MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
May 6, 2002
Present: Alyce DeMarais, Robin Foster, Suzanne Barnett, Brad Tomhave, John Finney, Julian Edgoose,
Houston Dougharty, Jo Crane, Lisa Goodner, Tom Goleeke, Ron Fields, Doug Goodman, Katie
Danielson, Karen Porter, Jack Roundy
Guest: Ben Shelton, ASUPS President
1. Approve Minutes: The minutes of the April 22 meeting were approved as distributed.
2. Announcements: Foster, Fields, and Finney thanked Danielson for her three years of service as
student representative to ASC. They noted her forcefulness, engagement, reliability, and good ideas in
her time on the committee. Finney noted that in more than twenty-five years on the committee, he could
think of few others, faculty, staff, or student, who had made more significant contributions. He then
presented Danielson with a plaque in recognition of her service.
3. Petitions Committee Report: Tomhave reported on petitions committee activity since the last
meeting. The only results reported were from the period April 20-26, when the Registrar approved two
petitions (bringing to 79 the number of petitions handled by the Registrar in this academic year). Results
from the May 3 meeting will be reported in September. Tomhave asked for volunteers to participate in
the June 5 Probation and Dismissal meeting. He also tentatively lined up ASC members to handle the
summer’s petition business: Edgoose, Crane, DeMarais, Barnett, Goodman, Porter, Foster,
Dougharty, Finney, and Tomhave.
Date
4/26/02
YTD
Approved
2
Denied
0
221
54
No Action
0
Total
2
0
275
4. Subcommittee Report on Responses to Instances of Plagiarism and Academic Dishonesty:
Foster introduced a report of the work that she and two ASC colleagues, Suzanne Barnett and David
Lupher, had done in a meeting on March 27 (see attached). Foster noted that the driving concern for
change in our policies was the burden of the many roles faculty play in a case of suspected plagiarism.
The subcommittee reviewed the policies in place at Stanford and Princeton (thanks to Lupher’s
knowledge of their systems) as they rethought our approach. At both places, plagiarism cases are taken
up by someone other than the faculty member involved (in one case an individual, in another a committee)
to determine whether plagiarism has occurred, and then a further step is taken to adjudicate the matter if
an instance of plagiarism is confirmed. Foster commented on the three issues the subcommittee
identified for discussion:
• Penalty grading: The decision on grading penalties for plagiarism is now entirely in the hands of
our faculty. There is an absence of general standards to guide faculty in levying penalties, so
penalties vary widely from case to case.
• Action for first offenses: Stanford and Princeton have standards that penalize first offenses, while
Puget Sound does not make first offenses an institutional matter. Thus significant underreporting
of plagiarism occurs at Puget Sound.
• Alternative practices: The committee thought we might consider introducing an ombudsperson
into our system. This person could receive instances of possible plagiarism from an instructor,
investigate the facts, initiate a conversation with the student, weigh the evidence, mediate a
dialogue between instructor and student, inform both of usual practices given the circumstances,
and hand the process along to a Hearing Board if either the instructor or the student was not
satisfied with a mediated solution.
Finney pointed out that changes along these lines would involve major revisions to the Logger. Crane
was curious both about how our system currently works and how many plagiarism cases are reported in a
given year (and how many go unreported). Foster responded to her first question by summarizing the
Logger’s language (pp. 29-33): a faculty member suspecting plagiarism first (a) notifies the student and
then (b) meets with that student to determine if plagiarism has occurred. If it has, the faculty member then
(c) files an incident report, with documentation and proposed penalties, and learns from the Registrar if
this is the student’s first offense. If it is a first offense, the faculty member (d) imposes a self-determined
penalty, concluding the case unless either the student or the faculty member requests a Hearing Board. If
a previous instance of plagiarism has been reported for this student, the Registrar notifies the faculty
member of this and then convenes a Hearing Board to consider the case and apply appropriate sanctions,
which may exceed those proposed by the faculty member initially.
Tomhave stated that he receives 5-10 incident reports per term. Foster was certain that number falls
well below the number of actual instances that occur on our campus. Crane asked whether we knew if
those who report instances tend to be older or younger faculty, and Tomhave said he wasn’t sure.
