Academic Standards Committee Minutes
March 11, 2002
Present: Alyce DeMarais, Robin Foster, Tom Goleeke, Suzanne Barnett, Brad Tomhave, Jack Roundy,
John Finney, Kathie Hummel-Berry, Julian Edgoose, Karen Porter, Doug Goodman, Ron Fields, Houston
Dougharty, David Lupher
1. Approve Minutes: The minutes of the February 25 meeting were approved as distributed.
2. Announcements: Foster announced that a Hearing Board (as noted in the Feb. 25 minutes) would
be meeting this afternoon.
3. Petitions Committee Report: Tomhave reported on petitions committee results from three meetings:
Feb. 22, March 1, and March 8. Over that period, 22 petitions were considered, with 18 approved (2 by
the Registrar), and 4 denied (one by the Registrar) bringing to 71 the total number of petitions handled by
the Registrar this academic year.
Date
2/22/02
3/1/02
3/8/02
YTD
Approved
3
7
8
205
Denied
2
1
1
45
No Action
Total
0
0
0
0
5
8
9
250
4. Late Add Petitions: Foster asked us to consider the motion tabled at the end of the February 25
meeting: That the Petitions Committee amend their practice in the denial of late add petitions in
two ways, 1) to send an alert to the instructor informing him or her that the student in question is
not registered and will not be registered for this course, and 2) to add the notation “no grounds
for appeal” to the late add petition form for use by the Petitions Committee in relevant cases. A
brief discussion concerning “no grounds for appeal” ensued, with Edgoose pointing out that the Petitions
Committee (PC) need not stipulate this when more information is needed, and with Foster reminding us
that at our last meeting we agreed that the PC would make explicit requests for additional information
when it was needed. Finney thought the “no grounds” option would appear as a “checkable box” on the
late add petition form, to be used as the PC thought appropriate. Barnett called the question, and the
committee voted to end discussion. A vote was then held on the motion, which passed unanimously.
Dougharty then recommended that the Registrar work out a means for implementing the new policy.
Edgoose sought clarification on the first point in the approved motion. When the PC invites a student to
provide additional information in appealing a late add, he thought, the student should be permitted to
continue attending class. Hummel-Berry inquired what the fastest turnaround time for an appeal could
be, and Tomhave replied “a week.” Tomhave added that it is unlikely an instructor would be notified not
to permit a student to continue attending before the student had a chance to appeal and receive a final
decision.
Tomhave, speaking for the late add petition subcommittee, then brought forward another motion. MS:
The ad hoc late add subcommittee moves that the authority already delegated to the Registrar’s
Office to approve late add petitions be extended throughout the semester to include the following
conditions: the student is dropping back or moving up in a sequenced course; the student needs
to register for a course required for graduation in the current or in a subsequent semester; the
student needs to register for a particular course to fulfill scholarship requirements; and the
student needs to add a co-op/internship, provided the internship coordinator verifies that because
of the specifics of placement, earlier admission could not be permitted. Fields called the question,
and the committee voted to end discussion. A vote was then held on the motion, which passed
unanimously.
Foster asked members of the late add subcommittee if they had seen any patterns that would allow us to
reduce the number of petitions filed (particularly in activity classes in music). Tomhave replied that they
had not, though he noted some steps taken in Athletics that had reduced the number of physical
education late adds and speculated that music might attempt something similar. Barnett suggested that
new regulations on late add petitions might well increase the number of petitions filed based on the
winning argument that a course is needed for the major. Edgoose replied that that argument would be
effective only when “negligence” was not involved. Finney suggested that the Registrar make an annual
report to the ASC on the late add petitions it has handled and the numbers and categories into which
these petitions fall. Tomhave observed that in practice, most Registrar approvals will continue to be of
the “paperwork” variety in which the student has been attending class from the beginning of term but for
some reason hasn’t met the add deadline. Barnett thought the PC should insist on greater specificity
than “the beginning of term” (a very flexible phrase), opting instead for “first or second meeting” or “first
week.”
5. Review the “Response to Instances of Plagiarism and Other Acts of Academic Dishonesty”
(Logger 2001-2002, pp. 33-35): Barnett opened the discussion by referring to the ASC minutes of May
2, which read in part “the review of the policy stems from a concern that the burden of response to acts of
academic dishonesty falls overly on the individual faculty member; if a University administrative body
instead carried the burden, that arrangement would remove the current situation in which an allegation of
academic dishonesty seems a “personal” matter only involving the faculty member.” She added that her
chief concern was for junior faculty and the burdens they bear both in investigating possible cases of
academic dishonesty (specifically, plagiarism) and in confronting students with a plagiarism allegation.
She proposed that a subcommittee be formed to explore a change in our policies and procedures, and
suggested that she be joined on the subcommittee by Lupher (who has taught at institutions where faculty
were relieved of the work of investigation and prosecution of these cases by groups formed to handle
them).
Lupher was agreeable to joining in this work, though he wondered whether Puget Sound faculty might
complain about the loss of autonomy in handling plagiarism cases if another body were to take them over.
Fields replied that he couldn’t imagine any faculty member complaining about being relieved of the burden
of a plagiarism case. Foster countered that she did, in fact, prefer to handle some such cases herself,
particularly when students made what were evidently errors in citation, and these occasions offered her an
opportunity to teach proper methods. Fields agreed that faculty ought to continue to handle “mistakes” in
the way Foster described, but said he’d be pleased to be relieved of “intentional” plagiarism cases.
Dougharty said he thought it would be useful to develop some measure of intentionality in these cases as
a basis for how they should be handled. Barnett said she thought the Logger’s explanation of academic
dishonesty (specifically plagiarism) was very good as written.
Goleeke asked whether we use a Hearing Board to handle egregious cases of academic dishonesty.
Finney explained that a Hearing Board was called 1) to handle second instances of plagiarism, where the
matter of academic dishonesty has moved from an issue between student and faculty member to an issue
between student and University, and 2) to handle cases in which a faculty member wishes a Hearing
Board adjudicate a first instance of academic dishonesty. He added that the current Logger may already
offer the solution Barnett seeks, in that a Hearing Board may handle first instances of academic
dishonesty. We may merely need to reorder how our policies and procedures are written.
Edgoose asked Finney how much investigation he had done in academic dishonesty cases, adding that
he (Edgoose) could envision a sort of “French magistrate” who would both look into the facts in a case
and decide whether academic dishonesty had occurred. This individual would relieve the faculty member
of burdensome investigative responsibility. Finney pointed out that he would not be in a very comfortable
position acting both as the French magistrate, doing investigations, and sitting on Hearing Boards, where
sanctions for academic dishonesty would be imposed. Barnett reiterated her chief concern, that the
faculty member who suspects academic dishonesty be relieved of the burden of confronting the student
with those suspicions; she felt that the French magistrate who both investigated the facts and confronted
the student would relieve faculty of a tremendous burden. Lupher affirmed that at the two other
institutions where he taught, faculty members were instructed not to confront students with their
suspicions, but to leave that responsibility to another body.
At this point, Foster agreed to become the third member (with Barnett and Lupher) of a subcommittee to
review this policy, and to convene that group. We agreed to continue our discussion of this issue at the
next full meeting (March 25).
The committee then adjourned at 8:50 am.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy