By Ann R. Crowther
Beginning fall semester 2000, students who were charged with violating the university’s honesty policy faced a discussion with the faculty member bringing the charge rather than a formal  hearing. The policy is carried out in the office of Ann Crowther, assistant vice president for instruction, who reported on the first semester under the revised procedures for the Educational Affairs Committee of University Council; an excerpt from her report follows.
The short version of this report is sung to the Cole Porter tune “Night and Day.” The difference in the hearing model and the facilitated-discussion model has proven to be just that. All of the problems that we outlined in the September 2000 Report on Academic Honesty have been remedied by the modifications which result from the facilitated discussions. We now administer a policy which provides an immediate response to suspected dishonesty which is educational, firm and fair.
In place of witnesses, tape recorders, cross-examination, and opening and closing remarks, we have students and faculty members, in the presence of one neutral third party (facilitator), discussing why and how bad decisions are made and how they can be avoided, what constitutes plagiarism and why it is such a serious matter, where the line falls between seeking help from a friend and unauthorized assistance, and the importance of honesty and integrity, in college and beyond. In almost every situation the student has admitted to acting in violation of the “Culture of Honesty,” and the sanctions have been appropriately serious. I believe that students have found it easier to admit their mistakes when allowed to do so in a personal discussion rather than in a hearing with a roomful of people. Although some students have indicated at the outset of discussions that they “did not understand” why their actions involved plagiarism or unauthorized assistance or whatever, I believe that in almost every case they have understood by the end of the discussion. It has not been unusual to have students end a meeting by saying something along the lines of, “I need to talk to my friends/sorority/fraternity sisters/brothers to make them understand this stuff before they get in trouble, too.”
The faculty members who have brought charges forward under the new model, which have included teaching assistants, instructors, and all professorial ranks, have been outstanding. Almost to a person they have been firm but fair, providing clear explanations of what they saw/read/heard and why it was wrong. They have been understanding about the kinds of situations students allow themselves to get in which lead to bad decisions, have identified alternatives to the bad decisions (seek help earlier, talk to your professor, etc.), and have been unequivocal about the fact that there are consequences to those decisions. At the end of most facilitated discussions, students apologize for their dishonesty and shake the instructor’s hand. We have even had a student hug a professor as they walked out of the room after a discussion which resulted in an admission of dishonesty and a severe sanction. Tears are not unusual (we now keep a box of Kleenex in the meeting room we use in Old College), and they are not just flowing from the students.
Faculty members who have been involved in cases under both the hearing model and the facilitated-discussion model have had nothing but good things to say about the new approach, at least to those of us who work with the policy. This response may account for our doubling the number of cases this fall as compared to last fall. We expected an increase for precisely this reason: that faculty would have more confidence in the discussion model and would therefore be more willing to send cases forward rather than dealing with them themselves or just ignoring dishonesty. However, even with double the number of cases, Debbie Bell, the coordinator of academic honesty in this office, has indicated that her workload and stress level have both been reduced because of the new process.
We have had cases from six schools/colleges and 17 departments within those schools/ colleges. Additionally, we have received cases from Independent Study, the Division of Academic Assistance, and Judicial Programs. Debbie continues to talk with groups of faculty and students and is working on the creation of a Student Academic Honesty Education Team which will assist her. Debbie expects to be able to do more education across campus, of both students and faculty, now that the administration of the honesty policy does not take all of her time, and this is an another positive result of the new policy.
I suppose I could end this mid-term report by noting the misfires, cases which fell apart or “the big ones that got away,” but the truth is that I do not know of any. As an administrator with a number of years of experience in higher education, it makes me a bit apprehensive to think, much less to say, that an administrative policy seems to be doing exactly what we hoped/anticipated it would do when we devised it. Thanks to the good work of the Educational Affairs Committee of University Council and the assistance of many others, I think we did get it right this time.
Finally, allow me to note that it is critical that all members of the university community, especially faculty, academic advisers and others who work with students, support the policy and the outcomes that are produced in the facilitated discussions. Second, if there are faculty members who would be interested in serving as facilitators or in getting more information about this opportunity, Debbie Bell would be happy to talk with them. Debbie can be reached at 210 Old College, 542-0432, dbell@uga.edu. |
|
|
Forum Guidelines
To encourage discussion on issues affecting the university and higher education in general, the Forum section appears periodically in Columns. Faculty, staff, administrators and researchers associated with the university are invited to submit essays and respond to previous essays.
A committee appointed by University Council and Staff Council reviews submissions to determine which are of greatest interest to the university community. Faculty members of the Forum review committee for 2000-2001 are Jonathan Evans, English, and J. Scott Shaw, physics and astronomy. A third faculty member will be appointed soon. The staff representative is Brenda Keen of the Georgia Review.
Opinions expressed on these pages do not necessarily reflect the views of the administration of the University of Georgia or the review committee.
Articles will be edited to conform with the Associated Press stylebook.
Guidelines for submissions
• Topics should be related to issues in higher education.
• Essays should have broad appeal in the university community.
• Essays should be no longer than 700 words.
• Send essays to Beth Roberts (columns@uga.edu; News Service, A-205 Stegeman Coliseum).
|
|
