Changes to the Academic Integrity Policy at Syracuse University will differentiate academic dishonesty from academic negligence, place tighter sanctions on dishonesty and revise appeal procedures.

Following several months of discussion, the University Senate Committee on Instruction decided to update the policy in an effort to increase clarity and fairness, said Gary Pavela, director of the Academic Integrity Office. Changes became effective May 31, he said.

One major alteration to the policy is that academic dishonesty is now distinguished from academic negligence, which tends to be unintentional.

‘The university is making a distinction between an intent to deceive, like going on the Internet and taking some material and putting your name on it, and someone who made an effort to properly cite the material but left out a date or something,’ Pavela said.

Only academic dishonesty cases are subject to disciplinary sanctions by the university, so while academic negligence may still result in a course failure, it cannot go on a student’s record, Pavela said. It is up to the individual professor to decide what the student deserves for the quality of his or her work, he said.

Until recently, the policy was ambiguous; it referred to the punishment of a dishonest act and didn’t define what a dishonest act was, Pavela said. Hearing panels eventually began making that distinction. Oftentimes, if they thought the student was trying to be honest they would throw the case out, he said.

‘In reality, we’re simply writing down in the policy what the hearing panels were already doing,’ Pavela said.

Pavela said he thinks the new policy may encourage faculty to report more cases of negligence to the Academic Integrity Office because no disciplinary action will be taken. In the past, a percentage of faculty members failed to report a number of incidents because they felt their students were borderline and worried what the repercussions might be, Pavela said.

If negligence is reported, a record will be made so the office can keep tabs on the student’s progress, Pavela said. If the same student keeps getting reported for negligence, it will begin to look like it is intentional, and the student could be accused of academic dishonesty, he said.

Eric Montgomery, an information management graduate student and the first student in SU history to chair a hearing panel on academic integrity during his senior year, said the decision to distinguish academic dishonesty from academic negligence will not only save the hearing panels time, but it will also provide students with a more justified sanction.

‘There were a couple cases where it was very clearly negligence, but by the letter of the policy, we almost had to look at it as academic dishonesty,’ Montgomery said.

In previous years, the assumed punishment for any act of academic dishonesty was the XF grade penalty, accompanied by the transcript notation: ‘Violation of the Academic Integrity Policy,’ Pavela said. But now the punishment of the XF grade is designed to be the standard.

Like before, this notation may be removed for a first offense if the student successfully completes the academic integrity seminar. The instructor may also impose a lesser sanction if he or she chooses to, Pavela said.

Similarly, the old policy states that the presumptive penalty for an act of academic dishonesty by a graduate student is suspension or expulsion from the university. This was laid out in practice before, but now it is explicit, Pavela said. Graduate students are held to higher standards because they are presumed to know more and are regarded as role models, he said.

‘These are people who are going to have advanced degrees from Syracuse University, they are people who we expect to be the best of the best, so they have to be held to a higher standard,’ he said.

Another change to the policy is the revision of academic dishonesty appeal procedures. Instead of having a committee review an appeal, the associate provost for academic programs will automatically review any recommended suspension or expulsion cases, Pavela said.

While these changes are a step in the right direction, the big goal is to work on getting an entirely student-run board to hear academic integrity cases, he said.

In terms of the policy change, Pavela said students provided considerable verbal input, but weren’t involved in drafting the actual changes. Several committee members even made specific language changes after listening to people speak at the open forum.

‘I can definitely see some of the students’ perspectives and input reflected in the policy,’ said Montgomery, the first SU student to chair a hearing panel on academic integrity.

Now Pavela is working with student government leaders on expanding upon these changes to adopt more components of an honor code model, he said.

Pavela said he hopes the policy will make clear to students just how important academic integrity is because they will be imposing penalties for dishonesty.

‘Students are aware that they’re in an increasingly competitive economy. It’s hard to get a job, and the last thing you want is a notation on your transcript that you’ve been found responsible of cheating,’ Pavela said. ‘I think the word will get out — don’t do it, it’s just not worth it.’

egsawyer@syr.edu 

Published on September 6, 2011 at 12:00 pm

Contact Liz: egsawyer@syr.edu | @3sawyer