Policies

Grade Appeal

Students who believe they have been unfairly graded can appeal for course grades. It is essential for students who are appealing a grade to keep in mind that the burden of proof lies with the student. A student's request for a grade adjustment can only be approved if they can demonstrate that their initially assigned grade was unfair or unreasonable.

Students who wish to appeal a grade must do so online within fourteen days after the end of the term. As a result, the Course Instructor can explain the rationale for the grade, and the student can also point out any mistakes or misjudgments in the grading process. Course Instructor and student discussions are often enough to get things back on track.

The Office of Academic Affairs must be notified whenever a course instructor decides to modify a student's grade. To address a Grade Appeal, the Course Instructor can raise, lower, or leave the student's final grade as-is at his or her own discretion. To reflect the new grades, the Office of Student Services will make the necessary adjustments to the student's academic record and overall grade point average.

A Grade Appeal Form can be requested from the student's Academic Advisor if the student and the Course Instructor cannot agree. Within 30 days after the term's end, the completed form must be submitted to the Academic Affairs Office at support@lifesci.education. No appeals will be allowed after the deadline.

The Office of Academic Affairs and the Office of Student Services will review and process any grade appeals that have been submitted. Students are informed in writing of the decision of the Student Affairs Committee by the Office of Student Services. They have the last say, and the Committee's decisions are binding. As a result, the student's official academic record will include a record of the final judgment and any supporting documentation.

Students with Disabilities

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal anti-discrimination statute that provides comprehensive civil rights protection for persons with disabilities. Among other things, this legislation requires that all students with disabilities be guaranteed a learning environment that provides for reasonable accommodation of their disabilities.

IULS complies with all laws and regulations regarding the access of disabled individuals to education and works to ensure that no qualified student with a disability is denied the benefits of, or is excluded from participation in, any school program or activity.

Nondiscrimination Notice 

IULS will abide by all federal and state laws that forbid discrimination and related retribution on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age, genetic information, or veteran status both in the classroom and in online courses. Additionally, a climate free from prejudice based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression will be upheld.

Student Conduct 

All students enrolled at the Institute are required to adhere to the concepts of common decency and appropriate behavior, so as to foster a positive learning environment. The Student Guidebook has a thorough explanation of the Student Code of Conduct.

Netiquette

Students should also examine the Rules of Netiquette to learn more about how to engage with other students in an online discussion forum. 

Attendance

IULS is a fully online institution. All programs are delivered asynchronously through the Moodle LMS, with faculty guidance provided through recorded lectures, graded discussion forums, written assignment feedback, and optional live office hours. Because instruction is delivered entirely asynchronously, attendance is measured by academic engagement rather than presence at scheduled class sessions. Academic engagement includes logging in to the LMS, submitting assignments, posting in graded discussion forums, completing quizzes or assessments, and substantive communication with the instructor regarding coursework.

General Expectation

• All students must log in regularly to IULS's Moodle platform and demonstrate weekly academic engagement by completing coursework, participating in discussion forums, and meeting the assignment deadlines and academic milestones outlined in each course syllabus.
• All students follow an individualized study plan and are expected to show meaningful weekly progress toward course completion.
• There are no required synchronous (live) sessions. Faculty hold optional live office hours via BigBlueButton; attendance is voluntary, and all sessions are recorded and posted in the LMS. No instructional hours are based on synchronous activity.

Absence and Engagement Policy

• A student is considered absent if they record no academic engagement (as defined above) for 7 consecutive calendar days without prior communication with the instructor.
• Inactivity for more than 14 consecutive calendar days without submission of coursework, communication, or documented progress will result in a written warning and may trigger academic review, which can lead to administrative withdrawal in accordance with the institution's withdrawal and refund policies.
• A student is considered tardy if they submit an assignment or required coursework after its stated deadline without prior notice to, or approval from, the instructor.

Excused Absences

Excused absences or delays may be granted when justified and documented, including:

• Illness, injury, or medical emergencies
• Family emergency or bereavement
• Required military or civic duty
• Temporary internet outages or technology access issues (with documentation
• Any other reason approved by IULS faculty or administration in advance

Students must notify the instructor or IULS Student Services in writing within 48 hours of the incident to request consideration for an excused absence.