Finney clarified the distinction we see between first and subsequent instances of plagiarism. At Puget
Sound, first instances are a matter between the faculty member and the student, while subsequent
instances are a matter between the student and the University. The problem with our significant
underreporting is that individual students may commit multiple first infractions, with the institution (and its
faculty) none the wiser. Finney added that we see between 0-6 second instances per year, ones that go
to Hearing Boards. He pointed out that Hearing Boards can be very time consuming for many people, as
they may meet as many as three or four times to adjudicate a case.
Barnett expressed her three chief concerns as a member of the subcommittee: 1) the burden on
instructors in playing multiple roles in these cases; 2) the student’s perception that an instance of
plagiarism is a “personal matter” between the faculty member and herself, rather than between her and
the University; and 3) our ignorance of how widespread our academic dishonesty problems are, a problem
better and safer reporting (which an ombudsperson would facilitate) might resolve. Foster added that an
ombudsperson, as mediator, would also offer students protection from overzealous faculty who
sometimes penalize them unfairly. She noted that in informal conversations with students and faculty
alike, the ombudsperson idea was popular.
Dougharty asked about who served as ombudsperson at Princeton and Stanford. Foster answered that
Stanford has a judicial officer, a member of the faculty, as well as a committee. The officer does initial
mediation before the committee is involved. Princeton has a committee only, without a judicial officer.
Dougharty also wanted to know whether these schools separated academic offenses from other honor
code violations. Foster didn’t know about Princeton, but said that Stanford’s committee dealt with
academic matters only.
Goleeke agreed with the tenor of our conversation, arguing for consistency in handling offenses and for
relieving faculty of their many burdens in handling plagiarism, but he thought we should make our changes
within the structures we already have. He proposed that the half of the ASC that each term is not serving
on the petitions subcommittee could be given the subcommittee assignment for handling academic
dishonesty cases. The person serving in the ombudsperson’s role could be a member of the academic
dean’s staff. Fields thought it would be a good idea for us to survey the faculty to determine how
widespread a problem we have before implementing policy changes.
Danielson and Goodner were asked how widespread they thought academic dishonesty was at Puget
Sound, and they said they had no idea. Danielson approved the idea of an ombudsperson so long as
that person did not levy penalties. Shelton wanted further clarification on how the ombudsperson would
serve. Was the ombudsperson to decide what penalties should be imposed? Foster said no, the
ombudsperson would serve as mediator, offering (a) a sense of what were customary and usual sanctions
in given cases, and (b) the opportunity for student and faculty member to decide if a given penalty was
appropriate. Either would of course still have the right to request a Hearing Board.
Finney agreed with Foster’s assertion that not many of our faculty are now following our reporting policy,
but was not convinced that they would do so in the proposed new system, either. He speculated that
faculty reluctance to report came from their fear of “marking a student for life,” and that a new reporting
and adjudication system would not remove that fear. Whatever system we have in place, he said, we
need to do a better job of explaining and demystifying it for the faculty. Foster replied that the informal
nature of the new system might make a difference in faculty reporting. She added that the goal of revision
should be better resolutions and greater consistency in academic dishonesty cases. She thought we
wouldn’t have time to make these revisions this year, but wondered if the survey envisioned by Fields
could be administered this summer.
Fields said he thought underreporting was understandable, given his experience that 99% of plagiarism
cases are a result of ignorance or inexperience on the part of the student. Foster noted that whatever
system we choose, the faculty member will still be the first contact in these cases. Fields speculated that
our survey would reveal many more instances of academic dishonesty than are currently reported, but few
meriting punishment. Shelton agreed that most first offenses are mistakes, and can be handled by the
faculty. Goodner thought that where academic dishonesty is suspected, it ought to be reported, however.
Barnett concurred, saying we need a “change in culture,” to escape our current situation in which a
student may commit 5 or 6 unreported first offenses.
Finney said that if we devise a survey, it should ask 1) how prevalent is academic dishonesty, and 2)
would faculty support a change in systems that would constrain their prerogative in handling these cases?
