial Board is responsible for hearing and adjudicating all potential violations that are not dismissed or resolved through Administrative Resolution. Its purpose is to ensure that all cases are considered impartially, consistently, and in accordance with established procedures.

The Board is composed of at least four faculty members and at least five student representatives. All faculty members must be members of the voting faculty at Fuqua and appointed by the Dean of The Fuqua School of Business or designee. One of the selected faculty members is appointed by the Dean or designee as Chair of the Board. The student representatives may be enrolled in any of Fuqua’s master’s programs.

All Judicial Board members receive training at the start of each academic year to ensure familiarity with the Honor Code, precedent, hearing procedures, and expectations of impartiality.

Judicial Board Meetings and Hearings

The Judicial Board will hold regular meetings during the academic year to (a) review recent Administrative Resolutions, (b) conduct Judicial Board Hearings for any completed Honor Code investigations that were neither dismissed nor resolved through Administrative Resolution, and (c) discuss as necessary required revisions to this Honor Code. In addition, the first Judicial Board meeting each academic year will be held in September and will include training for any new Judicial Board members, as described in Section IV-7 above. Judicial Board meetings may be held in-person or via video conference, at the discretion of the Judicial Board Chair. Judicial Board members not available for an in-person meeting may participate via video conference if feasible.

All Board members must maintain the confidentiality of all those involved and all discussions in these meetings.

Review of Administrative Resolutions

Before each meeting, the Senior Associate Dean will send to the Board summaries of all cases resulting in Administrative Resolutions since the previous meeting. Members of the Board may ask for clarifications from the Senior Associate Dean,  who will be available to provide details associated with each case. These reviews serve to ensure the integrity of the Administrative Resolution process and provide a mechanism for Board members to oversee the appropriateness of sanctions used in cases resolved through Administrative Resolution.

Judicial Board Hearings

The purpose of Judicial Board hearings is to provide a fair and thorough review of the facts surrounding a potential Honor Code violation. The Judicial Board conducts hearings in accordance with established procedures to ensure consistency, impartiality, and respect for everyone involved.

Judicial Board hearings require at least three Board faculty, including the Chair, and at least two students from the Board to be present. The Chair will select members from the Board to be present at each hearing. For cases involving individuals enrolled in a Fuqua degree program jointly offered with another Duke school for which both schools have agreed the Fuqua Honor Code applies, up to two faculty members from the partner school may be appointed by the Senior Associate Dean and serve as ad hoc Board members. Judicial Board hearings will usually be held during the Board’s regularly scheduled meetings, with additional meetings used for lengthy hearings at the discretion of the Chair.

Judicial Board hearings are not legal proceedings and are not governed by courtroom rules of evidence or formality. They are designed to promote open and honest discussion that helps the Board understand the facts, the circumstances surrounding the conduct, and the perspectives of those involved. The Board may consider any information it deems relevant and reliable, including written or verbal statements, provided it contributes meaningfully to understanding the matter under review.

The individuals alleged to have violated the Honor Code will be notified by email to their Duke University accounts at least 7 days before the hearing, to ensure adequate time to prepare. The notice will include the hearing date, the assignments or actions at issue, and the potential Honor Code violation. The individual may review the investigative materials forming the basis of the charges and will have the opportunity to prepare a response.  Neither the individual nor a Judicial Advisor may use electronic devices that capture or facilitate unauthorized communication (e.g., cell phone, computer, audio/video recorder, etc.) during any portion of the Honor Code process, including a hearing.

Attendance at the hearing is strongly encouraged so the individual can share their perspective and respond to questions. If the individual chooses not to attend, the hearing will proceed based on the available information, and a decision will be rendered accordingly.

The accused individual has the right to:

  • Receive written notice of the hearing at least 7 days before the hearing;
  • Be advised by a Judicial Advisor, who may quietly confer with the individual during the hearing but may not address any other participant in the hearing;
  • Review relevant information presented to the Board before the hearing;
  • Present a statement, evidence, and witnesses;
  • Respond to information presented during the hearing; and
  • An equitable and impartial hearing by the Board.

