To:
From:
Date:
RE:
Missouri Western State University Faculty Senate
Csengele Barta, Chairperson, Academic Regulations, Standards and Honesty Committee
March 5, 2015
Annual 2015 Report
Committee members from Aug 1, 2014 – July 31, 2015: Csengele Barta, Adrienne Johnson,
Bob Long, David McMahan and Philip Nitse. William Church serves as the Faculty Senate
Liaison. The Registrar, Director of the Center for Academic Support, and one counselor are exofficio (non-voting) members.
Purpose:
The Committee provides for faculty participation in the establishment, ongoing review and
revision of academic regulations and standards and serves as the final review board for violations
of the Academic Honesty Policy.
Academic Regulations and Standards Charges/Duties:
a. Act as an appeal board for students placed on scholastic probation or suspension.
b. Act as final review board in case of student grade appeals.
c. Review and recommend academic regulations concerning grading, grades on transcripts,
admission standards, test-out programs, etc.
d. Review criteria for scholastic status: probation, suspension, honors, etc.
e. Forward reports regarding student and faculty personnel matters to the appropriate administrator
with a copy to the Senate President for inclusion in the Senate locked file (see Duties of President,
paragraph 8).
f. Forward recommendations to the Senate Executive Committee for appropriate action.
Academic Honesty Charges/Duties:
The committee acts as the final review board for students who have been accused of violating the
Academic Honesty Policy. The Academic Honesty Policy, as well as the policies and procedures
governing the committee’s activities, are outlined in the current Student Handbook. Unless
otherwise instructed by the Faculty Senate, this committee adheres to the Academic Honesty
Policy and the operational policies and procedures outlined in the current Student Handbook.
Narrative:
The committee met during the Fall 2014 Faculty Planning Days to discuss and accept the
Academic Standards, Regulations and Honesty charges listed above given to the committee by
Faculty Senate.
The committee met on the 7th of January, 2015 to review and discuss 13 suspension appeals from
the Fall of 2014, adhering to the attached Guidelines for Review of Appeals Form. Of the discussed
appeals, 9 were submitted by students Admitted with Conditions (AWC). The committee
determined that none of the reviewed appeals satisfied the criteria required for the reinstatement
at that time and upheld in each case the decision of academic suspension.
On the 11th of January the committee has been notified that additional evidence surfaced in the
case of one of the earlier discussed suspension appeals and met again on the 12th of January to
review the additional supportive documents. After discussions, in light of the additional evidence,
the committee determined that
a) by eliminating 10-year old college credit from the student’s GPA calculation would
alleviate the circumstances leading to their suspension and that
b) based on the student’s academic record and individual circumstances, the appealing
student has a reasonable chance of success if reinstated.
Therefore the committee recommended overturning the original suspension and reinstating the
student.
The committee will meet in May, 2015 to review suspension appeals from the Spring of 2015.
In an effort to better serve the student population of Missouri Western State University the
committee recommends the continued revisiting of the Academic Renewal procedure.
In early January the committee was also asked by the Provost’s Office to resolve two academic
honesty issues. In its January 7th, 2015 meeting committee reviewed and discussed one of the two
cases of allegations of Academic Honesty Policy violation and plagiarism a student has been
reported for and reviewed the student’s appeal. The committee reviewed all evidence and found
that the student did violate the MWSU Academic Honesty Policy and unanimously recommended
upholding the standing violation charge, overturning the appeal. The committee also met on the
16th of January, 2015 to discuss the second case brought in the committee’s attention by the
Provost’s Office, reviewing an appeal of Academic Honesty Policy violation and plagiarism
decision. After reviewing submitted evidence and discussions, the committee found that the
student did violate the MWSU Academic Honesty Policy and unanimously recommended
upholding the standing violation charge, overturning the appeal.
Additionally, the committee has also been charged with
a) working on updating the Academic Honesty Policy Guide language, with particular
emphasis on clarifying the somewhat vague phrases, present in the current policy which
are open to ambiguous interpretation. An example of such would be: “If the student’s grade
is affected, the faculty member must file a MWSU Academic Honesty Violation Report”.
Clarifying the language would provide a straightforward guide to requirements and
procedures of reporting violations.
b) making a recommendation on possibilities for adopting a secured centralized data-base
system, logging repeat offenses of academic dishonesty.
The committee currently works on the above charges. Recommendations to the Faculty Senate
will be made prior to the concluding of the Senate’s 2014-2015 sessions. Please note, this
committee is in session until the 31st of July, 2015.
Respectfully Submitted,
Csengele Barta – Chairperson
Guidelines for Review of Appeals Submitted by
Academically Suspended Students
When reviewing an appeal submitted by an academically suspended student, the
Academic Regulations and Standards Committee must follow a procedure
consistent with the current University catalog. The Committee may reinstate a
student based on documented circumstances beyond the student's control or
because their GPA is adversely affected by grades over ten years old.
Each of the following must be satisfied for reinstatement:
1. Determine if the student experienced circumstances beyond his or her
control.
2. Determine if these circumstances were actually the cause of the student's
poor performance.
3. Determine whether the student has provided documented evidence
supporting claims that such circumstances caused the poor performance.
4. Determine whether documented evidence has been provided that these
circumstances have been alleviated for the coming semester.
5. Determine, based on the student's past academic record, if he or she has a
reasonable chance of success if reinstated.
OR
1. Determine whether eliminating ten year old college credit from the student's
GPA calculation would alleviate the circumstances leading to their
suspension.
2. Determine, based on the student's academic record and individual
circumstances, if the student has a reasonable chance of success if reinstated.