ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE MINUTES
3 FEBRUARY 2003
Misner Room, Collins Library
Present
Suzanne Barnett, Geoffrey Block, Alyce DeMarais, John Finney, Kathie
Hummel-Berry, Carol Merz (chair), Jane Marie Pinzino, Steve Rodgers,
Jack Roundy, Kate Sojda, Brad Tomhave, Terin Walton-Rantz, Ann
Wilson
Absent:
Houston Dougharty, Michael Johnson, Elizabeth Kirkpatrick
At 8:03 a.m. Merz called the meeting to order and initiated self-introductions around the
room because of new or returned members of the committee this term. Merz turned
attention to the minutes of the last meeting.
Minutes. Hearing no corrections or additions, Merz declared the minutes for the
meeting of 18 December 2002 approved as submitted.
Announcements
(1) Biology 392 proposal: Finney reported that Sherry Mondou, Associate Vice
President for Finance, is pleased that Financial Services can support the
proposal [that Biology students taking the Junior Seminar (Biology 392) not be
charged overload tuition to take 4.5 units].
(2) Hearing board: Finney announced that a hearing board would meet on 7
February. Merz noted that this is the follow-up to the discussion at the previous
meeting of the ASC of the issue of convening a hearing board for a particular
case with unusual circumstances. Finney also announced that another hearing
board, for a less dramatic case, will be scheduled.
(3) Gateway policy: Finney announced that the gateway registration policy as
hammered out at the last meeting of the ASC was approved by the Faculty
Senate on 27 January and would go to the full faculty for the Faculty Meeting of
10 February.
PETITIONS COMMITTEE
Tomhave reported that the PC met on 7 January, with 4 approvals and 3 denials; this
meeting was also the probation-dismissal meeting. The PC met on 16 January, with 5
approvals and 2 denials, and on 22 January, with 3 approvals and 1 denial. Tomhave
added that he would report on the subsequent PC meeting at the next meeting of the
ASC; he noted that many petitions involved matters of registration.
The PC needs another faculty member of the ASC. The Triumvirate of the committee’s
academic-administrative members (Finney, Tomhave, and Roundy) also needs to meet.
Barnett observed that Tomhave reported no meetings of the Triumvirate after the last
ASC meeting and prior to this ASC meeting, and Tomhave affirmed that the Triumvirate
had not met this time; many petitions were about readmission, which the Triumvirate
cannot decide.
2
Actions on petitions are as indicated on printouts submitted to Barnett and summarized
below.
Date
12/17/02-01/07/03
01/08/03-01/16/03
01/17/03-01/22/03
Approved
4
5
3
Denied
3
2
1
The 2002-03 year-to-date figures are as follows:
08/29/02-01/22/03
94 (25*, 47**)
22
No Action
0
0
0
0
Total
7
7
4
116
* or ** Parenthesized numbers indicate the number of the stated actions done by the
Office of the Registrar (*) as authorized by the Academic Standards Committee for
resolution of specific issues of registration or done by the administrative Triumvirate (**)
according to established guidelines.
MEETING TIME. Merz turned to the issue of determining a permanent meeting for the
ASC this semester. After discussion of the limited number of possible times, the
committee acted as follows:
ACTION
Rodgers M/S/P [to meet on every other] Friday at 8:00 a.m. The
decision included one No vote. The next meeting will be on Friday, 14
February.
AGENDA ITEMS. Roundy called attention to the remaining ASC agenda for the year
and added the MEDICAL WITHDRAWAL POLICY; he suggested consideration of this
policy as an “affirmative” step that can be taken by the University to ease out a student
like some students in the past who were “not being students” and also were not
addressing their health problems. Barnett reminded of the intention to review the
TRIUMVIRATE SYSTEM OF PETITIONS REVIEW. Merz affirmed that these items will
be added to the agenda.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY PROCEDURES. Merz recounted that the policy of
“Responses to Instances of Plagiarism and Other Acts of Academic Dishonesty”
(“Academic Policies, Logger, 31-32) was an issue before last year’s ASC. A
subcommittee met, considered relevant materials from other institutions and the nature
of instances reported, and proposed a possible survey of faculty with regard to the issue,
as well as the possibility of an ombudsperson to whom every instance or suspected
instance could be reported. Barnett, who was a member of last year’s subcommittee,
reminded that the concerns are (1) the burden of multiple roles for the faculty member
who suspects an instance of academic dishonesty and (2) the possible conclusion by the
student involved that the instance is only a personal matter between the instructor and
the student, rather than an institutional matter. Merz noted that if the faculty member
does not have to report an instance then whether a subsequent instance has occurred is
hard to determine.
Tomhave recalled that as a rough estimate only five to ten cases are reported per term.
Roundy noted a disinclination of a faculty member to report an instance when it seems
to be an error on the part of the student (for example, not knowing what plagiarism is).
Finney pointed out, however, that a student is to know from the Logger what plagiarism
is. Pinzino stated that at Grinnell College a faculty member turns a suspected instance of
3
academic dishonesty over to a committee; the student-faculty relationship benefits if the
matter is in other hands.
Tomhave said that students he sees with reference to a reported instance are commonly
under “time pressure” and just pick up others’ work and drop it into their own writing in
and attempt to deceive. He added that faculty members say that they discover
suspected instances in students’ writing through, for example, a “change of voice” from
previous written work, or better punctuation; most reports of academic dishonesty are
acts of plagiarism. Roundy said that some faculty members do not report a suspected
instance because of the opportunity for a “teaching moment” allowed by the case.
Barnett reminded of the problems of the likelihood of “multiple first offenses” because a
first offense does not have to be reported and of the burden on faculty members to make
the decision about whether to report. Finney affirmed that junior faculty are especially
vulnerable in this situation. In response to an inquiry from Wilson, Sojda and WaltonRantz said that students generally know in middle school what plagiarism is, even
though it is handled differently at the college level. Rodgers opined that academic
dishonesty can be “academic carelessness” or “academic laziness” and supported the
view that the burden on junior faculty is especially a problem.
Further discussion covered some possibilities for action and the question of whether we
want to create an ombudsperson position or another system to take the full burden away
from the individual faculty member. Hummel-Berry said that the ombudsperson is a good
concept (the sexual harassment ombudsperson now in place is a good idea), but an
ombudsperson also would have to have a burden that seems undoable. What about
using the system we have now?
Noting that the meeting should come to a close, Merz reminded that the next meeting
will be on Friday, 14 February, and asked committee members to think about possible
committee action regarding academic dishonesty procedures. At 8:57 a.m. the meeting
dissolved.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne W. Barnett
12 February 2003
WY144;asiabook1:ASCminsFEB3’03