February 8, 2008 Academic Standards Committee
Present: Jack Roundy, Brady Evans, Debbie Chee, Brad Tomhave, Seth Weinberger, Bill
Breitenbach, Gary McCall, Ted Taranovski, Sarah Moore, Mark Martin, Kristin Johnson, Ben
Bradley
Order: Moore convened the meeting and the minutes from 1/25 were approved.
Announcements: Roundy announced that the subcommittee revising the plagiarism section of the
Academic Handbook, led by Weisz, is looking at replacing the title of the policy (currently
‘Academic Honesty’) with ‘Academic Integrity,’ on the grounds it would more fully capture the
spirit of our policies and be more congruent with the student conduct code (the ‘Integrity Code’).
Taranovski shared that the subcommittee is working on both updating the definitions used in the
policy and shortening the statement. Discussion regarding including links within the statements
had raised concern regarding linking to other university’s sites, given that this would relinquish
control of content. Thus, the committee is emphasizing simplicity and maintaining an ‘in house’
approach.
Petitions report.
Approved
Regis.
1/24/081/30/08
1/31/082/6/08
9/07/072/06/08
Approved Approved Total
Denied
PPT
Comm
Approved
No
Action
TOTAL
0
6
5
11
1
0
12
5
4
0
9
0
0
9
8
30
64
102
21
1
124
Moore: A recent hearing board over a disputed grade did not find in favor of student. Three
Academic dishonesty boards are coming up.
1) Clarification of upper division requirement. Moore explained that is has become apparent that
the handbook is silent on whether or not Foreign Language and Upper Division Outside of Major
course requirements may be taken P/F, despite the fact that in practice grades have been required
for UDOM, FL, and Core requirements.
Tomhave distributed minutes from a relevant curriculum committee meeting from 11/28/03, in
which two motions were passed: “that courses taken to fulfill the foreign language graduation
requirement be graded,” and “that courses taken to fulfill the upper-level graduation requirement
be graded.”
Brietenbach asked if the CC is able to make decisions regarding this issue and asked about the
core-related discussion that occurred in the faculty meetings. Moore explained that in general the
issue of the principles behind the FL requirement had dominated discussion in the faculty
meeting, rather than the question of whether students could take the courses P/F.
In response to Weinberger’s inquiry regarding the reason the FL and UDOM requirements are
not considered part of the Core, Roundy replied that the new core was designed to be smaller,
and these other requirements had different goals than the core.
Taranovski wondered whether the reason the issue of graded credit versus P/F was not discussed
earlier reflected an emphasis on the question of how to meet the FL requirement. In addition, the
P/F option is below the radar of many faculty members, given they do not know when it is being
used.
Tomhave explained that the registrar have been counting only graded courses for these
requirements, and Roundy pointed out that there are good, practical reasons for requiring grades
rather than P/F, including the fact that students have to get a C- in order to pass. Tomhave
agreed, pointing out that every year there is a student who takes a course P/F and doesn’t
graduate.
Moore emphasized that the issue before the ASC is whether or not this committee has any
objection to clarifying the language in the Academic Handbook and bulletin so that it tells
students directly that upper division and FL courses must be taken for a grade.
Breitenbach preferred to take the question to the full faculty given that is where the question
originated. He pointed out that the arguments from the Curriculum Committee minutes seemed
to be centered on the question of a rigor requirement, while additional issues seemed to be at
stake in the question before us. For example, allowing P/F for UDOM courses might broaden
student interest in taking these courses. Weinberger emphasized that increased interest was not
necessarily a good thing, since it is hard enough to cater to those unprepared for upper division
courses.
Taranovski attributed part of the confusion to the fact that the current core requirements were
delegated to faculty task forces, rather than the faculty as a whole, so that some parts were
approved by the faculty and others were not. He wondered whether this particular modification
was significant enough to affect the nature of the core, or was it an administrative detail, in
which case it could be handled by the Curriculum Committee.
In response to Roundy’s query regarding whether it is common for the P/F question to arise with
these two graduation requirements, Tomhave replied no. Roundy urged that the question whether
this needs to be booted upstairs depends on how many students are influenced by it.
Weinberger M/S/P (Breitenbach opposed) that the language from the Curriculum Committee’s
2003 motions be adopted in the way they are written.