Unexcused Absences

• Failure to submit work, respond to instructor communication, or log in for required activities without prior notice will be marked as an unexcused absence.
• Multiple unexcused absences (e.g., two or more within a session) may result in an academic warning, probation, or temporary withdrawal from the course or program.

Monitoring and Evaluation of Attendance

IULS monitors student engagement using the following indicators:

• Log-in frequency and platform activity
• Submission of assignments and quizzes
• Completion of modules or course checkpoints
• Participation in discussion forums (if required)
• Instructor communication and progress reports

Additional Notes

• Extension requests must be submitted at least one week before the end of the course for instructor review.
• Instructors and administrators reserve the right to update course calendars or progress expectations with prior notice.

Plagiarism and Academic Integrity

At the International University of Life Sciences (IULS), honesty and integrity are core values that guide and inform both individuals and the larger community. Academic culture necessitates that each student be accountable for his or her own learning and for producing work that reflects their intellectual potential, inquiry, and ability. Students must represent themselves candidly, claim only their own work, acknowledge their use of others' words, research results, and ideas, employing the methods accepted by the relevant academic disciplines, and complete all academic assignments in an honest manner. Both students and faculty are responsible for maintaining the Institute's academic integrity. Academic misconduct will not be excused on the basis of a misunderstanding of appropriate academic behavior. If a student is uncertain about what constitutes appropriate academic conduct in a given situation, he or she should consult with the course instructor to avoid the serious charge of academic misconduct.

Plagiarism Policy:

Students must submit only their original work, without unauthorized collaboration or sharing with others, unless explicitly allowed by the instructor. All materials incorporated into the work that are not the student's own creations must be properly cited and referenced. Proper acknowledgement must be given for any images used. Failure to comply with this policy will result in consequences, such as receiving a zero for the assignment and being reported to the Program Director for the first offense. A second violation of plagiarism or cheating will lead to the student's removal from the course by the instructor and notification to the Registrar.

Academic Integrity Policy:

1. Definition of Academic Integrity:

IULS embraces academic integrity as a core value, which guides all facets of academic work. It encompasses honesty, trustworthiness, responsibility, and respect for intellectual property.

2. Promoting Awareness:

IULS actively promotes the importance of academic integrity through educational programs, workshops, and seminars.

3. Guidelines for Academic Conduct:

IULS provides guidance on academic conduct, including citation and referencing standards, plagiarism, data fabrication, and collaboration rules.

Cheating: Cheating encompasses any form of unauthorized assistance on an assignment or exam. Examples include using electronic devices during an exam, copying answers from another student's exam, and acquiring answers before an exam.

Plagiarism: Plagiarism occurs when someone presents another person's work or ideas as their own. Instances of plagiarism include copying text from an online source without proper citation, inadequately paraphrasing someone else's work, and submitting work completed by someone else.

Fabrication of Data: Data fabrication involves the falsification or invention of data or results. Examples include creating data for a lab report or study that was never conducted, or manipulating data to achieve desired outcomes.

Unauthorized Collaboration: Unauthorized collaboration entails working with others on an assignment or exam without permission. Examples include sharing answers during an exam, contributing minimally to a group project, or collaborating with someone outside of the course or program.

4. Reporting and Investigation Process:

Any individual who witnesses or suspects an academic integrity violation should report it to the appropriate authority, such as the instructor, program director, or academic affairs office.

The report should detail the violation, provide supporting evidence, and identify the student(s) involved.

The appropriate authority will launch a confidential investigation into the alleged violation, which may involve interviews and evidence review.

The privacy of all parties involved will be respected throughout the investigation.

5. Sanctions and Penalties:

Depending on the violation's nature and severity, the appropriate authority may impose various sanctions and penalties, including but not limited to:

• A warning or reprimand
• Loss of credit or grade reduction for a specific assignment, exam, or paper
• Failure of the course
• Suspension or expulsion from IULS

The authority will consider any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, such as prior academic misconduct or the level of intent or premeditation.

6. Regular Review and Revision:

IULS will consistently review and update this policy to ensure its ongoing effectiveness in fostering academic integrity throughout the institution.

To support students in understanding and upholding the principles of academic integrity: Resources for students, faculty, and staff:

• Educational programs, workshops, and seminars on academic integrity
• Access to plagiarism detection software or other tools to ensure proper citation and referencing in academic work
• Access to citation and referencing resources, such as style guides or manuals
• Guidance on appropriate source use, including when and how to cite and reference them
• Support for students who may need assistance in developing effective study or writing skills to avoid academic misconduct.

