Academic misconduct cases can leave professors feeling frustrated, especially when outcomes don’t align with their expectations. These emotions are understandable and how faculty respond to disappointing rulings can impact their professional standing; relationships with colleagues and students; and future effectiveness in addressing misconduct.
Here are five common mistakes professors make when they disagree with academic misconduct decisions—and better approaches to consider.
1. Venting to Students About the Decision
The Mistake: Discussing the case details or expressing frustration about the ruling with other students, either in class or informal settings.
Why It Backfires: This behavior undermines institutional authority, creates an uncomfortable environment for students, and may violate confidentiality requirements. Students lose confidence in the system and may question whether they’ll receive fair treatment.
Better Approach: Process your concerns through appropriate channels. If you need to discuss the case, speak with department chairs, ombudspersons, or trusted colleagues who understand confidentiality requirements.
2. Making Public Complaints on Social Media or Forums
The Mistake: Posting about the case on social media, academic forums, or other public platforms, even when avoiding specific names.
Why It Backfires: Public complaints damage professional relationships and institutional reputation. Even anonymous posts can often be traced back to their authors. This approach also models poor conflict resolution for students and colleagues.
Better Approach: Use internal grievance procedures or professional development opportunities to address systemic concerns. Focus energy on improving processes rather than criticizing past decisions.
3. Refusing to Participate in Future Misconduct Proceedings
The Mistake: Declining to serve on academic integrity committees or refusing to report suspected misconduct because of disagreement with previous outcomes.
Why It Backfires: Withdrawal from the process eliminates your voice from future decisions and reduces the system’s effectiveness. This stance also shifts additional burden to colleagues who continue participating.
Better Approach: Stay engaged while working to improve the system. Use your experience to advocate for clearer guidelines, better training, or procedural improvements that address your concerns.
4. Treating the Student Differently in Future Interactions
The Mistake: Allowing disappointment about the ruling to affect how you interact with the student in subsequent courses, recommendations, or professional settings.
Why It Backfires: This behavior constitutes unprofessional conduct and potential retaliation. It undermines the educational mission and creates legal risks for both you and the institution.
Better Approach: Maintain professional boundaries and treat all students equitably. If you find it difficult to interact objectively with the student, consider recusing yourself from situations where bias might affect your judgment.
5. Bypassing Established Processes
The Mistake: Going directly to senior administrators, board members, or external parties without following institutional procedures for investigations, appeals, or grievances.
Why It Backfires: Skipping proper channels damages relationships with immediate supervisors and colleagues. It also reduces the likelihood that your concerns will receive serious consideration, as decision-makers prefer to see that established processes were followed.
Better Approach: Work through designated channels first. Document your concerns clearly and present them through official appeal mechanisms. If these prove insufficient, seek guidance from faculty governance bodies or professional organizations.
Moving Forward Constructively
Disagreement with academic misconduct decisions stems from genuine concern for educational standards and fairness. Channel this concern into productive action by focusing on prevention, process improvement, and professional development rather than relitigating past cases.
Consider these constructive alternatives: participate in policy review committees, mentor colleagues on documentation practices, advocate for faculty training on academic integrity, or contribute to scholarship on effective misconduct prevention.
The goal is not to eliminate disagreement with misconduct decisions—different perspectives strengthen academic integrity systems. The goal is to express disagreement in ways that improve outcomes for everyone involved while maintaining the professional standards that serve our educational mission.
________________________
Share this post: How Not to Respond: 5 Mistakes Professors Make After Misconduct Rulings – https://drsaraheaton.com/2025/05/28/how-not-to-respond-5-mistakes-professors-make-after-misconduct-rulings/
Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D. 
Learning, Teaching and Leadership 
You must be logged in to post a comment.