Kellogg Honor Code
All students enrolled in a course offered by the Kellogg
School of Management agree to abide by the Kellogg
The Kellogg Honor Code governs student conduct pertaining
to all academic, placement, and extracurricular activities
associated with the Kellogg School of Management.
Each student agrees:
1. Not to seek an unfair advantage over other students,
including but not limited to giving or receiving
unauthorized aid during completion of academic requirements;
2. To truthfully represent fact and self at all
3 To respect the property and personal rights of
all members of the Kellogg community; and
4. To uphold the Kellogg Honor Code by reporting
all material violations, and by fully cooperating
with and protecting confidentiality of any Honor
All Kellogg students are also expected to adhere
to all policies and requirements of Northwestern
University and to abide by all applicable laws and
Honor Code Philosophy Statement
The students of the Kellogg School of Management regard
honesty and integrity as qualities essential to the
practice and profession of management. The purpose
of the Kellogg Honor Code is to promote these qualities
so that each student can fully develop his or her
individual potential. Upon admission, each student
makes an agreement with his or her fellow students
to abide by the Kellogg Honor Code. Students who violate
the Kellogg Honor Code violate this agreement and
must accept the sanction(s) imposed by the Kellogg
The Kellogg Honor Code is administered by students
and is based on the concept of self-government. The
efficacy of such a student-administered honor code
is dependent upon a high degree of dedication to the
ideals of honesty, integrity and equal opportunity
reflected by the code. The Kellogg Honor Code requires
that each student act with integrity in all Kellogg
activities and that each student hold his or her peers
to the same standard. In agreeing to abide by the
code, the Kellogg students also agree to report suspected
violations. By not tolerating lapses in honesty and
integrity, the Kellogg community affirms the importance
of these values.
The intent of the Kellogg Honor Code is to express
the ethical standards of the Kellogg community. It
does not attempt to be a list of rules and sanctions.
A. The Honor Code Committee
i. Role: The Honor Code Committee
is responsible for:
a) Interpreting the Honor Code;
b) Promoting the values of the Honor Code through
communication with Kellogg students, faculty, and
c) Serving as representatives of the student body
on all issues pertaining to the Honor Code;
d) Assisting in investigations of suspected Honor
Code violations (see Section II,E); and
e) Interpreting possible violations of the Honor
ii. Composition: The Honor Code Committee
will include two co-chairs, five student representatives,
and a faculty representative. The student representatives
will consist of two full0-time students from the first-year
class, two full-time students from the second-year
class and one 1Y student. The selection procedure
for the co-chairs is outlined in Section I.B.ii. The
student representatives will be appointed by the co-chairs.
The faculty representative will be identified by the
Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs. The faculty representative
is a non-voting member of the Honor Code Committee
and is also responsible for providing advice to the
Committee and feedback to the faculty about the Honor
iii. Replacement: If the Assistant Dean for
Academic Affairs or the co-chairs determine that a
member of the Honor Code Committee is unfit to perform
his or her duties, the co-chairs will excuse that
member from all further involvement in the Honor Code
Committee. His or her responsibilities will be assumed
by (a) another student appointed jointly by the co-chairs
and the Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs, or (b)
in the case of faculty, another faculty member appointed
by the Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs.
B. The Honor Code Co-Chairs
i. Role: The Honor Code Co-Chairs are responsible
a) Promoting the values of the Honor Code;
b) Selecting members of the Honor Code Committee;
c) Setting the annual agenda for the Honor Code
d) Overseeing the activities of the Honor Code Committee;
e) Administering Honor Code proceedings;
f) Coordinating with the administration and faculty
on matters relating to the Honor Code;
g) Publishing an annual overview of Committee actions
to the Kellogg community; and
h) Ensuring that the Honor Code remains an important
aspect of the Kellogg environment.
ii. Succession: The offices of the Honor
Code Co-Chairs will be filled by the current 1st Year
Representatives upon the completion of the current
academic year. This elevation is subject to the approval
of a majority of the non-1st Year Representative members
of the outgoing Committee and the Assistant Dean for
Academic Affairs. In the event that either of the
1st Year Representatives opts out or is deemed unsatisfactory
for the co-chair position, the Committee, in consultation
with the KSA Executive Committee and the administration,
will select an appropriate replacement.
iii. Conflict of Interest: The co-chairs
may not run for KSA office or hold KSA office while
serving as co-chairs.
iv. Replacement: If the assistant dean or
a majority of the remaining members of the Committee
determines that a co-chair is unfit to perform his
or her duties, the assistant dean will excuse the
co-chair from all further involvement in the Committee.