Guidelines for academic conduct:

• Proper citation and referencing standards, including information on citation styles and their application
• Policies on collaboration, outlining what is and is not allowed in terms of group work, and how to acknowledge the contributions of group members
• Guidance on avoiding plagiarism, including definitions, and examples of proper paraphrasing, summarizing, and quoting sources
• Policies on the use of electronic devices during exams and assessments, and guidelines for using online resources in academic work.

Consequences for violations:

• Warnings or reprimands for minor violations of academic integrity, such as improper citation or collaboration
• Loss of credit or grade reduction for a specific assignment, exam, or paper
• Failure of the course
• Suspension or expulsion from IULS, depending on the nature and severity of the violation.

To summarize, IULS provides resources, guidelines, and consequences to guarantee academic integrity. These policies will be reviewed and revised on a regular basis to ensure that they continue to be effective in promoting academic integrity throughout the institution.

** The instructor reserves the right to make changes to the course calendar with prior notice given to the student

Communication Policy

To achieve success, students are expected to submit work in each course weekly. Students can learn at their own pace; however, "any pace" still means that students must make progress in the course every week. To measure learning, students complete self-checks, practice lessons, multiple choice questions, projects, discussion-based assessments, and discussions. Students are expected to maintain regular contact with their course instructors or Adademic Advisor. 

Privacy Policy

International University of Life Sciences is committed to protecting your privacy in accordance with this privacy statement, which governs the collection of personally identifiable information through the International University of Life Sciences website, its related websites, and their content ("Website"), as well as the services available through this Website ("Services"). Read more 

AI policy - Responsible Artificial Intelligence Use

Think first. Challenge assumptions. Verify evidence. Disclose meaningful AI assistance. Protect confidential information. Keep humans responsible. At IULS, AI should challenge and extend human intelligence - not replace it.

1. Purpose

The International University of Life Sciences recognizes artificial intelligence as an important and rapidly evolving technology that can enhance teaching, learning, research, communication, creativity, accessibility, and institutional operations.

IULS encourages the thoughtful and responsible use of artificial intelligence while preserving the essential role of human judgment, academic integrity, intellectual development, privacy, professional responsibility, and meaningful faculty-student interaction.

The central principle of AI use at IULS is:

Use AI to extend and challenge human thinking - not to replace it.

Students, faculty, and staff should approach AI as an assistant, critic, tutor, research aid, brainstorming partner, or intellectual sparring partner. Users should remain capable of questioning, verifying, revising, or rejecting an AI-generated response.

A useful IULS practice is:

Ask AI to challenge your thinking before asking it to help improve your work. AI may identify weaknesses, propose alternatives, ask difficult questions, simulate opposing arguments, or help users investigate a problem. The final judgment and responsibility remain human.

2. Core Principles

All members of the IULS community must follow the following principles when using artificial intelligence.

Human Responsibility

Individuals remain responsible for work they create, submit, approve, publish, teach, grade, communicate, or use in decision-making, regardless of whether AI contributed to that work. Saying that an error was generated by an AI system does not remove human responsibility.

Human Judgment

AI may assist human judgment but must not replace responsible human decision-making in academic, administrative, professional, or other consequential matters.

Accuracy and Verification

AI systems can generate incorrect information, fabricated references, outdated information, misleading conclusions, biased content, or plausible-sounding statements unsupported by evidence. Users must verify important facts, calculations, quotations, references, research findings, and claims using appropriate authoritative sources.

Transparency

Substantive use of AI in academic work should be disclosed when required by the instructor, assignment, research protocol, publication standard, or this policy. AI-generated work must not be misrepresented as entirely human-created work when AI materially contributed to its development.

Privacy and Confidentiality

Confidential, restricted, personally identifiable, proprietary, educational, personnel, health-related, or other protected information must not be entered into public or unapproved AI systems.

This includes, where applicable:

• student educational records and personally identifiable information;
• confidential faculty or personnel information;
• passwords, API keys, credentials, or security information;
• unpublished institutional documents;
• confidential research information;
• personally identifiable health information; and
• information belonging to another person or organization that the user is not authorized to disclose. 

When sensitive information is involved, members of the IULS community must use an institutionally approved environment or remove identifying information before using AI.

