MEMORANDUM
To: Brian Mortimer, Clerk of Senate
From: Alan Harrison, Provost and Vice-President (Academic)
Ann Tierney, Associate Vice-President, (Student and Academic Support Services)
Re: Student Academic Integrity Policy
Date: May 23, 2006
Attached is the Academic Integrity Policy for which we are seeking Senate approval. This policy, if approved, will replace the current Instructional Offences Policies as set out in the Undergraduate and graduate calendars.
Approval of this policy will require the following action by Senate:
Motion 1: That Senate approve this policy and replace Section 14 of the University Calendars with this policy with an effective date of July 1, 2006.
Motion 2: That Senate establish a standing committee called the Student Academic Integrity Appeal Committee to hear and decide, on behalf of Senate, appeals of decisions in cases of student academic offences. This Committee will be established effective July 1, 2006.
Motion 3: That Senate recommend to the Board of Governors that Bylaw 29 (Tribunals) be deleted and that the Board delegate to Senate, through a new Bylaw authority to approve policies and procedures for the hearing and determination of student academic offences.
Motion 4: That as a transition policy, the new procedures will be followed for all cases remaining unresolved on July 1, 2006.
Background
In his Newsletter of January 2006, President David Atkinson advised the Carleton Community that we were undergoing a review of policies and procedures regarding student academic misconduct, and those regarding student non-academic misconduct:
“Over the last several months, it has come to my attention that Carleton University does not have sufficiently effective or adequately understood discipline policies, either for student academic offences or for student non-academic offences. The result is some confusion among faculty and staff with respect to what should be done when a case of misconduct occurs, and a situation in which students may have no knowledge of process and little, if any, opportunity to appeal. That the University may be exposed goes without saying, and the situation generally is not acceptable for a modern Canadian university.
As a result, Ann Tierney is leading an initiative to formalize a non-academic offence policy, which will in due course, be approved by the Board of Governors; and she is working with the Faculty Associate Deans on a revised academic offence policy, which will require the approval of Senate.”
Attached to this memorandum is the attached draft policy, the proposed Student Academic Integrity Policy for Carleton University.
The Development of the Draft Policy
Over the past several months, Karen March, Associate Dean of Student Affairs, has worked with many people responsible for managing academic misconduct to review the instructional offence policies and procedures at Carleton and to prepare a draft of a revised policy.
A committee was struck to oversee this task, the members of which were:
John Armitage, Associate Dean of Science (Undergraduate Affairs)
Michael Mac Neil, Associate Dean of Public Affairs and Management (Curricular Affairs)
Karen March, Associate Dean of Student Affairs
James Miller, Associate Dean of Arts and Social Sciences (Undergraduate Affairs)
Brian Mortimer, Clerk of Senate and Assistant Provost
Donald Russell, former Associate Dean of Engineering and Design
Juan Salinas, Associate Dean of Engineering and Design (Academic Affairs)
All Committee members had managed instructional offence process for their Faculties and/or were familiar with the existing appeal and tribunal processes at Carleton. John Shepherd, Associate Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research was invited to attend all meetings, and was provided with copies of the various drafts of the policy.
· The Committee was asked to:Review the current practices for managing academic misconduct at Carleton and make recommendations for change where appropriate.
· Revise/update the categories of academic offences and penalties.
· Make recommendations with regard to timely, transparent, equitable and confidential procedures by which student academic misconduct cases are managed.
· Develop an academic misconduct policy guideline for students.
The Committee met twelve times between December 2005 and the end of February 2006. Prior to these meetings, Karen March, the Associate Dean of Student Affairs who also served as Committee Chair, interviewed administrators who have been involved in the instructional offence process, met with graduate and undergraduate students, spoke with faculty, and reviewed the current academic misconduct policy and procedural guidelines at Carleton.
A draft policy was prepared which was then reviewed and further revised after Karen March met with Brian Mortimer, Jim Kennelly, Rathika Sitsabaiesan, the Chair of the New University Government (NUG), and ourselves. A draft policy was also provided to the President of the Graduate Students’ Association for review. Policies from several other Canadian Universities were also reviewed for best practices.
Consultation with the Broader Community
On April 25, 2006, the draft policy was circulated to Faculty Deans and all Faculty Board secretaries with a request that it be considered at Faculty Board meetings. The policy was also posted on the website of the Provost and Vice-President Academic and a notice was placed in Today at Carleton. All members of the Carleton community were invited to comment on the Policy.
We received 14 written responses to the Policy. The Policy was also considered at the FASS, PAM and Science Faculty Boards and other departmental meetings. The written responses were discussed by some members of the original committee. We found the comments very helpful and many of the suggestions and comments have been incorporated into this revised draft. In general the submissions were quite positive about the policy though two responses contained more critical comments. One suggested an academic integrity policy for Faculty and Staff though it did not make any comment on the substance of the draft policy. The other suggested that the policy needed to be stronger with a more punitive approach to sanction.
Some issues were raised more than once and these are noted below with our response.
1. Terms such as Assignment and Sources should be included in the definition section.
The Committee chose not to define every term especially in cases where doing so would initiate a process by which every term is open to a formalized definition. The key terms are included in the definition section to help people understand the process in the policy and the role played by each office.
2. The policy does not include guidelines on disclosure to third parties. For example, what can be disclosed to a potential employer or outside funding agency?
It has always been a practice at Carleton to maintain the confidentiality of students who have been sanctioned for academic dishonesty. They have always been assured that their file will be kept as an internal file and, even within the University community, others cannot access this information. The Committee felt we should maintain our existing policy of non-disclosure. This practice supports the educational and rehabilitative philosophy underlying the academic integrity policy. In severe cases, a transcript notation will ensure the student will not be able to hide his/her misconduct. This issue is an issue that is being debated seriously at other Universities across Canada and the U.S in light of their own Academic Integrity policies and University privacy policies. As Ontario Universities are now subject to the Freedom and Information and Protection of Privacy legislation in Ontario, guidance can be sought from our University Librarian whose office is responsible for the privacy policy at Carleton.