All responsibilities of the removed co-chair will
be assumed by the remaining co-chair and/or another
member of the Honor Code Committee selected by the
Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs.
C. The Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs
role of the Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs on
the Honor Code Committee is to provide impartial procedural
advice to the Committee and the co-chairs. S/he will
also serve as the historian of the Honor Code, maintaining
records of past actions and cases and advising the
Committee of past precedents
II. Suspected Violations
Reporting Suspected Violations
Students and faculty members are obligated to report
suspected violations of the Honor Code promptly to
a member of the Honor Code Committee, the Assistant
Dean for Academic Affairs, or any faculty member.
Should the case proceed to a hearing, the person(s)
reporting the suspected violation will become the
charging witness(es). There must be at least one charging
witness for an investigation to commence.
The person to whom the suspected violation is initially
reported (Section II, A) will notify the co-chairs
of the suspected violation as soon as possible. The
co-chairs will notify the KSA VP of Academics, the
Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs, and the members
of the Committee. The co-chairs will choose a member
of the Committee to assist the KSA VP of Academics
with the investigation.
Charges and all subsequent steps pertaining thereto
will be kept confidential by all parties involved.
Only the co-chairs, the KSA VP of Academics, Assistant
Dean for Academic Affairs, and the Committee member
assisting with the investigation will know the identities
of the accused and the accuser(s) unless/until the
case goes before a student panel. Any breach of confidentiality
is an Honor Code violation. The charged person may
choose to waive his or her right to confidentiality
at any time during the investigation or hearing by
giving written notice to the co-chairs.
Investigators: The KSA VP of Academics will conduct
the investigation of the suspected violation. If the
KSA VP of Academics recuses him/herself or is unavailable
to conduct the investigation in a timely manner, a
previously designated substitute from the KSA Executive
Committee will conduct the investigation. The substitute
investigator shall be chosen annually once the new
KSA Executive Committee takes office. A member of
the Honor Code Committee, chosen by the co-chairs
on a case-by-case basis, will accompany the KSA investigator
on all interviews and offer assistance on all aspects
of the investigation.
ii. Investigation: The investigation may include
interviews with any and all persons, regardless of
affiliation with Kellogg, believed to have information
relevant to the incident. The investigation will be
conducted under the supervision of the co-chairs and
the Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs. All interviews
will be conducted in the presence of one member of
the Honor Code Committee. Upon completion of the investigation,
the KSA investigator will report the investigation's
findings to the Honor Code Committee.
iii. Determination: Upon the presentation
of the investigation report, the Committee and the
KSA investigator will discuss the elements of the
case and address any ambiguities. At the conclusion
of the discussion, three of the four student representatives
of the Honor Code Committee not involved with the
investigation will be randomly selected to determine
by majority vote whether a hearing is warranted. The
Committee's decision will be based on the results
of the investigation, the letter and spirit of the
Honor Code, and the materiality of the suspected violation.
The Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs will serve
in an advisory capacity to the Committee, if requested.
The Honor Code co-chairs and the KSA investigator
are not to cast votes as members of the Honor Code
Committee. The three voting members of the Honor Code
Committee will then be excused from all further involvement
in the case.
Interpretations are the opinions of the Committee
only and will not prejudice the investigation or the
hearing of suspected violations of the Honor Code.
Final determination of violations may be made only
by a hearing panel, with one exception noted below
(Sections II,E). If the Committee determines there
are not sufficient grounds to warrant a hearing, the
co-chairs will so notify the charged person and the
person who filed the charge in writing, at which point
the case will be closed.
Minutes: The KSA investigator or the HCC investigator
for the case shall promptly prepare minutes of the
findings. The minutes shall not reveal the identities
of any parties. The minutes shall be held by the Assistant
Dean for Academic Affairs and shall be available for
all future Honor Code Committees to review.
Acceptance of Charge for Suspected Violation
any point in the hearing process, and at his/her sole
discretion, the charged person may confess to the
suspected violation and thus waive his/her right to
a hearing. The charged person must inform the co-chairs
of his/her decision as soon as possible, and subsequently
provide a written and signed statement to the co-chairs
detailing what violation is being confessed to and
why the person is choosing to confess. This statement
of confession will be kept confidential by the co-chairs
and Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs.
