RIVERA

v.

UNIV

This case is before the court on Petitioner Jin Young Hwang’s Amended Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed January 7, 2026, (Doc. 10) seeking review of the decision to dismiss him from the graduate program of the University of South Florida’s (“USF”) Zimmerman School of Advertising & Mass Communications for violating its academic integrity policy for students—specifically for incidents of plagiarism in a draft of his graduate thesis. Petitioner seeks reinstatement to the program citing a lack of due process and USF’s failure to adhere to its own policy, specifically for treating his alleged draft thesis as a “submission” under the policy. Because his appendix reflects that Petitioner was afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard, this Court concludes that he received the necessary due process. In addition, because the evidence of Petitioner’s argument that the draft submitted was merely an interim draft on which he was seeking guidance is conflicting, because the school’s policy on academic integrity can reasonably be interpreted to include drafts as “submissions,” and because Petitioner admitted that his work contained plagiarized material, the Court upholds USF’s decision. Petitioner also challenges the severity of the sanction, but the sanction’s severity is not a matter this Court can consider on certiorari.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction to review an academic decision of a university is by petition for writ of certiorari to the circuit court. Rule 9.190(b)(3), Fla. R. App. P.; Rivera v. Univ. of S. Fla. St. Petersburg, 176 So. 3d 363, 363-364 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to review the petition.

FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner enrolled in the Master’s Degree Program at USF’s Zimmerman College of Advertising & Mass Communications (“the college”) for the 2024-2025 academic year. As part of the graduate degree requirements there, students can elect to participate in applied research or prepare a master’s thesis. As a participant in the program, Petitioner chose the latter. USF provides several resources outlining its [*2] Page 2 of 7 expectations for graduate students, including a handbook for graduate students. Petitioner was or should have been aware of these resources available to him. According to the college’s graduate handbook “[t]he thesis adheres to academic research standards and embodies original, substantiated research around a central topic in mass communication.” Further, once admitted to the course, a graduate student attends an information session where information is provided “about departmental and university requirements…”

To briefly address the course timeline as set forth in the Graduate Studies Handbook for the college of mass communications,1 after attending the information session, a student must offer a topic they would like to explore. Once they select a topic, students are required to form a committee of three faculty members, including a major professor with a background in the topic’s substantive area. The committee will determine whether the student has successfully defended the thesis and completed the requirement. During the semester’s first half, the student develops a proposal and presents it to the major professor to determine if the idea is amenable to research. Once the topic is approved, the student develops a written proposal for submission to the chosen faculty committee and then orally defends it. At that point, the committee determines if the student is prepared to undertake the research. If so, the student prepares drafts of the thesis for feedback to the committee members until a final draft is approved. The final draft must be approved by the major professor before it is circulated to the rest of the committee. The chair ensures that the work is of acceptable research standards to hold the final defense, after which the student can schedule the final thesis defense. This final thesis defense is the final requirement of the thesis course. Before the final submission, there is a plagiarism check to confirm that there is no plagiarism in the document. Throughout the process, students work closely with their major professor and committee. It is, however, the student’s responsibility to seek advice regarding expectations for his submission. Here, it appears that, although Petitioner claims he did not understand the citation process, nothing in the record indicates that he sought guidance to fill in the gaps in his understanding of the citation process by specifically requesting feedback on the matter. Page 24 of the graduate studies handbook for the college of mass communications discusses the importance academic integrity. It defines “academic honesty” as:

“…the completion of all academic endeavors and claims of scholarly knowledge as representative of one’s own efforts. Knowledge and maintenance of the academic standards of honesty and integrity as set forth by the university are the responsibility of the entire academic community, including the instructional faculty, staff, and students. The complete [*3] Page 3 of 7 policy regarding academic integrity of students can be found here (link provided).”2 (Emphasis added.) The reader is then directed to a website under the College of Arts and Sciences entitled Faculty Classroom Resources with a subheading “Academic Integrity.” In addition to declaring academic integrity as the foundation of USF’s commitment to the academic honesty and personal integrity of the university community, it states that maintaining the standards set forth by the university are the responsibility of instructional faculty, staff, and students. Violations are listed and include plagiarism. In addition, a link to USF Regulation 3.027 – Academic Integrity of Students—is provided.3 In turn, regulation 3.027 lists academic integrity violations in more detail and governs the conduct alleged to be at issue here. It defines “plagiarism” as:

“Intentionally or carelessly presenting the work of another as one’s own. It includes submitting an assignment purporting to be the Student’s original work which has wholly or in part been created by another person. It also includes the presentation of the work, ideas, representations, or words of another person without customary and proper acknowledgement of sources. It also includes collaborative work that is not authentic at the time of submission, such as working on a paper together but submitting the same or near similar work.

Students must consult with their instructors for clarification in any situation in which the need for documentation is an issue and will have plagiarized in any situation in which their work is not properly documented.”

The regulation goes on to explain when and how to document sources.

The chair’s role is to provide feedback on all aspects of the written documents including clarity of writing, organization and thoroughness of the study, depth of the literature review, quality of methodology, appropriateness of data analysis, and formatting. The chair serves as a guide for the student to produce graduate level, original scholarship in the student’s proposed topic area. Before the final submission, the chair creates a final assignment for the student to submit the approved final copy for the plagiarism check.

Although the date is not provided, Petitioner sent an email to his committee members, attaching his thesis and informing them that he made revisions based on earlier feedback he received. As he claims, the V2 suggests that it was a second 3 This link may be found here: https://usf.app.box.com/v/usfregulation3027 [*4] Page⁴ of 7 version of an earlier draft. Presumably thereafter, on April 26, 2025, Petitioner received a letter expressing concerns with “significant plagiarism” found in the “thesis draft.” (Emphasis added.) The letter goes on to refer Petitioner to USF’s regulation 3.027. But, as USF’s appendix demonstrates, whether Petitioner’s submission was a final or an interim draft is unclear. Previously, on February 22, 2025, Petitioner submitted a draft to his committee. Although not referenced as such, it appears to be the first draft, since it references suggestions given in his thesis proposal, which occurs before any written work is produced. Thereafter, on April 9, 2025, Petitioner sent his committee another draft, containing a labeled V2, which he states is in response to feedback provided following an earlier draft. Petitioner contends this draft, labeled as V2, was the second draft of his thesis. On April 25, 2025, Petitioner emailed his committee following up regarding “the final draft of my thesis.” On the same day, Chair Travis Bell emailed Petitioner regarding “numerous instances of concern throughout your thesis draft.” The concerns were “significant plagiarism.” The email went on to ask whether Petitioner acknowledged the concerns.

Later that same day Petitioner responded, expressing surprise and embarrassment regarding the plagiarism concerns. He went on to voice disagreement with the allegation and asserted that he did not understand it because he made “every effort to properly cite my sources and used quotation marks wherever I quoted material.” He asked his chair to clarify the problem areas of the thesis and added that he intended to “cooperate fully.”

Thereafter, on April 26, 2025, the Chair sent Petitioner a copy of his thesis that highlighted at least six areas of concern. The chair noted that he had stopped his review after the six areas because “this is too many already.” The highlighted text describes in detail the issues that concerned the faculty. The email inquired as to Petitioner’s availability to attend a meeting with the committee members.

On May 5, 2025, Petitioner received a letter indicating that the college was recommending his dismissal from the graduate program based on his violations of the academic integrity policy. He was advised that he had the right to appeal, and he was provided resources on the procedural steps to be taken. Although there is no transcript of the appeal in either party’s appendix, Petitioner provided a written narrative he submitted in furtherance of the appeal.

Petitioner did not deny that the draft he submitted contained incidents of plagiarism. Rather, he reasoned that those incidents constituted less than five percent of the total paper. He also asserted that a mere draft submitted for feedback, as opposed to a final paper submitted for grading, did not constitute an actionable submission under USF’s academic integrity policy. Petitioner also indicated that he felt that USF’s policy was vague because it fails to define the term “submission,” and he had not submitted the paper for a plagiarism check required of a final draft. Although Petitioner said he took responsibility, he also blamed faculty for their lack of earlier [*5] Page 5 of 7 review and feedback. He noted that faculty is expected to assist the student in developing their research idea, read and review drafts, and establish a timeline for completion of the paper. Petitioner indicated that he submitted his paper expecting that citation mistakes—if any—would be corrected with guidance. Ultimately, his appeal was denied. His timely petition followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court reviews an administrative decision to determine whether Petitioner received procedural due process, whether the essential requirements of the law have been observed, and whether the administrative findings and judgment are supported by competent substantial evidence. Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995).

DUE PROCESS

Petitioner contends that his due process rights were violated because USF’s Academic Integrity Policy fails to provide clear notice of the prohibited conduct with regard to plagiarism, and he was punished for a draft that was not a final submission. Although Petitioner makes a fair point that greater clarity would be helpful on this aspect of USF’s policy, for reasons expressed below, the Court finds that Petitioner is not entitled to relief on this issue.

The minimum requirements for due process are notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Housing Authority of City of Tampa v. Robinson, 464 So. 2d 158, 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Respondent offered some authority that Florida recognizes a distinction between disciplinary determinations and academic evaluations, adding that a student dismissed from a public educational institution for an academic, rather than disciplinary, reason is entitled to less process. Haberle v. Univ. of Ala., 803 F. 2d 1536, 1539 (11th Cir. 1986). See also Beheshtitabar v. Florida State Univ., 432 So. 2d 166, 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (stating that decision to deny student readmission to doctoral program was based solely on academic grounds and not a decision in which “the substantial interests of a party are determined by an agency,” adding that student was not entitled to a hearing when student was denied readmission), cited by Metsch v. Univ. of Fla., 550 So. 2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Because the conduct of plagiarism is often likened to theft, specifically of another’s academic work, the line between pure academics and conduct that would subject a student to discipline is blurred, a point Petitioner has argued. Under such circumstances, USF was wise to offer a hearing here to assess where Petitioner’s conduct fell along that spectrum. Petitioner’s alleged plagiarism differs from a situation in which a student simply is unable to meet the academic standards expected by a university in that the allegation of plagiarism is, as Petitioner contends, based on conduct. The record further shows that not only was Petitioner invited to meet with his professors, he was also afforded the right to an appeal; a right he exercised. Petitioner did not provide a transcript of that proceeding though. Accordingly, the Court must conclude that Petitioner received the procedural process due under the circumstances.

