Tackling cheating head-on
FSEC subcommittee urges faculty to make efforts more 'proactive'

By SUE WUETCHER
Reporter Editor

Faculty members need to be more proactive in communicating to students what constitutes plagiarism and academic dishonesty, the chair of the Faculty Senate Student Life Committee told members of the senate's Executive Committee at the body's meeting May 4.

This "proactivity" should include the insertion of a statement in each course syllabus spelling out exam decorum and behavior, defining plagiarism and outlining the consequences of academic misconduct, Jeannette Ludwig, committee chair and associate professor of modern languages and literatures, suggested to her colleagues.

Faculty members who have inserted such a statement on their syllabi have reported that it "saves them unending grief" when cases or suspicions of cheating arise, Ludwig said.

She pointed out that some institutions-most notably Tufts University-have Web sites that are readily available to students that specifically outline what constitutes plagiarism and academic integrity.

At UB, the rules and regulations for student conduct-including those applying to academic integrity-are published by the Division of Student Affairs each year in the Reporter, she said, urging senators to study the disciplinary procedures outlined in those rules and seriously consider including them in their syllabi as well.

Ludwig reminded faculty members that they have the authority to impose numerous sanctions when a determination of impropriety has been made, including admonition, warning, revision of work, reduction in grade, mandatory resignation from the course or failure for reasons of academic dishonesty.

"Some students are not aware that those are all legitimate and usable resources at the faculty's disposal," she said.

She also noted that some faculty members feel that the burden of proving cases of academic dishonesty falls to them, rather than to the students. It is important to provide institutional support-even moral support-for those instructors who have witnessed cheating or suspect plagiarism on the part of students and who decide to pursue cases against students they suspect of academic dishonesty, she said.

Faculty members "carry around in our heads a value system (concerning academic integrity) that doesn't always get transmitted to students," she said. It is critical, she stressed, "to make clear to our students what that means. It's an obligation that we have because it's the rules we work under."

Ludwig also said that many cases of cheating are handled with the students receiving failing grades, and are not reflected on a student's "permanent record." The subcommittee discussed the possibility of strengthening procedures to establish some kind of "repository" that would collect data on persistent cheaters, she added.

Melvyn Churchill, professor of chemistry, told his colleagues that while a faculty member can take action against a student suspected of cheating, the student also can take action against the faculty member via a grievance procedure.

If a student accused of any kind of academic dishonesty grieves the action of the faculty member, "the chance of his not winning is approximately zero," Churchill said, calling the procedure "an absolute nightmare" for the faculty member.

"The grievance process has got to be dealt with at some stage so that it becomes something other than a legal 'footsy;' it is, at the current moment, ludicrous."

Churchill applauded the idea of establishing a repository of information on cheaters, but noted that if it only contained information on those students against whom formal action had been taken, "it will be the world's smallest repository of information."

In another discussion at the FSEC meeting, the chair of the senate's Tenure and Privileges Committee reported on the role interdisciplinary centers and institutes should play in the promotion process.

Margaret Acara, committee chair and professor of pharmacology and toxicology, told senators that interdisciplinary centers and institutes are "important in the scholarly life of the university community," fostering interaction among diverse areas of the university. However, these units are not intended to replace the departments, she said, noting that departments should continue to be the sole venue for faculty hiring and promotion.

But in order to promote the growth of interdisciplinary units and encourage faculty participation in these units, "it is essential that such participation be fairly considered and evaluated in promotion decisions," she said.

Among the rules the Tenure and Privileges Committee has recommended are:

- A faculty member's participation in an interdisciplinary unit should be discussed with and agreed upon by the department chair and the head of the interdisciplinary unit.

- Credit for teaching and research associated with units other than the faculty member's department should be considered in the promotion process. The head of the interdisciplinary unit should be consulted by the chair in the preparation of the dossier, including providing a letter, providing appropriate names for the solicitation of reference letters and participating in all discussions of the promotion by the department's voting body of record and during other discussions of the candidate's case by the department.

The FSEC voted to transmit the committee's report to the full senate.

Senators also heard a plea from a representative of the English Graduate Student Association for their support in opposing a proposed increase in the student Comprehensive Fee.

Laurie Ousley told senators that graduate students cannot afford an increase in the Comprehensive Fee, which, she said, constitutes 10 percent of teaching/graduate assistants' salaries, after taxes.

The Comprehensive Fee, which includes the SUNY College Fee and support for technology, student health, transportation, campus life and intercollegiate athletics (undergraduates only), would increase by $75 per year, to $860 annually, for graduate and professional students, and $155 per year, to $1,140 annually, for undergraduates under a university budget plan being considered.

Administrators say the increase is needed to further enhance student technology programs and improve the quality of campus life.

The FSEC referred the matter to the senate's Budget Priorities Committee.