3. Why is there a distinction between Suspension from a program and Suspension from the University?
This distinction exists in the University calendar and each type of suspension has always been considered separately.
4. The Science Faculty Board suggested that the Appeal Committee include at least one member of Science or Engineering, and at least one member from the Arts and Social Sciences, Public Affairs and Business.
The policy states three faculty members but the committee leaves this issue to be determined by Senate Executive as it is Senate who determines committee membership. The drafting committee would have no difficulty with accepting this amendment.
5. A concern was expressed regarding student membership in the Appeal Committee and student access to confidential information.
The drafting committee of Associate Deans had considered this issue but believed it important for students to be represented on the Academic Integrity Appeals Committee since student academic futures were being decided. Similar to faculty, students can be made aware of the importance of maintaining confidentiality and of their obligations with respect to confidentiality. There are cases at Carleton, e.g., Student representation on Senate and on hiring committees, where students have access to confidential information. Finally, other universities in Canada and the United States have student representation on their appeal committees and this practice is becoming generally accepted.
6. A suggestion that the section on Unauthorized Co-operation or Collaboration be changed to read “Unless the instructor has explicitly allowed or asked for collaborative work, individual work is to be assumed.”
The drafting committee felt the passage should remain unchanged. Acceptance of the proposed change could lead to uncertainty for students over what they can or cannot discuss or work on together. The goal of this passage was to support the idea of student interaction and collaboration as a learning experience while suggesting that boundaries need to be set on how much collaboration should/can take place. Instructors must take individual responsibility for defining/directing their students about collaboration and giving them guidelines on their course outlines and in their assignment directions. Each discipline may define collaboration differently and it is not up to the Committee to define it for them.
7. A concern was expressed about destroying records of offences.
The practice of destroying a record of an academic offence upon graduation has been a key element of the instructional offence policy which has been in operation for some time. This supports the ethos of education and rehabilitation. The policy provides for the maintenance of records in the most serious cases subject to an appeal to Senate to have records and transcript notations removed.
Other individual comments made but not incorporated into the revised draft included:
· A suggestion to include examples of conduct which may give rise to criminal proceedings. The committee preferred alternate language suggested by Logan Atkinson which has been incorporated into the policy.
· A suggestion to include a reference to co-authoring of graduate theses by supervisors in the section on collaboration. The committee felt this issue should be addressed by the Dean of Graduate Studies.
· A suggestion that transcript notions should never be subject to removal. The committee felt this was against the educational goals of the policy and inconsistent with comparable policies at other Universities.
· A suggestion that a violation of research ethics also constitutes a violation of the academic integrity policy. The committee noted that there is already a University policy for Ethical Conduct of research and that “students are expected to follow the Carleton University Policies and Procedures for the Ethical Conduct of Research”. We understand that a review of that policy is underway and, if needed, any suggestions can be incorporated in a future review of the Academic Integrity Policy.
Automatic Review
The Policy provides for an automatic review after two years. The Committee felt this was important as this policy represents a major change in the way that allegations of academic misconduct are addressed at Carleton. The Policy proposes new procedures and appeal bodies and calls for an annual report to Senate.
An automatic review after two years will allow all members of the community to reflect on the operation of the policy, and allow the review committee to consider any recommended changes and, if necessary, present a revised policy to Senate. Of course, if any changes are required earlier, we will return to Senate for approval of any proposed changes.
Final Comments
The policy contains several changes from the existing policy set out in Section 14 of the University Calendar and, in our view provides Faculties, instructors and students with a clear, transparent and fair approach to cases of alleged academic misconduct by students. The following features should be noted:
1. The policy provides a clear statement on the importance of academic integrity, honesty, fairness and responsibility.
2. The policy includes an explanation of academic integrity standards and an extensive and easily understood listing of academic offences with examples. By contrast the current policy includes a very brief statement and includes only a brief list of instructional offences and does not include several offences which should be included in any academic integrity policy. Additional offences have had to be assumed to be covered by to the existing policy.
3. The policy provides Deans (or designates) with the ability to address cases of academic misconduct, to conduct meetings and to impose sanctions. The current policy only allows Deans to have investigative meetings and requires that students agree to a sanction, failing which the matter is elevated to a full Senate Tribunal with formal processes for a first hearing.
4. The policy provides clear procedures for the conduct of such meetings to ensure fairness for students.
5. The policy provides an appeal process to a Senate Committee which ensures that students have a right of appeal and that Senate maintains oversight of academic integrity issues.
6. The policy provides a comprehensive list of penalties that can be imposed, as well as procedures for enforcement and processes for appeals. Under the current policy, all available sanctions are not clearly stated and procedures for enforcement or appeal are lacking.
7. The policy addresses several other administrative processes lacking in the current policy such as the maintenance of records, annual reporting, and notification to the Registrar’s offices and other offices to ensure that procedures are handled fairly and with appropriate consideration for confidentiality.
We believe that this policy represents an important step in highlighting the importance of academic integrity at Carleton as well as ensuring procedures for the fair and efficient handling of cases involving allegations of academic misconduct.
In closing, we should like to thank all committee members involved in the drafting of this policy. The work in preparing this policy has been considerable, and many individuals have been consulted and have made important contributions. We do though want to acknowledge Karen March for particular recognition. Her role as chair was a pivotal one and she is to be congratulated for what we believe is a major improvement in the way that issues of academic integrity are addressed at Carleton.
5
Student Academic Integrity Policy
Memorandum to Clerk of Senate 052306