University of Michigan Student Conduct & Academic Misconduct Defense

Michigan uniquely splits its conduct system into two sibling offices under Student Resolution Resources, OSCR (informal/restorative) and OSA (formal accountability), giving students a choice between restorative and adjudicative pathways

Formal hearings are decided by a panel of five voting student panelists, which is unusual among large public research universities (many peer institutions use faculty-led panels for at least the non-academic conduct track)

The three-member Appeals Board has a tripartite structure, student, faculty, administrator, each appointed by a different campus governance body, designed to balance student and institutional perspectives on appeal

SSRR prohibited conduct is organized into lettered categories (A through V), which makes charge letters unusually specific about which provision was allegedly violated

A non-voting Resolution Officer guides hearings but does not vote, preserving student decision-making authority on findings

University of Michigan Law School

Law School Academic Misconduct process

Law students are subject to a separate academic misconduct process administered through the Law School, distinct from undergraduate and graduate academic integrity routes.

University of Michigan Medical School

Medical School Promotions and Professionalism Committee

Medical students face professional standards and academic progression review through the Medical School in addition to any university-level conduct proceeding.

Who handles academic misconduct cases at U-M?

Office of Student Accountability (OSA) (OSA) has jurisdiction over academic misconduct matters at U-M. Student Resolution Resources is the umbrella unit at Michigan and it contains two distinct offices. The Office of Student Conflict Resolution (OSCR) administers informal, restorative pathways (mediation, conflict coaching, facilitated dialogue, restorative justice). The Office of Student Accountability (OSA) handles the formal accountability process, including hearings and sanctions under the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities. Formal hearings are heard by a panel of five voting student panelists plus one non-voting Resolution Officer overseeing proceedings. All alleged violations of the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities (SSRR), including substantive Categories A through V covering physical harm, sexual misconduct, hazing, stalking, harassment/bullying, alcohol and drugs, theft, bias-motivated misconduct, weapons, and related behavior.

What is the evidence standard at U-M?

U-M applies Preponderance of the evidence, more likely than not that a violation of the Statement has occurred under Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities (SSRR). Office of Student Accountability (OSA) uses this standard when determining whether a student is responsible for an alleged violation. The evidence standard is critical because it determines how strong the evidence must be before a finding of responsibility can be made.

What rights do I have during a U-M conduct proceeding?

Under Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities (SSRR), students facing a Office of Student Accountability (OSA) proceeding have specific procedural rights, including the right to be treated fairly and with dignity throughout the process; access University policies affecting them; due process protections under the SSRR; know the potential outcomes before proceeding. Exercising these rights correctly from the first notice can materially affect the outcome of your case.

How is an academic misconduct case initiated at U-M?

After a report of alleged misconduct, Student Resolution Resources triages whether OSCR (informal/restorative) or OSA (formal accountability) is the appropriate track. If the student and respondent agree to restorative pathways, OSCR facilitates; otherwise OSA issues notice of the alleged violations and schedules a formal resolution process.

What sanctions can U-M impose for academic misconduct?

Office of Student Accountability (OSA) can impose a range of sanctions depending on the violation, including formal reprimand, disciplinary probation, restitution for damage or loss, and more serious outcomes including suspension and expulsion. The specific sanction depends on the facts, the student's prior record, and any mitigating factors presented during the proceeding. Sanction-phase advocacy is often as important as the responsibility phase, since even a first finding can carry long-term consequences on transcripts and graduate school applications.

How do I appeal a decision at U-M, and what is the deadline?

The appeal deadline at U-M is 5 days to file an appeal from the date of the written decision. Appeals go to a three-member Appeals Board consisting of one student (appointed by Central Student Government), one faculty member (appointed by the Faculty Senate), and one administrator (appointed by the President). The Appeals Board reviews on four grounds and issues a recommendation to the Vice President for Student Life (VPSL), who makes the final decision. Students file within 5 days; the Board recommends within 7 days; the VPSL decides within 5 days. Appeal grounds typically include procedural violations that affected the outcome, insufficient evidence to support the finding, sanction disproportionate to the violation found, among others. Appeals that succeed are usually the ones that ground each argument in the record and the specific policy language, not emotional or general objections.

Can I bring an advisor to my U-M hearing?

Yes. Under Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities (SSRR), students have the right to be accompanied by an advisor of the student's choosing. AdvocatED can serve as that advisor and help you prepare your response, question witnesses where allowed, and navigate U-M's specific procedural rules. What an advisor can and cannot do varies from school to school, and at U-M the rules are set out in the governing policy.

Do I need a lawyer for a U-M Office of Student Accountability (OSA) proceeding?

In most cases, no. U-M's proceedings follow university policy under Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities (SSRR), not the legal system. What you need is someone who understands U-M's specific procedures, the evidence standard, and how sanctions are assessed. An education advocate typically provides stronger, more targeted guidance than a general-practice attorney because the body of law here is university policy, not criminal or civil procedure. AdvocatED brings deep, specialized expertise in these exact processes at a fraction of a law firm's cost.

How does U-M handle Title IX cases?

U-M handles Title IX matters separately from general academic misconduct, through the University of Michigan Equity, Civil Rights, and Title IX Office (ECRT). Sex-based misconduct and Title IX matters are handled through the ECRT Office under a separate procedural track from the SSRR conduct process. Some cases may be resolved in either system depending on the nature of the allegation and the student's preferences. Title IX proceedings have their own procedures, evidence standards, and timelines. If you are a respondent in a Title IX case at U-M, you should not conflate the process with general conduct cases, and you should respond carefully to any notice you receive.

Does U-M's Law School have a separate conduct process?

Yes. University of Michigan Law School at U-M is handled through Law School Academic Misconduct process, which is distinct from the general university conduct process. Law students are subject to a separate academic misconduct process administered through the Law School, distinct from undergraduate and graduate academic integrity routes. This matters because professional school findings carry licensure implications, and the remediation and appeal pathways are different from the undergraduate process.

What are the most common academic misconduct violations at U-M?

At U-M, the most frequently cited violations include: physical harm or threats (ssrr category a); sexual misconduct (category b), now also subject to separate title ix procedures; hazing (category c); harassment, bullying, or doxxing (category f). Knowing which violation is alleged is the foundation of an effective defense, because the response strategy differs substantially based on whether the case involves plagiarism, AI use, exam cheating, collaboration, or a procedural technicality.

What are the key deadlines in a U-M conduct case?

At U-M, the most consequential deadlines are: Appeal filing: 5 days from the written decision; Appeals Board recommendation: within 7 days of filing; VPSL final decision: within 5 days of Board recommendation. Missing any of these windows can eliminate procedural options that are otherwise available. If you have received a notice from Office of Student Accountability (OSA), document the dates on the notice immediately and calendar every deadline, even ones that do not seem urgent.