Academic Standards Committee
To:
Bill Beardsley, Chair of the Faculty Senate
From: Betsy Kirkpatrick (Chair), Academic Standards Committee
Re:
End of Year Report, AY 2003-2004
As the Faculty Senate did not send any charges to the ASC this year, we deliberated, and
sometimes acted, on items that had been suggested by last year’s committee as well as
requests submitted to the committee from faculty. We have no remaining business to forward
for consideration by next year’s ASC.
1. Student Petitions. The Academic Standards Petitions Subcommittee has so far dealt 216
student petitions, with at least 171 approved, 41 denied, and 1 on which no action has yet
been taken. Details regarding these petitions can be obtained from Brad Tomhave,
Associate Registrar.
2. Petitions Preview Team evaluation. On September 24, we evaluated the work of the
ASC administrative “Triumvirate” (aka Brad Tomhave, John Finney, and Jack Roundy)
according to criteria established by the 2002-2003 ASC (April 21, 2003). The Triumvirate
was established to help reduce the workload of faculty on the petitions subcommittee. The
Triumvirate was authorized only to approve petitions that they unanimously felt the full
subcommittee would approve, based on their experience. To test that assumption, all
petitions from the first two subcommittee meetings were prescreened and evaluated by the
Triumvirate, then forwarded to the subcommittee for their independent evaluation. In all
cases, the decision of the subcommittee was identical to the decision of the Triumvirate,
and the Triumvirate was re-authorized to continue its work with our thanks.
Subsequently, the Triumvirate was renamed the “Petitions Preview Team (PPT)” to
minimize the perception that it holds any real power (October 22, 2003).
3. Faculty Ombudsperson recinded. In March 2003, the ASC revised “Instances of
Plagiarism and Other Acts of Academic Dishonesty” to establish a position of faculty
ombudsperson, intended “to assist members of the faculty in investigating and charging a
student with such acts” (see 2002-2003 ASC End of Year Report Item 6). Unfortunately,
the revision of the language in the print version of the 2003-2004 Logger describing this
new position was inadvertently omitted. The language was included in the on-line version
of the Logger. The committee intended to send an announcement out to all faculty about
the existence of the ombudsperson as soon as we had appointed one. However, in
attempting to define the duties of the ombudsperson, we found a great deal of ambiguity in
the language, and established a subcommittee to re-examine the duties of, and possibly to
re-evaluate the need for, the ombudsperson. The consensus of the subcommittee was that
the ombudsperson’s role was quite ambiguous and probably not necessary in light of other
avenues of support for faculty with suspicions of academic dishonesty. The junior faculty
on the full committee indicated that they would prefer to talk with their departmental
colleagues or chair rather than an ombudsperson. It was decided that we should revert to
the previous policy, but edit the language to make clearer the support options for faculty
2
facing a possible instance of academic dishonesty. The revised section of the Logger (to
replace language that is currently on pages 17-19) is appended with the changed text
underlined (November 19, 2003).
4. Review of Emergency Administrative Withdrawal Policy. The Faculty Senate had
charged the ASC in previous years to review the existing Emergency Administrative
Withdrawal policy (pp. 33-34 in the 2003-2004 Logger), but the review had not taken
place because the policy had never been used. However, it was used for the first time in
the fall of 2003, so we took up the charge to review the policy. After review of its
efficacy, the policy was endorsed as written (October 22, 2003).
5. Add/Drop without prior advisor consultation . We reviewed, with reference to the final
report by the Dean’s ad hoc committee on Academic Advising, the prudence of allowing
students to add/drop without prior consultation with their academic advisors. Because no
problems with the system have become apparent, as was also noted by the ad hoc
committee, it seems that the system is working adequately as is, and the consensus was
that there is no need to make any changes at this time (October 22, 2003).
6. Tuition waiver for Music lessons. At the end of the 2003-2004 academic year, the
School of Music had submitted a request to waive overload tuition for music students who
want to register for hour-long private lessons. The committee discussed this proposal at
length, over two meetings, considering the financial implications, the fairness of
implementation, and possibility of music school requests for additional instructors to
cover increased student demand. After consultation with John Finney and Bill Barry, the
School of Music withdrew its request because of an expectation that it would not be
successful (November 19 and December 3, 2003).
7. Established “Distinguished Asia Scholor” recognition. Because the Asian Studies
program has now re-organized itself into an “Interdisciplinary Emphasis,” the first such
entity condoned by the Curriculum Committee, it no longer offers a major, and therefore
has lost its previous ability to bestow “Honors in Asian Studies.” We were therefore
asked to consider the criteria for bestowing of Distinction in the Interdisciplinary
Emphasis of Asian Studies. After revisions in the criteria, the ASC approved the request
according to the following criteria (February 6, February 27, and March 12, 2004).