Taranovski asked whether we need to refer the motion to the CC, but Moore clarified that the
ASC controls this portion of what goes into the Academic Handbook. Roundy asked whether
making the logger and handbook’s guidelines identical requires committee action, as a language
rather than a policy change, and Moore replied that no, this could be viewed as a clarification of
existing policy and practice.
2) Weinberger expressed concern regarding the fact that some departments allow students to
avoid the spirit of UDOM rule since they permit courses in their department but not taken for the
major to be used to fulfill the requirement. Roundy and Evans pointed out that this is also true in
art and sciences departments, and Roundy pointed out that the Curriculum Committee has
defined UDOM as permitting courses not taken for the major but in the same department.
Weinberger reiterated his concern that this permitted students to avoid the spirit of the UDOM.
Breitenbach pointed out that a similar issue arose when students double-majored, used courses
from their minor, or connection courses taught by faculty in their major, as UDOM courses, and
suggested that this seems a greater threat to the spirit of UDOM than the P/F issue.
Roundy pointed out that the CC had wrestled with this issue at length.
In response to Weinberger’s question regarding whether it is common for students to take
UDOM in the same department as their major, Tomhave replied that many do find a way to
fulfill the UDOM through their minor or second major. Taranovski pointed out that
Weinberger’s point of concern, that of taking UDOM in the department but outside the major,
could be a problem particularly with interdisciplinary programs such as STS.
3) Continuing discussion of Academic Dishonesty, specifically the suggestions of an honor code
or quiz. Moore explained that while a committee had been formed to revise the statement, the
ASC has not discussed the possibility of an honor code. Weinberger explained why the original
subcommittee thought an honor code was important, namely, that the ADP should not entirely be
based on policing, but rather an integral part of the academic experience during which students
are encouraged to understand how and why integrity is relevant to the university. There are
numerous models for doing this, from a pledge attached to every assignment, to a formal honor
code policed by students themselves.
Moore asked what specific problems the subcommittee were trying to solve by posing the
possibility of an honor code, and Weinberger replied that the subcommittee was interested in
forming a policy based on an organic experience connected to teaching students about what it
means to participate in a university environment, rather than a statement that ‘plagiarism is bad.’
Roundy asked Evans and Bradley whether as students they thought it would have been
meaningful at convocation to embrace the idea of an honor code. Bradley offered that anything
given at convocation probably wouldn’t be retained, but that something early in students’ careers
would be useful. Martin pointed out that such a code would need to identify the students’
responsibilities in terms of the aims of the institution, and that – as always – there will be
students who take it seriously and others who don’t. Taranovski noted that presumably we are
talking about certain values which even in an academic sphere, we should be able to assume that
students have, such as knowing not to cheat or copy. The question is how to we merge the
student integrity code with that of academic values clearly.
Weinberger urged that the point is to create such a link, and to get students to understand WHY
plagiarism or incidents of academic dishonesty are moral offenses. Taranovski posed the
question whether doing so is possible through a formal document, and Weinberger replied that a
lot of institutions do so. Breitenbach offered that what he liked about the honor code system was
that the mechanism of enforcement becomes the entire student body, once it is established. Evans
pointed out that students being held accountable by students does seem more meaningful.
Moore pointed out that in previous discussions regarding an honor code, conversations became
stalled on the question of the role of Student Affairs in the issue of academic dishonesty.
Evans pointed out that students don’t read the integrity code, while Martin pointed out that
students are much harsher on each other than faculty are. McCall said that one would have to get
faculty to buy into an honor code system, for example, letting students proctor exams.
Taranovski pointed out that there are disciplinary differences in both the ability and incentive to
cheat on exams, and that no honor code can succeed without a multifaceted approach (prelude,
student involvement, an awareness that plagiarism usually leads to shoddy work). He also
warned that any honor code would inspire resentment on many levels from those who insist that
‘we are not here to inculcate values.’
Moore concluded that there sounds like there is some interest in exploring the idea of an honor
code, and asked the committee whether it could assign a working group to examine the question,
and bring forward something concrete for the committee to discuss.
Taranovski proposed that such a working group draft a statement / honor code, and Weinberger
suggested that a first step would be to look at some models from other institutions. Roundy
emphasized that such a code should be concise and credit-card size. Weinberger and Breitenbach
volunteered to form the working group.
Meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristin Johnson