Academic Standard Committee Meeting
September 21, 2010
Present: James Bernhard, Debbie Chee, Duane Hulbert, Betsy Kirkpatrick, Emily
Levandowski , Ben Lewin, Martins Linauts, Gary McCall, Sarah Moore, Amy Odegard,
Lori Ricigliano, Brad Tomhave, Paula Wilson
Organization. The meeting convened at 8:00 am in the McCormick Room of the
library. The committee chair, Gary McCall, lead the meeting and facilitated the
discussion. Brad Tomhave distributed copies of the Academic Handbook to all
committee members.
Business
Minutes Approved. The minutes from the 09/01/10 ASC meeting were approved.
Petitions Report. Brad Tomhave reported on petitions for the period of 09/02/2010 –
09/14/2010.
The Petitions Sub-Committee held a meeting on September 9, 2010, and on
September 14, 2010, with the following results:
2 Approved Late Adds
3 Approved Time Conflicts
3 Denied Time Conflicts
1 Approved Second Repeat
1 Approved Waiver of the Minimum GPA Required for Independent Study
1 Denied Waiver of the Minimum Class Standing Required for an Internship
11 Total Petitions
Registrar Approved: 3
Preview Team Approved: 0
Sub-Committee Approved: 4
Total Approved: 7
Sub-Committee Denied: 4
Total Petitions: 11
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Petition Sub-Committee Membership for Fall 2010
Tim Beyer
Debbie Chee
Ken Clark
Robin Jacobson
Betsy Kirkpatrick
Emily Levandowski
7.
8.
9.
10.
Marcus Luther
Sarah Moore
Brad Tomhave (convener)
Paula Wilson
Petition Meeting Schedule (Locations to be Determined)
12:30 September 14, 2010
12:30 September 21, 2010 (cancelled)
12:30 September 28, 2010
12:30 October 5, 2010
12:30 October 12, 2010
No meeting during Fall Break Days
12:30 October 26, 2010
12:30 November 2, 2010
12:30 November 9, 2010
12:30 November 16, 2010
12:30 November 23, 2010
12:30 November 30, 2010
12:30 December 7, 2010
12:30 December 14, 2010 (Tentative during Final Exam Week)
9:00 January 4, 2011 (Probation/Dismissal Meeting)
Reviewed the ASC Charges from the Senate
Gary McCall raised the following two additional topics for discussion:
Topic 1: Changing the current policy in which only faculty can report an incident of
academic integrity.
Topic 2: Consider mandated hearing boards for particularly egregious violations.
First, the committee reviewed how the Faculty Senate deals with changes to academic
policies. For the remainder of the meeting, the committee discussed Topics 1 and 2
listed above. A summary of the discussion for each topic is given below.
Summary of discussion for Topic 1
The academic handbook currently reads that only faculty can file a report of academic
integrity. The discussion focused on whether the wording of this policy should be
modified to include non-faculty, such as academic support staff.
Sarah Moore pointed out that the Academic Integrity section of the academic handbook
has been partially revised. However, the “Response to Violations of Academic Integrity”
section on pages 4-5 has not been updated recently.
It was discussed whether the academic policy should be changed to include all nonfaculty staff members or whether particular staff should be specified, such as academic
support staff, registrar, or library staff. It was noted that allowing any staff member to
report a violation is not really the issue; the problem is determining how these violations
will be sanctioned. For instance, a member of the academic support staff could report a
violation, but this staff member is not in a position to recommend a sanction.
Summary of discussion for Topic 2
The issue was raised whether the ASC should have the authority to require a hearing
board for certain egregious cases or whether faculty members should reserve the right
to handle the situation.
The question was raised as to who should decide whether a violation is severe enough
to warrant a hearing board. If the ASC committee makes this decision, it could taint
members who later serve on the hearing board for this case. It was suggested that an
ASC subcommittee could be appointed to determine which cases require a hearing
board.
Other topics of discussion
Amid the discussion of Topics 1 and 2 above, the following questions related to
academic integrity were raised:
- Can a student be sanctioned if they are not in the class? For example, if a student
helped another student cheat on an exam, paper, etc.
- Is the academic integrity process weighted against the student? It could be argued
that the student does not have an advocate. It was discussed whether an academic
advisor should be notified. Some members of the committee questioned whether
the advisor is really the best advocate; perhaps the student may not want the
advisor or other members of the department to know.
Gary McCall suggested that the committee should appoint people to draft some
language to include in the academic handbook addressing Topics 1 and 2 listed above.
Betsy Kirkpatrick moved to adjourn the meeting and the motion was unanimously
seconded.
Notes taken by Amy Odegard