Intellectual Property and Copyright

AI does not eliminate copyright, licensing, attribution, or intellectual-property responsibilities. Faculty, staff, and students must respect copyrights, licenses, Creative Commons requirements, proprietary materials, authorship rights, and applicable terms governing data and content.

Equity and Accessibility

AI should be used in ways that support equitable and accessible education. Faculty should consider whether an AI requirement places students at a disadvantage because of cost, accessibility, language, disability, geographic location, or technological availability.

3. Student Use of Artificial Intelligence

IULS expects students to become proficient in responsible AI use while continuing to develop independent analytical, research, communication, and problem-solving abilities. AI should help students learn, not merely help students finish. Students remain responsible for understanding and being able to explain work submitted under their names.

Students May Appropriately Use AI To

When permitted by the instructor or assignment, appropriate uses may include:

• brainstorming questions or possible approaches;
• asking AI to challenge an argument;
• identifying possible weaknesses in reasoning;
• generating counterarguments;
• receiving explanations of difficult concepts;
• practicing questions and answers;
• creating study aids;
• comparing alternative viewpoints;
• improving grammar or clarity;
• receiving feedback on a student-created draft;
• assisting with coding or debugging;
• exploring datasets or simulations;
• translating or clarifying language;
• identifying topics requiring further research; and
• developing preliminary outlines that the student subsequently evaluates and substantially develops. 

Students are encouraged to ask questions such as:
What assumptions am I making?
What are the strongest arguments against my conclusion?
Identify three weaknesses in my reasoning.
What evidence would change my conclusion? 

Ask me questions that will help me solve this problem myself instead of giving me the answer. This approach reflects the IULS philosophy of using AI as an intellectual challenger rather than a substitute for learning.

4. The IULS AI Traffic-Light Framework

Faculty will identify the permitted level of AI assistance for major graded assignments whenever practical.

RED — AI Use Prohibited

The student must perform the assessed intellectual work independently.

Examples may include:

• examinations;
• quizzes assessing individual mastery;
• designated foundational exercises;
• personal reflections;
• oral defenses;
• competency demonstrations; or
• assignments specifically designed to assess unaided student ability. 

Students may not use generative AI unless the instructor explicitly authorizes a particular accommodation or use.

YELLOW — Limited or Conditional AI Use

AI may be used for specified supporting activities, but the student remains responsible for the substantive academic work.

Permitted activities may include:

• brainstorming;
• feedback;
• outlining;
• language editing;
• translation;
• debugging;
• generating questions;
• identifying counterarguments; or
• preliminary exploration. 

Substantive AI assistance must be disclosed according to the instructor's requirements.

GREEN — AI-Integrated Learning

AI use is intentionally incorporated into the learning activity.

Examples may include:

• AI-assisted simulations;
• comparing outputs from different models;
• challenging an AI-generated argument;
• AI-supported data analysis;
• prompt-design exercises;
• evaluating AI hallucinations or bias;
• AI-human collaborative projects; or
• developing applications using AI systems. 

Green does not mean that anything generated by AI may automatically be submitted without review. Students remain responsible for accuracy, reasoning, evidence, conclusions, and compliance with assignment requirements.

When No AI Level Is Stated

Students should ask the instructor when they are uncertain. Unless otherwise authorized, students should not use generative AI to substantially complete graded work that is intended to demonstrate the student's own knowledge or skills.

5. AI Disclosure by Students

When AI materially contributes to submitted academic work, students should provide an AI Use Disclosure unless the instructor has stated that disclosure is unnecessary for that assignment.

A disclosure may be brief. For example:

AI Use Disclosure: I used ChatGPT to identify counterarguments to my original thesis and to suggest improvements in organization. I independently verified the sources and wrote and revised the final paper myself.

Depending on the assignment, instructors may additionally require:

• the name of the AI system;
• the date used;
• a description of its purpose;
• selected prompts;
• relevant output;
• conversation history; or
• a reflection explaining how the student evaluated and changed the AI-generated material. 

Routine use of conventional spell-checking, formatting, citation-management, or other incidental tools normally does not require disclosure unless an instructor specifies otherwise.