A student satisfying the requirements of the Interdisciplinary Emphasis in
Asia Studies who meets all of the following additional criteria will be
recognized as a “Robert Trimble Distinguished Asia Scholar”:
1. earn a GPA in Asian Studies courses of 3.5 or above.
2. complete all Asian Studies courses with a grade of “C” or above
3. successfully complete and present a senior thesis through Asian Studies
489, Asian Studies 370, or an approved research course, seminar or
independent study in a department participating in the emphasis.
8. Due dates for final papers. The Committee affirmed John Finney’s interpretation that
final papers that function in lieu of final exams should be due at the final exam period. In
3
addition, the Committee informally agreed that Finney could continue to advise, when
asked, that all final papers in courses should be due at the final exam time to help students
plan their final exam week (March 12, 2004).
9. Removed the 6-week minimum for transfer courses. The Committee approved a
request submitted by Brad Tomhave to allow transfer of credit for courses of less than six
weeks duration if, on evaluation, such courses meet for sufficient contact hours (a
minimum of 30 hours over 3 weeks for 3 credit hours). The Committee was convinced
that the 6-week minimum functioned as a rather arbitrary standard that was cumbersome
to enforce and, by itself, was often not a good reason for denying transfer credit (March
12, 2004).
10. Declined to expand Academic Warning criteria. The Committee declined to act on a
proposal from Mary Rose Lamb to amend the Academic Warning statement in the
Academic Handbook to include Academic Warnings for students not making satisfactory
progress toward completion of a degree. Lamb suggested this amendment as a tool to help
students who repeatedly register for four courses but drop two or three of them to avoid
poor grades that reflect unsatisfactory performance. Lamb proposed that a student who is
in good standing (cumulative GPA 2.00 or higher) who drops two or more courses during
a semester should receive an academic warning letter. After much discussion, the
Committee declined to act on this request for the following reasons. First, we have a tool
in place, the WF grade, which would effectively handle this situation were it used as it is
intended to be used. Giving students who withdraw because of poor performance a WF
would trigger an Academic Warning if their semester GPA fell below 2.0. Secondly, there
are often good reasons for a student to withdraw from two or more courses (e.g, an
Emergency Medical or Administrative Withdrawal), and triggering an automatic
Academic Warning might add to their burdens. The Committee felt that there would be
numerous instances in which this blanket approach would do more harm than good.
However, the Committee sympathized with the appeal for an additional tool to enforce a
change of behavior, and offers the help of the Student Alert Group to work individually
with such students so that the advisor is not shouldering the burden alone (March 26,
2004).
11. Eligibility requirements for club sports. As a result of a student self-reporting, we
discussed whether the participants in intercollegiate club sports were bound by the
eligibility policy developed for varsity athletes. The Committee decided that club sports
were not intended to be included in that policy, and has made changes (appended) in the
language in The Logger (page 26) to clarify that the policy applies to varsity athletics
(April 9, 2004).
12. Required Academic Improvement Plans. The Committee approved a recommendation
from Jack Roundy that students who receive an Academic Warning must meet with a staff
member in Academic Advising to complete an academic improvement plan. Roundy
assured the Committee that this new requirement would not place an undue burden on
those staff members, and would be a useful tool in advising (April 9, 2004).
4
Response to Instances of Plagiarism and Other Acts of Academic Dishonesty
Introduction
Faculty are urged to review the definition of plagiarism with their classes, noting
the specific steps that will be taken by the faculty member if an instance of
plagiarism or other act of academic dishonesty is observed. (Throughout the
remainder of this section the term “academic dishonesty” is used to include
plagiarism and other acts of academic dishonesty).
1. If a faculty member has reason to suspect academic dishonesty, the
following actions are taken:
a. The faculty member may consult with the department chair, program
director, or the registrar regarding his/her suspicion of academic
dishonesty.
b. The faculty member notifies the student that she or he suspects an
instance of academic dishonesty and that an appropriate response will
be made.
c. The faculty member meets with the student as a part of the process of
determining if an instance of academic dishonesty has occurred. This
meeting may at the faculty member’s discretion include the department
chair or program director. If the student is not available on campus
because the semester has ended or for other reasons, the meeting can
happen by phone, by mail, or by email. If the student is unreachable,
then the faculty member determines responsibility based on the
available evidence.
d. If the faculty member determines that an instance of academic
dishonesty has occurred, he or she submits to the Registrar an
Academic Dishonesty Incident Report (available from the Office of the
Registrar), including reasonable documentation and the recommended
penalties to be imposed. The faculty member must provide a copy of
the form to the student. The Registrar informs the faculty member if
this is the student’s first offense or not.
e. If there has been no prior reported instance of academic dishonesty, the
penalties imposed by the faculty member conclude the case unless
either the student or the faculty member asks for a Hearing Board. If
either asks for a Hearing Board, the dean will meet with both parties to
seek an appropriate resolution. The dean may also consult with the
chair or director of the department or school involved. If no resolution
is possible, a Hearing Board will be convened.
