Academic Standards Committee Minutes
February 13, 1998
Present: Barry Bauska, Ken Clark, Greg Elliott, Kate Evans, John Finney, Tom Gething, Susannah
Hannaford, Martins Linauts, Mary Morgan, Rochelle Nguyen, Jack Roundy, Marianne Taylor
Guest: Ivey West
1. Minutes: With compliments to stand-in secretary Martins Linauts, the minutes of the January 30
minutes were approved as written.
2. Announcements: There were none.
3. Petitions: Morgan reported that the Petitions Committee had met twice since that last meeting, and
that she has processed some petitions herself that didn’t require committee review, all of which are
included in the statistics below:
Date
2/6/98
2/13/98
YTD
Approved
13
11
168
Denied
4
5
30
No Action
1
1
2
Total
18
17
200
4. Review of Academic Dishonesty Policy Language: Finney reviewed Gething’s March 1997
observation that auxiliary verbs used in the Logger’s policy statement on “Response to Instances of
Plagiarism and Other Acts of Academic Dishonesty” (p. 8) create ambiguity. Where the opening
paragraph refers to “steps that will be taken by the faculty member,” the steps themselves are proposed
as “actions [that] should be taken.” Gething proposed using the timeless present tense for the
enumerated steps to eliminate ambiguity.
Bauska commented that he didn’t care for the introductory paragraph of the policy, including the directive
“will.” He believes that to review plagiarism with his classes (which the policy urges) would have a
dampening effect on the tone he wishes to set for them. Elliott added that any policy telling the faculty
what they “will” do is doomed to be ignored by many. Finney explained that the policy was imposed by
faculty upon themselves, and was intended to encourage the education of students (particularly freshmen)
so that they won’t stumble into academic dishonesty through ignorance. Finney went on to say that the
policy is designed to make it clear that the first instance of academic dishonesty is between the student
and the faculty member, where succeeding instances are between the student and the University. The
language of the policy is intended to show how a faculty member can both handle the case before her and
lay the groundwork for the University’s handling of subsequent cases. Evans, returning to Bauska’s
point, endorsed the notion that faculty should clearly spell out what plagiarism is to their students, either
orally or in their syllabi, so that thereafter students would clearly understand what actions would constitute
violations.
Returning to the language used in the policy, Clark recommended that “will” or Gething’s timeless
present tense be used throughout, making the expectation that the steps be followed clear and consistent.
Elliott agreed, saying that the result would be a clear policy, even though he doubted that all faculty would
follow it. Elliott further picked up on Bauska’s discomfort about how a plagiarism lecture might affect the
tone of a classroom, wondering whether the University shouldn’t adopt an “honor code” rather than
maintaining this “penal code.” Finney, Bauska, Linauts and Roundy talked about an ASC
subcommittee’s efforts two years ago to develop a campus honor code, the results of which have
languished with the departure from campus of the people who did most of the work. Elliott thought it
unfortunate that the Logger focussed more on directives for responses to violations than on what we most
want, which is to help students understand what distinguishes academic honesty from academic
dishonesty.
In a brief digression from the topic, Morgan asked student members whether they found the Logger
generally readable and understandable. Nguyen said she has rarely looked at it, and believes that other
students rarely do, either, until “something comes up.” Evans rarely looked at it until she became a
member of the ASC, and said that in some places it seems illogical, citing the section on Sexual
Harassment. Bauska added that he thought faculty, like students, rarely consulted the Logger. Wrapping
up the discussion, Bauska inquired whether we were agreed that we should shift policy language to the
present tense throughout (following the initial “will”), pursuant to Gething’s proposal. All assented. He
asked if there were suggestions for further changes in the policy, and there weren’t. Finney then
volunteered to draft a revision for review at the next meeting, to which all agreed.
5. Report of the Medical Withdrawal Subcommittee: Guest West introduced the subject by reporting
that she had reviewed the medical withdrawal policies of a number of other institutions, and that she had
reviewed all the ways in which Puget Sound students can withdraw from the University with Morgan. Her
conclusion, in which the subcommittee concurred, was that psycho/emotional medical withdrawals could
be handled under the same policy used for other sorts of medical withdrawals.
She did recommend however, that a formal step be added to the medical withdrawal policy to deal with the
reenrollment of medically withdrawn students in future terms, and distributed a draft form for use by
medical providers in making recommendations about whether a student should return. The committee
generally liked the form and the notion that medical providers be asked to make a recommendation before
students be allowed to return. West suggested that the form be used for all medical withdrawals, not just
psycho/emotional ones, since medical readiness would apply in the context of any health-related
departure. West also addressed the issue of ADA-mandated “reasonable accommodation” for students
withdrawing for psycho-emotional reasons; when their conditions are chronic (another knotty question
itself), they are entitled to accommodation, but only if they provide documentation and seek such
accommodation. West was agreeable to including language to that effect on medical withdrawal petition
forms.
Morgan requested committee guidance as she takes over management of medical withdrawals in the fall
of 1998. Specifically, since policy directs that completed petitions and physician’s statements be provided
to the Registrar (Morgan the Registrar’s designee in this case), and since in practice the ASC has invited
Morgan to act on its behalf rather than in each case making recommendations to the committee about
these cases, Morgan foresees a circumstance in which she will make recommendations to herself. In
clear-cut cases, since the University will defer to the judgment of medical professionals, this will not be a
problem. In marginal cases, Morgan would like assistance in reaching a decision. She recommended
that the Student Assistance Team (SAT) led by Dean Gething be consulted in such cases. Finney
inquired whether she wished to see this system of consultation appear in the policy statement, and
Morgan replied she did not. Given the role of the SAT in handling difficult student cases and the nonpolicy nature of the consultations, all assented to Morgan’s working with that group on marginal medical
withdrawals.
At Morgan’s request, Roundy shared his concerns about serial medical withdrawals of students with
chronic psycho/emotional disorders. West pointed out that some institutions, like PLU, do not allow more
than one medical withdrawal. Roundy mentioned that he had suggested to the subcommittee that Puget
Sound disallow more than one medical withdrawal for the same condition, a more flexible policy than
PLU’s but still addressing the problem of serial withdrawals. Finney had persuaded the subcommittee not
to propose this, on the ground that a returning medically withdrawn student acting in good faith to fulfill
conditions for reenrollment might well face a medical crisis nonetheless, and we should not institute a
policy that would punish that student. Following the subcommittee meeting, Roundy said, he had
suggested another approach to Morgan, which was to make enrollment for the term following a student’s
return from medical withdrawal contingent on their compliance with their physician’s recommendations on
the Medical Withdrawal Reenrollment Form. Though this would not prevent students from seeking a
second medical withdrawal, it could well forestall a third and subsequent withdrawals for the same
condition.
After suggesting that Medical Withdrawal ought to appear in the index of the Logger, Bauska asked
whether procedures for reenrollment after medical withdrawal ought to be spelled out in the new policy.
Finney proposed adding another paragraph to do that. Bauska asked if the subcommittee could do so
and bring the revised policy to the next ASC meeting. All agreed, and Roundy volunteered to develop a
draft amendment.
Bauska brought the meeting to a close at 2:53 as he distributed Morgan’s memo about a review of the
Independent Study Policy, which we will tackle at the next meeting.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy