ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE MEETING 3/7/2008
Present: Mark Martin, Ted Taranovski, Seth Weinberger, Gary McCall, Bill Breitenbach, Brad
Tomhave, Carolyn Weisz, Debbie Chee, Mike Spivey, Kathie Hummel-Berry, Kristin Johnson,
Sarah Moore
Spivey convened the meeting. Minutes approved.
Announcements: Spivey announced that the ASC’s recent request that the Senate recommend to
the Curriculum Committee that the Academic Honesty Policy be reviewed in first-year seminars
is proceeding and the issue is now going to the Curriculum Committee, where Tomhave notes a
working group will pursue the matter.
Petitions report.
Approved
Regis.
2/21/080
2/27-/08
2/28/080
3/05/08
9/7/079
3/5/08
Approved Approved Total
Denied
PPT
Comm
Approved
0
0
0
0
No
Action
0
0
2
0
2
1
0
3
36
69
114
23
1
138
TOTAL
First item on the Agenda: Discussion of revisions to the Academic Integrity section of the
Handbook.
A revised draft in which Weisz had incorporated notes the previous meeting’s conversation was
circulated for comments, as was Breitenbach’s list of potential additions to and rearrangement of
the bulleted list. Breitenbach wondered why a warning regarding violating copyright laws is
included in the student policy, particularly given that the laws regarding fair use are in constant
flux. It was also unclear when a student would be violating copyright laws. Various members of
the committee contributed explanations; including the fact copyrighted instruments are
sometimes used in research, and use of certain documents like the Harvard Case studies do
require permission and /or payment.
Various additional issues were raised. Martin pointed out the problem of students submitting the
same paper for different classes seems particularly common, while Taranovski pointed out that
there are less clear cases, such as students working on the same topic for a thesis and a class
paper, or studying together for midterms. Taranovski urged that some clarification is important
regarding what counts as fair collaboration. Martin wondered whether issues regarding changes
in technology could be included, while Weinberger and Taranovski urged that the bulleted list be
kept as general as possible given we can not create a comprehensive, detailed list. A consensus
seemed to arise that Breitenbach’s general categories were good. Moore pointed out that no
claim is being made that this is an exhaustive list, and some issues (like copyright) are a matter
of law.
Weisz wondered whether the ASC would be willing to approve the printed version of the
academic handbook, following revisions of the wording by Breitenbach and Weisz (including
Weinberger’s suggestions regarding a sentence on the internet, see below), but leave revisions of
the supplemental material on the web to subcommittees that explicitly do not require ASC
approval for each change.
Weinberger asked whether the ASC could discuss the issue of modernizing the language in the
section on ‘Integrity and Use of the Internet and the WWW’, since this had come up previously
but had not yet been explicitly addressed. Spivey noted that this section might be going on line in
the supplementary materials, in which case it will be taken up in subcommittee. Some discussion
ensued regarding whether the statement on the internet should be in the printed handbook, versus
just online. Weinberger made the point that students seem to be very unclear about how to use
websites, often assuming that because websites have no obvious authors they are in the public
domain, applying the assumptions they have regarding music sharing to written documents on
the web. Weisz proposed a 1-sentence ‘signpost’ with a link to educational supplements, within
the plagiarism bullet. Moore agreed on the ground that issues of using the web did fall under
plagiarism, and Hummel-Berry pointed out that the style guides include instructions on how to
appropriately cite web pages.
Weisz requested more information on a timeline for having the new (printed) version approved
before summer break. Tomhave replied that the Handbook needs to be revised by mid-June, and
the web would need to be live by August 1st for the online version of the Logger. Chee
emphasized that she will find students to organize a read-through as soon as the wording is
approved. Taranovski proposed the ASC vote whether to approve the revised wording at the next
meeting, pending student feedback.
Spivey (2nd, Taranovski) motioned that a subcommittee be formed to decide on the online
material, and the ASC agreed that a member of the library (Lori Ricigliano) and the CWLT
should be included. Martin volunteered to serve on this committee, and to e-mail department
chairs a request for additional educational material.
Next on the Agenda: W/WF policy (to be discussed at next meeting – the ASC has received a
charge from the senate to consider the proposal of eliminating WF as a grade option) & an Honor
Code. Weinberger explained that he and Breitenbach have, after studying various Honor Codes
used by other universities, concluded that a Honor Code statement and public commitment or
pledge with some kind of ceremony (perhaps at matriculation), a statement on the cover of
bluebooks, or signature of adherence to the code on assignments, might be in order. They
decided against considering a system of student obligation to inform and a student-run judicial
system. They will be providing a list of more detailed concepts of what people do at other
institutions and drafting some specific proposals for the next meeting to consider.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristin Johnson