6. Prohibited Student Uses

Unless specifically authorized as part of an educational activity, students may not:

• submit substantially AI-generated work as their own independent work;
• use AI during an examination or other assessment for which AI is prohibited;
• ask AI to complete an assignment that is intended to demonstrate the student's own reasoning or mastery;
• fabricate or falsify references, quotations, evidence, data, laboratory findings, research results, or clinical information;
• use AI to impersonate another person;
• use AI to circumvent academic-integrity requirements;
• upload examination questions, confidential course materials, student information, or restricted materials into unauthorized AI systems;
• use AI to engage in harassment, deception, fraud, or other misconduct; or
• falsely represent AI-generated analysis as personal professional or academic judgment. 

Unauthorized AI assistance may constitute academic misconduct.

7. Faculty Responsibilities

Faculty members have both academic freedom and responsibility in determining how AI supports the learning objectives of their courses.

Faculty should clearly communicate AI expectations in the syllabus and, when appropriate, within individual assignment instructions.

Faculty should:

• identify whether AI use is prohibited, limited, or intentionally incorporated;
• explain the educational reason for important restrictions;
• design assessments that measure authentic student learning;
• emphasize analysis, application, reflection, discussion, presentation, and problem solving rather than tasks easily completed through automated generation;
• model responsible AI use;
• verify AI-generated educational material before presenting it to students;
• protect student privacy;
• comply with copyright and licensing requirements; and
• maintain meaningful human academic interaction with students. 

AI systems may supplement instruction but do not replace the faculty member's academic responsibility.

Faculty remain responsible for:

• instructional quality;
• interpretation of course content;
• assessment design;
• evaluation of student learning;
• substantive academic feedback;
• final grades; and
• academic judgments affecting students. 

This is especially important within IULS's asynchronous educational model: AI teaching assistants may provide additional availability and support, but they are supplementary to—not substitutes for—qualified faculty presence.

8. Faculty Use of AI for Grading and Feedback

AI may assist faculty with tasks such as developing rubrics, identifying patterns, drafting feedback, or performing preliminary analysis when privacy and security requirements are satisfied.

However:

A faculty member remains responsible for the final evaluation and grade. AI should not independently make final academic judgments about a student. When AI is used substantially to generate individualized grading or feedback, faculty should exercise meaningful human review and should be transparent about such use when it could materially affect the student's learning or evaluation.

9. AI Detection and Suspected Misconduct

IULS recognizes that automated AI-detection systems may produce inaccurate or misleading results. An AI detector score alone is not sufficient evidence of academic misconduct.

Faculty who reasonably suspect unauthorized AI use should evaluate the circumstances and may use measures such as:

• discussing the work with the student;
• asking the student to explain the argument or methodology;
• reviewing drafts or version history;
• examining source materials;
• requesting relevant AI-use documentation; or
• conducting an oral defense or follow-up assessment. 

Students should have an opportunity to explain their work before an academic-integrity determination is made.

This approach is consistent with the human-in-the-loop principle already established in IULS faculty guidance. (Faculty Instruction & Responsible Artificial Intelligence Guidelines.pdf)

10. Staff and Administrative Use of AI

IULS encourages responsible use of AI to improve institutional efficiency and reduce unnecessary administrative workload.

Staff may use approved AI systems for purposes such as:

• drafting routine communications;
• organizing information;
• summarizing non-confidential documents;
• workflow automation;
• research assistance;
• coding;
• data analysis;
• marketing-content development;
• process improvement; and
• other appropriate administrative functions. 

However, institutional personnel remain responsible for reviewing AI-generated work before official use or publication.

AI must not independently make final consequential decisions involving matters such as:

• admission;
• student discipline;
• academic standing;
• employee hiring or termination;
• financial decisions affecting individuals;
• complaints or grievances; or
• other decisions materially affecting a person's rights or status. 

A responsible human decision-maker must retain authority and accountability.

11. AI, Health Information, and Professional Boundaries

Because IULS provides education in complementary and integrative health, special caution is required when AI outputs concern health and healthcare. AI-generated information may be used for educational activities when permitted, but it must not be represented as a substitute for individualized professional medical diagnosis, treatment, prescription, psychotherapy, or other services requiring professional licensure.

Students and faculty must distinguish clearly among:

• academic analysis;
• educational simulation;
• general health information; and
• professional clinical advice. 

IULS educational AI systems do not independently establish diagnoses, prescribe treatment, or replace appropriately licensed healthcare professionals.