Dougharty thought the heart of the matter might be whether we want a centralized or a decentralized
system. Porter thought an important consideration was the “transparency” of a stronger reporting
system—how visible does an offender become when her offense goes on record? Tomhave was sure
that our current system, in which few people know about first offenses, and where academic dishonesty
records are both stored separately from students’ official files and destroyed when students graduate,
would be continued with respect to guarding student confidentiality. Goleeke repeated his concern that
our conversation continued to point toward an ombudsperson as a solution—he would prefer that the ASC
and Academic Dean’s office share the responsibility of handling these cases.
Goodner wondered who would have time to handle these cases, especially if we were successful in
increasing the number of reported incidents. Foster thought a faculty ombudsperson might be granted a
release unit for the work. Dougharty noted that the Sexual Harassment ombudsperson does not receive
a release unit, but in that case, the burden of the work is not terribly great, either. Finney felt quite certain
that the new role envisioned by the subcommittee could be very time consuming indeed.
Foster concluded the discussion by offering to work on drafting a survey. Porter and Barnett offered to
join her in this work.
As we were preparing to adjourn, Barnett wanted to be sure that this issue was on the ASC agenda for
the coming year, and Foster assured her that it was. Roundy also requested that the ASC review the
faculty policy on restricting juniors and seniors from enrolling in 100-level and 200-level “gateway”
courses, set to be implemented in November’s registration for spring classes. He requested that ASC
review of this policy be undertaken before November.
As the committee was adjourning (at 8:56 am.), Dougharty added his kudos for Goodner’s excellent
service as a student representative to ASC this year, to a round of applause by everyone present. The
committee gave a similarly warm round of applause to outgoing chair Foster for two years of excellent
committee leadership.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy
Report: ASC subcommittee to review response to instances of academic dishonesty
March 27, 2002, 15:00-16:00
Members Present: Suzanne Barnett, Robin Foster, and David Lupher
Summary of purpose: The subcommittee met to consider procedures in the response to academic
dishonesty that would relieve faculty of the multiple responsibilities with which they are currently
burdened. These include identifying the event, initiating the action, accusing the student,
validating the act by reviewing the evidence, judging the student, and deciding on appropriate
penalties.
Brief Review of Procedures at Other Institutions: The subcommittee reviewed the honor codes
and procedures for violations of the honor codes for Stanford and Princeton Universities (thank
you David). Each of these universities has a committee (Judicial Committee--Stanford; Honor
Committee and Faculty/Student Committee on Discipline--Princeton) or individual (Judicial
Officer--Stanford) to whom violations of the honor code are directed. Of course, the faculty
instructors initiate inquiries into academic dishonesty, but beyond that, their role varies.
Issues for Discussion: Subcommittee members identified the following three issues to present to
the full committee:
1. Penalty grading: Should instructors have the ultimate decision in whether to assign
penalty grades, in general? As regards academic dishonesty, should instructors
determine the nature and severity of the penalty grade?
2. Action for first offense: Should the action taken for first offense of academic
dishonesty differ from the action for second offense?
3. Alternative practice: Should we consider new procedures that would reduce
instructor responsibility and/or uncertainty about managing instances of academic
dishonesty, for example by creating an ombudsperson/ committee position that would
oversee such cases?
A procedure involving an ombudsperson might follow a structure similar to one
practiced at Stanford:
♦ Faculty initiates contact with ombudsperson and presents evidence.
♦ If ombudsperson determines that academic dishonesty has occurred, the
ombudsperson contacts student.
♦ The student has an opportunity to respond to ombudsperson, presenting
evidence and position. (Instructor may or may not be present).
♦ Ombudsperson makes a judgment about whether or not academic dishonesty
has occurred.
♦ Penalty: determined by faculty in consultation with ombudsperson?
Determined by a hearing board?
Should this role be assigned to an ombudsperson or committee? Would a
committee include student members?
Who would serve as an ombudsperson? If faculty, how what compensation
would be appropriate (course release? payment)?
How much authority would the ombudsperson have? Should he or she consult
and mediate, OR make decisions and set penalties?