In such situations, the Committee, with the advice
of the Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs, KSA investigator,
and other relevant parties, will determine the sanctions
for the violation. Possible sanctions are listed below
in Section III, H. The recommended sanctions must
be approved by a majority of the Committee.
The charged person retains the rights to subsequently
request a student panel or to appeal these sanctions
to the Dean of Kellogg using the procedures outlined
in Section III, J below.
Upon determining that the case will move to a hearing,
the co-chairs should immediately inform the accused
of this fact via e-mail. Once the date, time and location
for the hearing have been determined, which must be
done with due haste, the co-chairs will provide written
notification by registered mail to the local address
of the charged person. The notification will include:
i. The date of the notice;
ii. The name of the charged person;
iii. The name of the charging person (If the charging
person is a student, that student’s written
consent to be identified must be provided);
iv. A description of the suspected violation;
v. The date, time and place of the hearing; and
vi. The names of persons appearing as witnesses
against the charged person (provided again that
any student witnesses must provide written consent
to be identified).
charged person and the KSA investigator each may enlist
an adviser to assist them in preparing for the hearing.
In addition, the charged person may empower the same
person or a different person to act as spokesperson,
assisting in the presentation of the charged person’s
arguments at the hearing. The adviser/spokesperson
may only be a Kellogg student or a member of the Kellogg
regular faculty, although it may not be a co-chair
or the Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs. The adviser
would attend the pre-hearing conference and the hearing
and would provide advice to the party in question.
C. Pre-Hearing Conference
The accused and the KSA investigator will be encouraged
to attend a pre-hearing conference conducted by the
co-chairs. The purpose of this conference is to clarify
procedural issues concerning the hearing and preparations
for the hearing. The pre-hearing conference should
be held at least one week prior to the hearing.
All information to be presented at the hearing will
be made available to the charged person by the KSA
investigator at least one week prior to the hearing.
The chairs will not convene the hearing until the
charged person has had a reasonable amount of time
to complete his or her own investigation.
The charged person will be allowed to:
i. Conduct his or her own investigation of the circumstances
surrounding the reported violation; and
ii. Request interviews from any persons believed
to have information relevant to the incident
All interviews involving persons expected to provide
evidence against the charged person during the hearing
must be conducted in the presence of at least one
member of the Honor Code Committee.
E. Hearing Panel
For each hearing, the co-chairs and the Assistant
Dean for Academic Affairs will create a hearing panel.
Role: The purpose of the panel is to provide
the Dean of Kellogg with a determination of fact and
a recommended sanction, if any.
ii. Composition: The panel will include one
or both of the co-chairs, eight student members, and
at least one tenured faculty member. One of the student
members will be chosen by the co-chair(s) to serve
as secretary of the panel. The secretary will take
minutes of the panel's meeting.
iii. Appointing panel members: The Office
of the Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs will prepare
a random listing of all students enrolled in the program
in which the charged person is enrolled. The first
eight students able and available to serve will be
selected in the order that their names appear on the
list. Students will serve for only one hearing. All
students have a duty to serve on a panel when selected,
but the co-chairs and the Assistant Dean for Academic
Affairs will excuse a student if he or she has cause
for not serving or if that student is deemed to have
a conflict of interest. The same random selection
process will be used to appoint the faculty members
for each hearing, with the understanding that faculty
members associated with the course(s) at issue or
faculty members otherwise involved in the incident
may not be appointed to the panel.
The names of the panel's members shall be provided
to the charged person, who may challenge the inclusion
of any panel members for cause. Challenges must be
made in writing and delivered promptly to the co-chairs.
Those challenged may be removed by decision of the
co-chairs and the Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs.
Challenged panel members will be replaced. The charged
person has a right to challenge replacements for cause
using the procedure identified in this paragraph
i. Location and time: The hearing will be
held at a place and time that will protect the confidentiality
of the matter and be convenient to all parties involved.
The hearing will not be held in the Jacobs Center
or the McManus Living-Learning Center. The hearing
proceedings and the panel discussions taken in aggregate
shall not exceed eight hours.
ii. Observers: Unless otherwise requested
in writing by the charged person, hearings will be
closed. Witnesses are not permitted to remain in the
hearing room either before or after giving evidence.