At the start of the hearing, the Chair outlines the process and confirms that all members are impartial and have no conflicts of interest. The Senior Associate Dean presents the results of the investigation, after which the individual may offer a statement, provide additional information, and respond to questions from the Board or the Senior Associate Dean. The individual may request that relevant witnesses or materials be considered. The Senior Associate Dean may respond to comments or evidence presented by the individual. The Board may impose time limits on any stage of the process and may determine the relevance of any witness or information to be presented or considered by the Board. To serve as an internal reference for future cases, an audio or video recording of the hearing will be retained by the Dean’s office in accordance with university retention policy.

After all information has been presented, the Judicial Board deliberates in private. A decision is reached by a simple majority vote of the Board members in attendance. The Chair votes only in the case of a tie. Determinations of responsibility by the accused individual are based on a preponderance of the evidence. A Board member should vote that the individual violated the Honor Code if they believe that this violation is more likely than not to have occurred. For the purposes of determining responsibility, the Chair will treat abstentions as equivalent to votes of no violation.

If a majority of the Board determines that the individual violated the Honor Code, the Board will then discuss and vote on any sanctions. All sanctions are decided by a simple majority of those in attendance, except suspension, expulsion, or degree revocation, which require the unanimous vote of all Board members in attendance. Consideration may be given to prior disciplinary violations.

If necessary, the Chair may adjourn the hearing or deliberations concerning responsibility or sanctions. However, the Board must conclude its proceedings within two weeks of the first Judicial Board hearing on a case.

The outcome and any sanctions are communicated in writing to the individual by the Senior Associate Dean.

Review of The Honor Code

Any Board member may suggest revisions to the Honor Code by submitting a request in writing to the Chair at least one week in advance of a Board meeting. The Board and Senior Associate Dean may discuss such suggested changes during a Board meeting. All proposed changes to the Honor Code remain subject to the requirements described in Section V.

Sanctions

The role of sanctions is to uphold the integrity of the Fuqua community, promote learning, and reinforce accountability. The sanctions described below represent common outcomes but are not exhaustive. Specific sanctions in each case will depend on the nature and severity of the violation, the circumstances surrounding it, the degree of demonstrated accountability, prior disciplinary history, and any relevant precedent. Multiple sanctions may be applied in combination to address both the conduct and its impact.

Academic evaluation and disciplinary sanctions are distinct processes. Faculty retain the authority to make academic judgments about the quality of student work and to determine grades in the interest of furthering learning. Although grades are not disciplinary sanctions, the Judicial Board may recommend that a student’s grade be revised, and such recommendations are advisory to the relevant faculty members. Regardless, if an individual is found responsible for an Honor Code violation affecting the integrity of academic work, the Senior Associate Dean will inform the relevant faculty, who may revise the student’s grade to reflect the confirmed facts of the case.

Only the Judicial Board may impose disciplinary sanctions for Honor Code violations. These sanctions may include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Educational Project: The individual must complete an assignment or educational project designed to promote understanding of ethical decision-making or the impact of the violation.
  • Reprimand: A formal written notice that the behavior violated the Honor Code and that any further violations will result in more serious consequences.
  • Community Service: The individual must complete a defined number of service hours to contribute to Fuqua, Duke University, or the broader community. The nature of the service should be constructive, meaningful, and consistent with the developmental goals of the sanction.
  • Transcript Notation: A temporary or permanent notation may be placed on the transcript to reflect an Honor Code violation, consistent with Duke University policy.
  • Honor Code Probation: The individual is placed in probationary status for a specific period of time during which they remain in good academic standing but are formally notified that any further violation of university policy, Honor Code, or any of the conditions of the probation during the probationary period may result in suspension or expulsion. Probation may impact eligibility to participate in various programs and activities.
  • Deferred Sanction: A sanction, such as suspension or expulsion, may be imposed but deferred for a specified period. If no further violations occur and any required conditions are met, the sanction is not imposed. If a subsequent violation occurs, the deferred sanction is automatically imposed in addition to any new sanctions.
  • Suspension: Temporary removal from enrollment and participation in Fuqua programs and activities for a defined period. Conditions for reinstatement may also be specified.
  • Expulsion: Permanent separation from the Fuqua School. In such cases, the individual is not eligible for readmission to any program at The Fuqua School of Business.
  • Degree Revocation: In exceptional cases, Duke University may revoke a degree if a serious violation is discovered after conferral.

