[In these minutes: Academic Integrity Declaration, Definition of
plagiarism]
STUDENT ACADEMIC INTEGRITY COMMITTEE
(SAIC)
MINUTES
FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 2001
1:00
- 3:00
300 MORRILL HALL
[These minutes reflect discussion
and debate at a meeting of a committee of the University of Minnesota Senate or
Twin Cities Campus Assembly; none of the comments, conclusions, or actions
reported in these minutes represent the view of, nor are they binding on the
Senate or Assembly, the Administration, or the Board of
Regents.]
PRESENT: Dorothy Anderson (Chair), Mark Bellcourt, Steve
Brandt, Shawn Curley, Linda Ellinger, Yev Garif, Betty Hackett, Robert Pepin,
Angelita Reyes, Daniel Svedarsky.
REGRETS: Amber Benning, Leslie
Meek, Carston Wagner.
GUESTS: Kathy Skelton.
1. ACADEMIC
INTEGRITY DECLARATION
Betty Hackett, Director of the Office for
Student Academic Integrity (OSAI), distributed the Clayton report, noting that
this was the final recommendations from a subcommittee formed out of the
athletic scandal. One charge of the subcommittee, and the focus of this report,
was academic misconduct at the University. Recommendations from the report
include establishing an academic integrity office, starting a pledge, and
creating an honor system.
Since the report was issued, the student pledge
has received the most attention. It was originally proposed as a declaration of
academic integrity to advance a student’s commitment. It has been noted
that the University would be the biggest institution to consider a pledge and
that it usually takes four to five years to implement. Some people want the
pledge in place for this fall’s students, while others have expressed
opposition to the pledge. If next year’s students will use a pledge, then
it must be in place by mid-May so that it can be incorporated into the
orientation sessions run by New Student Programs. The concept should also be
reinforced at convocation next Fall.
Questions have also been raised as
to how signatures would be obtained, when this would be done, if signing would
be mandatory, and what the penalty would be for refusing to sign. This
committee will need to provide answers to these questions
Committee
members then made the following comments:
- Administration is being pressed to follow through on use
- Will the pledge be mandatory or voluntary, and how does this affect its
total effect?
- Student buy-in is important otherwise the effort carries no weight
- Students appear to be in favor of a pledge if it enhances the value of their
degree and clarifies a student’s expectations
- If the pledge is not a legal document, can anything happen to a student who
signs the pledge and then violates the pledge?
- Cheating students are in the minority and will find loopholes anyway; the
pledge is really to set expectations for the majority of honest students.
- Pledge is a reminder of a student’s personal responsibility and
respect for people in general
- Pledge has been labeled a ‘rat clause’
- Students could just sign the pledge without following its conditions
- Pledge could be introduced by the college, once a student is acclimated to
the University; timing and placement will be very critical to its success
- Pledge should be built into admission materials
- Record keeping system needs to be developed to accurately track
students
- Faculty need help prosecuting students
- High school culture needs to change
- At the University, Veterinary Medicine, Natural Resources, and Pharmacy
already have a student code and the Law School has an honor system
- Academic integrity needs to be addressed by each college
- Students need to see academic integrity as an institutional value, which can
be accomplished by the President mentioning it at convocation like he did last
year
- There cannot be an assumption of prior values
- Student still needs to choose to follow what is prescribed in the
pledge
- Faculty should define academic integrity for students; with enough time a
culture will be created
- Students will not have any noticeable change from only one brush with the
topic
- There is value in being explicit with students
- How will transfer students be dealt with?
- Statement could be read aloud at convocation rather than signing a
statement
- Preamble from Student Conduct Code might need to be reworked to incorporate
academic values
- Constant reminders are needed
- Honor code should be used a starting point instead of a pledge
- Information should be included on every syllabus
- Students should be constantly reminded in class, by advising, and in the
residence halls during their first semester
- Information needs to be presented in different ways to avoid
overkill
Q: What institutions have a pledge?
A: A
pledge is used less than an honor code statement, although it is usually at
small schools that have a mandatory pledge.
Q: What are the current
penalties and will a pledge really make any changes?
A: A pledge will not
enhance any penalties already in place, and there are no automatic sanctions for
academic dishonesty. In most cases, a student receives an ‘F’ in a
course for cheating, although faculty always have discretion to impose a
different penalty. The hope is that a pledge will reduce the number of cheating
cases.
Betty Hackett noted that her belief is that it is too early to
start a pledge since there are other, better, ways to connect with students.
Students need to lead the effort. Faculty also need to be acclimated to new
forms of technical cheating.
Dorothy Anderson said that Natural Resources
has an honor code which works. Students are informed of this concept during
orientation. There have only been two cases of cheating in almost 50 years.
While this may be because students are aware of the policy, it is just as
important to have faculty buy-in so that all cases are reported.
The
committee then took a vote to table a pledge at this time and start with a
declaration. The motion was approved.
2. DEFINITION OF
PLAGIARISM
Betty Hackett said that a concise definition of plagiarism
is needed so that students know what it is and what it is not. The committee
also needs to determine if a uniform definition of plagiarism is possible or if
the definition should be defined by each individual faculty
member.
Committee members then made the following comments:
- Technology needs to be covered in the definition
- General statement will not address all issues
- Specialization of definition might be needed at the departmental level
- There will likely be different standards between colleges
- Definition should be included on all syllabi
- Code should be placed on transcript to denote that a student received an
‘F’ because of cheating
- Faculty cannot be a central repository and be expected to catch all
cheaters
With no further business, Dorothy Anderson thanked
the members for attending and adjourned the meeting.
Becky
Hippert
University Senate