The charged person's adviser and/or spokesperson and
the KSA investigator’s advisor will be permitted
to attend the hearing, if applicable. The parents
and/or spouse of the charged person will also be permitted
to attend the hearing as observers only.
iii. Roles: The Honor Code co-chairs will
direct the hearing. The KSA investigator will present
to the panel the findings of the investigation and
may ask persons to give testimony in the case. In
conducting this role, the KSA investigator is not
and should not be a prosecutor, but should always
seek to present all relevant facts pertaining to a
The charged person will be given the opportunity to
respond to the charges with:
b. Physical evidence,
c. Testimony or witnesses, and/or
d. Questions of the witnesses called by the KSA
Panel members may question evidence and testimony
presented by both the KSA investigator and the charged
person. The faculty members of the panel are to
assist the panel in their deliberations and should
help the panel members prepare written opinions.
Faculty members do not vote on either the determination
of fact or the recommendation of sanctions.
iv. Rules of evidence: The hearing will not
be conducted according to strict rules of evidence
or the procedures used in a court of law. The co-chairs
will make determinations on the admissibility of evidence.
v. Decisions: At the conclusion of the hearing,
the panel members and the Assistant Dean for Academic
Affairs will meet privately to discuss the hearing.
Thereafter, the eight student panel members will convene
in private, without faculty or administration advisors,
and vote to determine whether the charged person is
or is not guilty of violating the Honor Code. The
co-chairs, the faculty panel members, and the Assistant
Dean for Academic Affairs will act as advisers to
the panel as necessary. In providing advice to the
panel members, faculty members should participate
in discussions to ensure that all relevant information
has been considered. However, it is inappropriate
for faculty members to state their personal opinion
regarding the guilt or innocence of the charged person.
G. Burden of Proof
For a finding of guilt to be rendered, at least seven
of the eight voting panel members must conclude that
the material presented during the hearing supports
such a decision with sufficient evidence.
If the student is found guilty, both the majority
and dissenting panel members must issue a written
opinion to the Dean of Kellogg within five days. The
majority opinion should set forth enumerated findings
of fact which constituted the basis for its finding
of guilt. The opinion should also explain how it resolved
any ambiguities in the Kellogg Honor Code if any such
ambiguities were at issue. The dissenting opinion,
if any, should detail the basis for the belief that
a reasonable doubt existed or that the Honor Code
was not violated. The opinions will not reveal the
names of any parties. All panel members will be required
to sign a statement indicating that they agree with
their respective opinion as written. The statement
will not identify panel members with an opinion. The
faculty panel members may be consulted in the course
of the preparation of the written opinion.
If the student is not found guilty, both the majority
and dissenting panel members must issue similar written
opinions to the Dean of Kellogg within five days.
The written opinions shall be held by the Assistant
Dean for Academic Affairs and shall be available for
all future Honor Code Committees and panels to review.
If the student is found guilty, the panel will also
recommend a sanction or slate of sanctions. The recommended
sanction(s) must be agreed to by at least seven of
the eight voting panel members. Sanctions may include,
but are not limited to, the following:
i. Loss of student rights and privileges for a specified
ii. Required service;
iii. Reduced or failing grade;
v. Suspension for a definite or indefinite period;
vi. Exclusion (i.e. expulsion) from Kellogg; and/or
vii. A combination of the above
Any sanction involving a reduced or failing grade
will only serve as a recommendation to the appropriate
faculty member. The panel will also recommend to the
Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs whether a record
of the charges and sanction(s) should be made a part
of the student's permanent file.
I. Notification of Determination and Sanction
Upon receipt of approval of the recommended sanction(s)
from the Kellogg deans and the Northwestern University
Office of General Counsel, the co-chairs will provide
the charged person written notice of the panel's determination
of fact and recommended sanction(s), if any. Within
five business days thereafter, the written opinion
will be given to the Dean of Kellogg, along with a
file containing all documents and physical evidence
needed to evaluate the case.
J. Appeals to the Dean of Kellogg
Within five business days of receiving written notice
of the panel's determination of fact and recommended
sanction(s), the charged person may appeal the decision
of guilt and/or the recommended sanction(s) to the
Dean of Kellogg. Appeals may be considered on the
basis of an unduly harsh sanction(s), new information
not available or reasonably known at the time of the
hearing, violation of procedure, or harmful bias.
All appeals must be in writing and include the following
i. The date the appeal is filed;
ii. The name, address and telephone number of the
person making the appeal; and
iii. The basis for the appeal.
The appeal must also be forwarded to the Honor Code
co-chairs and the KSA investigator. Both the co-chairs
and the KSA investigator will be permitted to reply
to the dean in writing to address the issues raised
by the appeal.