If a sanction includes required conditions, a temporary registration hold may be placed on the individual’s account until those conditions are fulfilled. The hold is lifted immediately upon confirmation of completion, pending approval from the Senior Associate Dean.

Case Records

For every Honor Code case that proceeds to an investigation, the Senior Associate Dean will prepare a written report summarizing the process and outcome. The report serves as the official record of the matter. Each report will include, as applicable:

  • Summary of the alleged Honor Code violation;
  • Information and evidence reviewed;
  • Determination and rationale for an investigation; and
  • Summary of associated proceedings and any sanctions.

All reports are maintained in accordance with FERPA and Duke University recordkeeping policies and retained by the Dean’s office. Information contained in these reports, including recordings of Judicial Board hearings, is confidential and may be accessed only by individuals with legitimate educational or administrative need.

Reporting to the Community

Regular reporting ensures that the Honor Code remains transparent, instructive, and connected to members of the Fuqua community. The goal of reporting is not only to summarize outcomes but also to share insights that strengthen the culture of integrity and mutual trust.

Once each academic year, the Senior Associate Dean’s office will prepare and distribute an Honor Code Report to all active Fuqua students and members of the voting faculty. The report will summarize activity from the prior period and identify themes or observations that support ongoing learning and improvement. These reports are intended to provide the community with insight into how the Honor Code functions in practice and identify opportunities for continued education and improvement.

Each report may include, in aggregate form:

  • The number and general types of cases reported, investigated, or resolved;
  • The range of sanctions applied and the processes used (Administrative Resolution or Judicial Board Hearing);
  • Common areas of misunderstanding or recurring patterns observed;
  • Any revisions or clarifications implemented since the previous report; and
  • Key reminders or recommendations for upholding academic integrity in the future.

Appeals

Any person found responsible for an Honor Code violation has the right to appeal a Judicial Board decision if either:

  • Substantial new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearing that is material to the decision is uncovered; or
  • The Senior Associate Dean or the Judicial Board made procedural errors that materially impacted the Judicial Board’s decision.

Appeals must be initiated in writing and submitted directly to the Dean of The Fuqua School of Business. If the Dean determines that at least one of the two requirements is met for an appeal, the Dean or appointee will form an Appeals Committee, consisting of the Dean or the Dean’s designee, a tenured Fuqua faculty member, and a Fuqua student. The Appeals Committee may uphold the decisions of the Judicial Board, reverse a determination of responsibility, change a sanction, or ask the Judicial Board to redeliberate a case based on new evidence.

Appeals based on a claim of procedural error(s) must be initiated within two weeks of a conviction. The Appeals Committee will typically respond to an appeal in writing within two weeks of the appeal. If a decision will take longer, the Dean will notify the individual.

Revisions

Following the process described in Section IV-8-c, the Judicial Board may, at any time, propose revisions to the Honor Code. Any proposed revisions must be approved by both the Board faculty and the Board students through separate votes. All Board members, even those not in attendance, must vote on proposed revisions. In each vote, approval will be determined by a simple majority of each body.

If both bodies approve a proposed revision, as soon as practicable, the Chair will notify members of Fuqua’s voting faculty of the proposed Honor Code revisions, as well as the rationale for the proposed revisions. The revisions can be challenged if two members of the voting faculty request a faculty meeting within 7 days after notification to discuss and decide on the revisions. If fewer than two voting faculty request a meeting within 7 days after notification or the proposed revisions are approved by the faculty at a requested meeting, the revisions to the Honor Code become effective immediately.

Revised April 15, 2026