STUDENT LIFE ‘mdash; Academic misconduct at UCSD isn’t taken lightly ‘mdash; in fact, it’s handled so sloppily that misallegations are commonplace.
Vague academic misconduct policies jeopardize students’ rights. In 2007-08, allegations of academic misconduct increased by 30 percent, but this was accompanied by a surge of students claiming they were falsely accused and seeking help from the A.S. Office of Student Advocacy.
Of the estimated 200 students who the office worked with last year,’ only 46 actually went to trial ‘mdash; despite the fact that in 60 percent of those 200 cases, the university had insufficient evidence to support their accusations, according to Frank Carroll, assistant vice president of Student Advocacy. What’s more, of those 46 students who went to trial, only nine were cleared of accusations.
In a recent case, for example, a student athlete left town for a competition when an assignment was due. The student e-mailed in the assignment,’ but the message failed to send, prompting the instructor to report academic misconduct. The instructor asserted that the student tried to improve their grade by lying. Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, the student was fo
und guilty of academic misconduct. An appeal to the Council of Provosts was denied, and now the case will be presented to Chancellor Marye Anne Fox.
‘ Clearly students aren’t properly protected by the existing policy.
Under the Student Conduct Code, last revised in August 2008, if an instructor believes there is evidence of academic misconduct, the violation is brought to the Academic Integrity Office. The student may accept the charge, or deny it and request a formal hearing. At the hearing, a majority vote of the Academic Dishonesty Hearing Board (consisting of three faculty members, one graduate student and one upper-division undergraduate) determines the student’s academic integrity.
Unlike criminal proceedings in a U.S. court of law, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. It must only prove the student’s guilt with evidence that ‘has the greater weight’ and ‘is more convincing as to its truth when weighed against opposing evidence.’
If three out of five board members are more than 50 percent convinced the student is guilty, he or she is held responsible, according to Student Legal Services.
‘[There is] definitely no algorithm and at the end you just have to make a judgment,’ said Jonathan Cohen, associate professor and director of graduate studies in philosophy and an alternate board member on the Academic Dishonesty Hearing Board.
With such subjective criteria, we lack a definitive standard by which guilt is judged and the decision is left entirely to the board’s discretion.
Those charged face a tarnished academic career. In addition to possibly failing the course, an academic integrity violation is seared into a student’s transcript, narrowing his or her chances of graduate-school acceptance and professional success. Discipline may even include university expulsion.
Because a guilty verdict can be so damaging to a student’s future, convictions must be dealt only when there is irrefutable evidence. Otherwise, innocent students may be wrongly charged.
The UCSD Policy on Integrity of Scholarship states that students shouldn’t try to receive a grade ‘by means other than honest effort.’ Though copying a classmate’s exam clearly constitutes a dishonest effort, other offenses are not as clearly defined. The broad definition enables faculty to consider anything cheating, Carroll said.
And much of the policy is left similarly open, leaving students unprotected. For example, the academic integrity coordinator is required to provide the student adequate time to evaluate evidence before a hearing, but Carroll said his office has received evidence as little as 30 minutes prior. When a student’s academic future is at stake, 30 minutes is hardly adequate.
The policy must be revised with objectivity in mind, including guidelines for legitimate evidence. In the student athlete’s case, an e-mail should be suitable evidence; the absence of an e-mail should not.
By making the process more standardized and the rules more specific, the board can better regulate academic integrity and innocent students will be protected.
According to Carroll, the amended Policy of Integrity of Scholarship, which outlines hearing procedures, has has been in use since last quarter. However, it hasn’t been approved by the Committee of Educational Policies and Courses, the body responsible for reviewing any proposed amendments to the undergraduate academic plan.
Tricia Bertram Gallant, the academic integrity coordinator, and Charles Perrin, member of the Committee on Educational Policies and Courses, deny Carroll’s claims. But Gallant and Cohen said minor changes have been implemented to make hearings less legalistic.
Carroll requested access to the most current policy to help the Office of Student Advocacy better protect students it represents. But this request was denied because of the Committee on Educational Policies and Courses’ closed status.
Perrin said the committee is not required to make the policy public while it is in development. But closed committees and undisclosed procedural changes foster even greater confusion for those accused, and such secrecy leads to unjust rulings.
While the Office of Student Advocacy and the Committee on Educational Policies and Courses agree changes must be transparent, the current process is not. By enacting unapproved changes, developing a new policy behind closed doors and leaving the process open to subjective implementation, the committee is keeping critical information from students and student advocates. Withholding any information compromises the system’s validity. But keeping the whole process a secret makes protecting innocent students nearly impossible. And such protection must be of paramount concern, given the seriousness of allegations.
To increase transparency and eliminate confusion, the committee must publicize changes as they are implemented and keep the Office of Student Advocacy up to date.
Cheating is a very serious offense that must be addressed, but not at the cost of a fair hearing. The policy needs to be developed with full transparency and must address the issue of ambiguity. If the process remains as it is currently, little stands between an innocent student and a guilty verdict.’
Readers can contact Michelle Chin at mnchin@ucsd.edu.