12. Research and Scholarly Work

AI use in research must comply with applicable:

• research-integrity standards;
• privacy requirements;
• intellectual-property requirements;
• publication policies;
• human-subject protections when applicable; and
• disclosure requirements of journals, conferences, sponsors, or other relevant organizations. 

Researchers are responsible for verifying AI-assisted analysis and ensuring that AI-generated information does not introduce fabricated evidence, citations, or results. AI systems ordinarily should not be identified as human authors because responsibility for scholarly work must remain with accountable human authors, subject to the rules of the relevant publisher or professional organization.

13. AI-Generated Sources and Citations

Students, faculty, and staff should not assume that references produced by AI actually exist. Whenever an AI system suggests a scholarly source, the user should locate and examine the original source before relying on or citing it. AI-generated summaries should not replace review of original sources when the assignment or professional task requires engagement with the underlying evidence.

14. Institutional AI Systems and AI Teachers

IULS may incorporate AI teaching assistants, AI teachers, multi-agent learning systems, simulations, conversational assistants, and other AI-enabled technologies into its educational environment.

These systems may provide:

• explanations;
• practice activities;
• interactive questions;
• formative feedback;
• simulations;
• multilingual assistance;
• learning support; and
• extended access to educational resources. 

Their purpose is to augment the learning environment rather than replace qualified faculty. Where appropriate, students should understand when they are interacting with an AI system rather than a human being. Important academic decisions remain under human authority.

15. Responsible AI Use by IULS

IULS itself will apply the same standards it expects from its community. The University seeks to use AI to automate processes where appropriate while preserving human accountability where judgment matters.

Institutional adoption of AI should consider:

• educational value;
• accuracy;
• privacy and security;
• accessibility;
• bias and fairness;
• human oversight;
• financial sustainability;
• intellectual property; and
• the effect of automation on student learning and institutional responsibility. 

Efficiency alone is not sufficient justification for replacing meaningful human judgment.

16. Academic Integrity and Enforcement

AI-related misconduct is governed by the same fundamental expectations of honesty and integrity that apply to other forms of academic misconduct.

The relevant question is not simply:
Did the student use AI?
The appropriate questions include:
Was the use permitted?
Was it disclosed when required?
Did the student remain responsible for the intellectual work being assessed?
Was the work represented honestly?
Can the student demonstrate understanding of what was submitted?

Failure to comply with this policy may be addressed through IULS academic-integrity, student-conduct, employment, information-security, or other applicable procedures.

17. When in Doubt, Ask

Because AI technology changes rapidly, no policy can anticipate every tool or situation. Students should ask their instructors when they are uncertain about whether AI use is permitted. Faculty and staff should seek institutional guidance before using AI with sensitive information or for activities that could materially affect another person. Good-faith questions about appropriate AI use are encouraged.

18. Policy Review

Artificial intelligence will continue to evolve rapidly. IULS will periodically review this policy as technologies, educational practices, legal requirements, security risks, and professional standards change. Supplemental courses, program, technical, privacy, research, or administrative guidance may be issued when necessary.

Title IX Statement 

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as modified, prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in any educational program or activity run by beneficiaries of federal financial aid. As stipulated by Title IX, IULS does not discriminate on the basis of gender in any of its educational programs or activities, including admission and employment.

IULS is committed to establishing a sex-discrimination-free environment and provides a variety of supportive measures, such as resources and services, to aid students, professors, and staff. Sexual violence, sexual harassment, stalking, and relationship violence have a significant influence on academic, social, professional, and personal life, and severely impact friends and family, fellow students, and members of the institution community.

To combat this complex social problem, IULS provides a variety of resources designed to prevent sexual violence and other forms of sexual misconduct, such as sexual harassment, provide information on what to do in the event of an incident, and raise awareness of campus and community resources for support and response.

Students, students, and staff who are victims of sexual violence, sexual harassment, stalking, or interpersonal violence are encouraged to seek assistance and report the occurrence. IULS has hired a Title IX Coordinator to oversee the institution's reaction to Title IX reports and formal complaints, develop training and education programs/materials for faculty, staff, and students, and assess the efficacy of Title IX education activities.

Inquiries concerning the application of Title IX may be referred to the Title IX Coordinator (TitleIXCoordinator@lifesci.education) or to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, or both.

We reserve the right to update or change any of these policies at any time, without notice. 

For other policies, please refer to Institute's Catalog.