Academic Integrity Policy, Committee-of-the-Whole Discussion -
Martha Cotter, Co-chair of the Senate's Academic Standards, Regulations
and Admissions Committee introduced a discussion of the Academic
Integrity Policy. Senators had been asked to read both the
Current Policy and
Draft Revised Policy
on Academic Integrity. Senator Natalie Borisovets then moved the Senate
into committee of the whole for a discussion structured around a
previously distributed framework of
background, topics, and questions formulated
to support the discussion and promote Senate and community feedback on
the draft revisions. Cotter explained that, although the framework was
intended as a guide for the discussion, comments were welcome on any
aspect of the Academic Integrity Policy.
Having entered committee of the whole, comments and questions (most of
which were responded to by Cotter) were heard on aspects of academic
integrity which included:
- collection and analysis of statistics and trends in the system;
- the level of discretion, authority and responsibility assigned to faculty in the process;
- how multiple-school affiliations and reorganization in New Brunswick could affect the process;
- indemnification and protections for involved faculty who are non-tenured or not members of a bargaining unit;
- add/drop period deadlines;
- collection, maintenance, identifiability, and correction of statistics on offenses;
- appeals and follow-up options following adjudication of cases;
- clarity and definition of offenses and penalties;
- availability of information on offenses and appeals throughout the process;
- mitigation of adversarial aspects;
- uniformity of criteria across academic units;
- firm guidelines versus discretionary guidelines;
- procedures for handling multiple nonseparable offenses;
- F-grades assigned as penalties, and inclusion of those grades in grade point averages;
- honor systems;
- inclusion of advocates for students and faculty at hearings;
- definitions and statement of offenses, penalties and due process;
- prevention of bias and excessive discretion;
- enforcement of processes defined by the policy;
- levels of offenses, and identification of continuing patterns; and
- flexibility of the policy, and how it may affect faculty involvement in the process.
Previously established time limits for this discussion having been
reached, the Senate voted to extend discussion time for 20 minutes.
Cotter again summarized the areas where community input was needed, and
invited the Senate to speak on those and any other related issues.
Continuing comments were voiced on specific topics which included:
- methods of notifying students;
- faculty flexibility in creating ways in which the provisions of
the policy can inform students about academic integrity rather than
only punishing offenses;
- various forms and examples of violations and penalties;
- extenuating circumstances affecting penalties;
- structured and required instruction on academic integrity;
- variations of offenses and penalties by class year, or graduate/undergraduate status;
- course- or instructor-specific policies, and inclusion of related information on syllabi;
- honor codes among students;
- aspects of the appeal process and hearings; and
- sharing of class notes.
Again on Senator Borisovets' motion, the Senate rose from committee of
the whole at 3:11 p.m. Cotter thanked the Senate for their comments.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT:
Vice Chairperson Paul Leath reported on the
October 26, 2007 Senate Executive Committee meeting.
OLD BUSINESS: There was no old business.
NEW BUSINESS: There was no new business.
CAMPUS FACULTY LIAISON REPORTS: There were no reports from campus faculty liaisons.
REPORTS OF THE REPRESENTATIVES TO BOARDS OF GOVERNORS AND TRUSTEES: There had been no board meetings since the previous Senate meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
Kenneth Swalagin
Executive Secretary of the University Senate