[*6] Page 6 of 7

DEPARTURE FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW

Regulation 3.027 is the governing regulation here. Petitioner complains that USF’s Academic Integrity Policy is impermissibly vague and that the university failed to adhere to its own policies when it terminated him for citation errors in a draft thesis. Regulation 3.027 defines plagiarism (see above) and states that plagiarism will be deemed to have occurred if a student “submits an assignment purporting to be the student’s original work which has wholly or in part been created by another person. It also includes the presentation of the work, ideas, representations, or words of another person without customary and proper acknowledgement of sources.”

Petitioner is correct that the term “submission” is not defined. When a term is not defined, the Court looks to the ordinary meaning of the word. Tsuji v. Fleet, 366 So. 3d 1020, 1028 (Fla. 2023) (stating that absent a legislatively supplied definition, courts often look to contemporaneous dictionaries for evidence of an undefined term’s meaning.) (internal citations omitted). The Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online defines “submitting” as: “to present or propose to another for review, consideration, or decision.”⁴

As noted above, the college of mass communications defines “academic honesty” as “the completion of all academic endeavors and claims of scholarly knowledge as representative of one’s own efforts.” It places responsibility for “[k]nowledge and maintenance of the academic standards of honesty and integrity as set forth by the university” on “the entire academic community, including the instructional faculty, staff, and students.” (Emphasis added.) Although this description was provided to the Court by USF, not Petitioner, the Court notes that it provides some support for Petitioner’s belief that it applies to completed academic endeavors. It also places responsibility for knowledge and maintenance of standards on both students and faculty. The Court does not consider the foregoing as anything more than informational, however, where it goes on to direct the reader to regulation 3.027 for the specific conduct deemed violative of USF’s academic standards.

Petitioner directs the Court’s attention to the college of mass communications’ “Thesis…Roles and Responsibilities of the Chair, Committee Members, and Students” which indicates that prior to the Final Submission, “the chair creates a final assignment in Canvas for the student to submit the approved final copy for the plagiarism check,” suggesting that his draft was not ready for that step and was subject to further correction. Petitioner contends that a draft of a work in progress is not, under the college’s policy, intended for the same treatment as a paper intended as a final submission. Petitioner misunderstands the effect of the Chair and Committee’s duties on his work. It cannot and should not be read as accepting plagiarism before a work is final. It is up to students to refrain from plagiarism, not just for faculty to point it out without consequence to the student. Also, although omitted from Petitioner’s record,⁴ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/submitting [*7] Page 7 of 7 Respondent’s appendix included an email from Petitioner to his chair, inquiring as to the status of his “final draft,” suggesting that his project was further along than he would have this Court imagine. Even if that were not the case, where, as noted above, the Chair undertakes review prior to the “final submission,” it suggests that drafts are considered interim submissions. The Court acknowledges that greater clarity with regard to the effect of citation errors in drafts would be preferable, given that these documents are intended to guide analytical evaluation in an academic institution.

COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

The Court notes that Petitioner raises a number of issues in his reply that, in the absence of a transcript or other document indicating these issues were raised in the administrative proceeding, were not preserved for review.5 Rangel v MidFirst Bank, 187 So. 3d 289, 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (stating that party’s failure to provide a transcript deprives the court of a record to indicate that the party raised its claim of error in the lower tribunal; thus, error was unpreserved). Moreover, given that Petitioner does not dispute his professors’ conclusions that plagiarism occurred, it is unnecessary to discuss the evidentiary issue further. The Court now addresses Petitioner’s request that the Court reduce the severity of the sanction. Unfortunately, this Court may either quash the order below if the circumstances demand or affirm it. Piquet v. Clareway Properties Ltd., 314 So. 3d 423, 428-29 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), citing Nat'l Advertising Co. v. Broward County, 491 So. 2d 1262, 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (“A court's certiorari review power does not extend to directing that any particular action be taken, but is limited to denying the writ of certiorari or quashing the order reviewed”), and Gulf Oil Realty Co. v. Windhover Ass'n, 403 So. 2d 476, 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (“…after review by certiorari, an appellate court can only quash the lower court order; it has no authority to direct the lower court to enter contrary orders.”). Because competent, substantial evidence supports USF’s finding that a violation of its academic policy occurred, this Court must affirm USF’s decision. It is not at liberty to address the severity of the sanction, even if it does not agree with it.

PETITION DENIED.

ORDERED in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, on the date imprinted with the Judge’s signature.