2. When step 1d is reached and if a previous act of academic dishonesty has
been reported to the Office of the Registrar, the following actions are taken:
a. The Registrar notifies the faculty member that at least one previous
case has been reported.
b. The Registrar asks that a Hearing Board be convened to consider the
case and to apply appropriate sanctions (see the next section). The
faculty member’s proposed sanctions are forwarded to the board;
however, depending on the gravity of the offense, the board may
impose any of the sanctions described in Step 4 of the Hearing Board
procedures listed below.
5
3. The Academic Dishonesty Incident Report forms are retained in a
confidential file maintained by the Registrar only during the time of the
student’s enrollment at the University. Their purpose is to provide a record
of instances of academic dishonesty in the event that any subsequent such
reports are submitted. Contents of the Academic Dishonesty Report Forms
and subsequent Hearing Board actions are revealed only with the written
consent of the student, unless otherwise permitted or required by the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act. No entry is made on the student’s
permanent academic record of an instance of academic dishonesty, unless so
directed by a Hearing Board.
Hearing Board Procedures in Matters of Plagiarism and other Acts of
Academic Dishonesty
The Hearing Board functions as a fact-finding group so that it may determine an
appropriate resolution to the charge of academic dishonesty. Its hearings are
informal, and the parties directly involved are expected to participate. To make
knowingly false statements or to otherwise act with malicious intent within the
provisions of Hearing Board procedures shall constitute grounds for further
charges of academic dishonesty.
1. If an academic dishonesty complaint has been referred to the Hearing Board,
a Hearing Board to review the case is convened.
2. The Hearing Board consists of: the academic dean (chair) and the dean of
students, or their designees; two faculty members selected by the chair of
the Academic Standards Committee; and two students selected by the chair
of the Academic Standards Committee in consultation with the president of
the Associated Students. The parties directly involved may have one other
person present who is not an attorney. The chair designates a secretary,
responsible for recording the salient issues before the board and the actions
of the board.
3. The parties involved are asked to submit written statements and any written
statements submitted are circulated by the chair to the members of the
Hearing Board. All parties have the right to appear before the board, and
may be asked to appear before the board, but the hearing may proceed
regardless of appearance or failure to appear. The board reviews written
statements submitted by the parties and any such other relevant material
which the chair of the board deems necessary. When all presentations are
complete, the board, in executive session, reaches its resolution of the
problem.
4. The Hearing Board may find the allegations not to be factual, or the Hearing
Board may impose sanctions. Sanctions include, but are not limited to,
warning, reprimand, grade penalty, removal from the course or major,
probation, dismissal, suspension, and/or expulsion. The conclusion is
presented in writing to the parties directly involved and to such other
persons as need to know the results of the hearing. If some action is to be
taken, the chair of the board is responsible for requesting that the action be
performed and in ensuring that such action is taken. Upon completion of the
hearing, the chair maintains a file of relevant material for a period of at least
two years.
5. The decision of the Hearing Board is final.
6
ELIGIBILITY FOR STUDENT ATHLETICS
Full-time students are eligible to participate in both inter-and intra-collegiate
student activities. Part-time students may take part only in intra-collegiate
activities. Eligibility for varsity intercollegiate athletic activities is subject to the
policies and provisions outlined by the national intercollegiate athletic
organizations to which the University belongs. The faculty athletic
representative, in consultation with the Academic Standards Committee and the
registrar, determines matters of varsity eligibility.
To participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics, a student must have a
University of Puget Sound cumulative grade average of 2.00 or higher, and must
be making satisfactory progress toward a baccalaureate degree. For purposes of
varsity athletic eligibility, satisfactory progress includes having completed
successfully at least six units during the two preceding terms of attendance.
“Complete successfully” includes the grades A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C-, D+, D,
D-, and P (Pass). W, WF, F, Incomplete, and In Progress grades do not qualify
as successful completion. Freshmen presenting test scores and a high school
record acceptable for University admission are eligible to participate their first
semester. Final eligibility for student varsity participation will be determined by
the faculty athletic representative and the registrar.