K. Results of Appeals
i. Determination of sanctions: In connection
with any appeal, the Dean of Kellogg may accept the
recommendation of sanctions of the hearing panel or
the Committee in whole or in part, or fashion a decision
he or she feels is more appropriate.
ii. Appeals based on information unavailable or not
reasonably known prior to the determination of the
hearing panel: If the dean determines that new
information presented in the appeal is material, the
dean will instruct the panel to hear such additional
information. The dean may also instruct the panel
to reconsider the original information. After considering
the information specified by the dean, the panel will
make a determination of fact as provided for in Part
III,F,v and Part III,G and a recommendation of sanctions
as provided for in Part III,H to be presented to the
iii. Appeals based on the dean's determination of
harmful bias or violation of procedure: If the
Dean of Kellogg determines that a harmful bias or
a violation of procedure occurred during the process,
then the dean will call a meeting of the Honor Code
co-chairs, the KSA investigator, and the Assistant
Dean for Academic Affairs. This group of four, excluding
the dean, will make a determination by majority vote
a. Uphold the panel's determination of fact and
make a recommendation of sanctions to the dean based
on the panel's recommendation of sanctions or fashion
a recommendation of sanctions they feel is more
b. Overturn the panel's determination of fact and
render a finding of innocence, or
c. Take any other action deemed appropriate.
In the event of a tie, the dean will cast the deciding
vote. In addition, the dean will retain veto power
at all times.
iv. Notification: The dean will notify the charged
party of his or her decision in writing within 10
business days after the appeal is filed.
Minutes of meetings of the panel and all documents
associated with the investigation and hearing deemed
relevant by the Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs
will be maintained by the Office of the Assistant
Dean for Academic Affairs.
If the charge is upheld, the Assistant Dean for Academic
Affairs may retain such records in the charged person's
permanent file (if so recommended by the hearing panel
under Section III,H), but no record of the Honor Code
violation will be placed on the transcript of the
charged person, except in cases that result in the
exclusion of the student from Northwestern University.
In such cases, in accordance with Northwestern University
policy, the exclusion is indicated on the student's
transcript with the phrase: Excluded for Academic
IV. Honor Code Co-Chairs' Reports
Public Statement on Violations
The co-chairs may consider submitting a public statement
to the Kellogg community about the proceedings. This
public statement will not reveal any personally identifiable
information regarding the parties involved, including
the members of the hearing panel. This public statement
may only reveal:
i. A description of the conduct that gave rise to
the charge, and
ii. The final decision regarding the range of sanctions
considered and the basis for any changes resulting
from appeals and the basis for such appeal.
In the event a charged person is found not guilty
either by the student panel or on appeal, the co-chairs
shall give the charged person the option of whether
a public statement is made.
The co-chairs will be responsible for submitting an
annual overview of Honor Code Committee proceedings
for the past calendar year to the Kellogg community.
These proceedings should include a summary of violations
that occurred over the past calendar year as well
as non-case related activities undertaken by the Committee.
No student names or other personally identifiable
information should be included in the report. It is
recommended that the annual report be issued at or
near the beginning of Winter Quarter.
It is envisioned that from time to time amendments
to the Kellogg Honor Code may be necessary to clarify
or amend provisions. The Honor Code Co-Chairs and
Committee will determine, by majority vote, whether
any proposed change requires a clarification of provisions
or an amended provision.
A. Clarification of Provisions
If there is any provision in the Honor Code that requires
clarification, but does not materially change the
procedures or the spirit of the Honor Code, then such
clarification may be made by a majority vote of the
Honor Code Co-Chairs and Committee members with the
advice of the Assistant Dean for Student Affairs.
All clarifications must be approved by Northwestern
University’s Office of General Counsel and subsequently
submitted in writing to the Dean of Kellogg, who will
have veto power over any and all clarifications.
B. Amended Provisions
If any proposed change to the Honor Code materially
alters a procedure or the spirit of the Honor Code,
then the amendment can be effected only with the support
of a majority of students enrolled in Kellogg and
subject to the Honor Code and, to the extent that
the proposed material change would affect faculty’s
role in implementing the Honor Code, a majority of
all faculty members. Prior to voting, all proposed
changes must be approved by Northwestern University’s
Office of General Counsel and subsequently submitted
in writing to the Dean of Kellogg, who will have the
authority to veto any and all proposed changes to
the Honor Code.