In response to student and faculty concerns regarding the Academic Dishonesty Policy, the Student Life Committee voted in favor of an ASWC-sponsored resolution calling for a faculty code revision of the policy. Passed on Friday, Feb. 5, the resolution included a revised draft of the policy written by senior ASWC Vice President and Student Affairs Chair Jordan Clark and sophomore Senator and Student Affairs representative Noah Lerner.
The Student Life Committee and Dean of Students Chuck Cleveland are concerned that the current policy’s definition of plagiarism is too broad and its punishments too strict. Instances of plagiarism under the current policy range from negligent or improper citation to intentional plagiarism of another author’s work.
The penalty for a first time offense, regardless of the nature of the infringement, ranges from a minimum grade of an “F” on the assignment to a maximum grade of an “F” in the course. The penalty for forgetting to cite a source can be the same as for purchasing a paper off the Internet.
According to Student Life Committee Chair Brooke Vick, an assistant professor of psychology, the committee typically does not discuss matters of curricular or disciplinary policy. It may, however, identify issues of student concern relevant to these areas and make recommendations for addressing them, as was the case with the Academic Dishonesty Policy.
“Several members of ASWC approached the committee with ideas about how the policy could be revised. Members of the committee provided feedback on those ideas and several drafts were discussed as a group,” Vick said via e-mail.
Cleveland first approached Clark and senior ASWC President Nadim Damluji early last semester to discuss his concerns, as well as those of students and faculty members, regarding the current Academic Dishonesty Policy.
According to Cleveland, approximately 20 cases of academic dishonesty are brought to his attention each year. The cases vary in severity of offense.
“I felt like there are some situations where the current policy ended up with an overly serious sanction: that the penalty exceeded the transgression,” said Cleveland. “My concern was that in cases that were maybe less intentional: cases in which there were cultural or language differences: it would be nice if the faculty had greater discretion and a wider range of sanction in first time cases.”
Clark and Damluji shared Cleveland’s concerns, delegating the job of researching and revising the policy to Clark and Lerner.
They concluded that the current Academic Dishonesty Policy disproportionately affects first-year and international students who may not be accustomed to the citation style used by the American university system.
Furthermore, they found that the policy does not accurately represent current faculty practices in regards to punishing plagiarism.
“A lot of professors simply don’t follow the current policy. Most professors aren’t going to report a small citation error to the Dean of Students and they are not going to fail a student,” said Clark.
Jordan and Clark presented their findings to students at the Oct. 22 Town Hall Meeting, an open forum between students and ASWC.
“We received near unanimous support for amending the policy at our Town Hall,” said Clark, prompting a revision of the policy.
ASWC’s revisions primarily focused on the penalties for first-time infringements of academic dishonesty. Their revision reads: “For a first offense . . . the faculty member shall have the discretion to decide what punitive measures to take with a maximum penalty of a grade of ‘F’ in the course.”
ASWC’s rationale behind the revision, as stated per the Faculty Code Revision they submitted to the Student Life Committee, is that “it gives each faculty member the discretion to measure the seriousness of the infraction and decide upon the appropriate punitive measures . . . allow[ing] faculty members to differentiate between serious acts of plagiarism and minor errors in citation.”
The revision reflects Cleveland’s desire for the policy to help students learn from their mistakes, whether that comes from rewriting a paper, forgoing a grade or having a grade deducted.
“I don’t want to minimize the importance of academic honesty. I think it’s critical to what we do here; but I also think learning and education can be part of this policy,” said Cleveland.
“[The revised policy is] not supposed to make it easier for students in any way, it just allows a professor to decide ultimately when they want to prosecute things versus turning them into a teaching opportunity,” said Lerner.
The Student Life Committee, after approving ASWC’s revisions, has recommended that the Faculty Committee consider both students’ concerns regarding the Academic Dishonesty and the new, revised policy.
It remains to be seen how the revised policy will fare on the floor of the Faculty Committee.
“There definitely has been some resistance from professors. We’ll see to what extent the faculty like what we’ve come up with then we bring the [revised] policy before them,” said Lerner.
Clark hopes that the revision process will increase student involvement and open the doors to better communication between students, ASWC and faculty.
“Cleveland is really interested in getting more students involved in college policy,” said Clark. “Students aren’t always involved in the decision making process, and we’re trying to break down the barrier between the faculty deciding on things that affect us and us being able to reciprocate, backing policies that we support.”
