UK universities’ academic misconduct procedures are not fair

With growing concern surrounding artificial intelligence-assisted assessments, regular debates and conferences on academic integrity are being held across the UK – but one important voice is missing.

Such events are usually led by pro vice-chancellors, academic registrars, academic integrity leads or professors. All these groups have important insights to contribute but they always come at the issue from one particular angle. By contrast, lawyers have broad and direct insight into the experiences of both students and universities. They observe university processes at close quarters, and they possess the knowledge to assess the fairness of decision-making through a legal lens.

This is a uniquely informed perspective. Yet, to the best of our knowledge, no study has sought to explore it. We sought to address that gap with an anonymous survey of practising lawyers involved in academic misconduct cases at UK universities.

We invited 24 to participate in the survey, which we conducted in April and May, and 12 did so. That is a small number, but respondents had plenty of relevant experience. All had practised law for at least six years, and 11 out of the 12 for more than 10 years. Eight had advised on more than 10 academic misconduct cases in the past three years, and five on more than 20. Eight had represented students only, three had represented both students and universities, and one had represented universities only.

Concerns about universities’ decision-making were commonplace. Respondents consistently doubted the quality of reasoning and the extent to which institutions meaningfully engage with students’ evidence and submissions.

Scepticism was particularly pronounced in relation to engagement with evidence: 83 per cent of respondents did not believe universities adequately engage with that presented by students, and 92 per cent disagreed that universities addressed all the key points raised by students in outcome letters. And 67 per cent disagreed that universities apply their procedures consistently.

The strongest consensus related to the training and legal understanding of adjudication panels. A full 92 per cent of respondents (11 of the 12) disagreed that decision-makers receive adequate training, with more than half strongly disagreeing. The same proportion expressed concern about universities’ understanding of procedural fairness.

One respondent summarised the issue bluntly: “University decision-making in academic misconduct (and also in academic appeal and fitness-to-practise) cases is wildly inconsistent across institutions but also within institutions. More often than not, the adjudicators have very little training and often very poor understanding of their own institution’s regulations, or OIA [Office of the Independent Adjudicator] guidelines, or relevant Equality Act legislation.”

Academic misconduct panels are increasingly required to determine issues involving evidence, procedural fairness and proportionality. Adjudicating factual disputes, including whether work has been improperly assisted by AI, can involve difficult evidential and technical questions. Yet the panels are often composed primarily of academics rather than legally trained decision-makers.

Respondents were also very negative about procedural protections. Low confidence was expressed in universities’ handling of misconduct allegations, with 83 per cent disagreeing that students are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. In addition, 75 per cent believed panels do not have a good understanding of the burden and standard of proof. One wrote: “Typically, the allegations and testimony of the university is automatically accepted as accurate, whereas the accused student is expected to prove everything they say. And where there is disagreement, the university account is automatically accepted over the student’s.”

Concerns also extended to representation and independence. Most respondents disagreed that students are permitted appropriate representation during hearings (the vast majority of universities do not allow legal representation), while more than half did not consider panels sufficiently independent from the staff responsible for raising the allegations.

One respondent wrote that there was “nothing more frustrating than being required to sit as an observer to a process where the panel have misread the facts/bundle, misunderstood their own process and/or failed to apply any weight to – or give any proper effort to understanding – their statutory obligations”. These failings make the respondent “unable to advocate for my client as I would in most other fora”.

Overall, 83 per cent of respondents disagreed that university procedures are sufficiently reliable to protect students who have been wrongly accused. Two-thirds of respondents, for instance, disagreed that hearings are conducted fairly and more than half believed that students are not given a fair opportunity to present their case. Nor did the majority of respondents believe that cases are dealt with within a reasonable time frame: three-quarters disagreed.

Several respondents also raised concerns in the open-ended section of the survey about limited student support, inadequate guidance and barriers to meaningful representation.

Other common themes in that section that were not covered by the earlier questions included over-reliance on “academic judgement” as opposed to evidence and disproportionate sanctions. Some respondents used particularly strong language, describing processes as “ad hoc”, “opinion-led” and, in one case, “essentially kangaroo courts”.

It is true that the sample size was modest and slightly skewed, in that only four of the 12 respondents had acted for universities. Nonetheless, the consistent scepticism from experienced practitioners about the fairness, consistency and robustness of current university procedures should trouble the sector.

It is vital that we improve a quasi-judicial system that can make career-altering decisions for students. Particularly given the rising tide of AI-related allegations, there is a strong case for ensuring that the perspectives of legal practitioners are represented in sector-wide discussions – even if those perspectives reveal uncomfortable truths.

Alex Fairbairn, a legal assistant at Alpha Academic Appeals, has been called to the Bar but is non-practising. Daniel Sokol is a former university lecturer and lead barrister at Alpha Academic Appeals. He has represented both students and universities in litigation. To see the full results of the survey, click here.