One thing is clear: you're not allowed to cheat.
However, the enforcement of academic integrity came under debate as the university senate discussed revisions to the academic integrity chapter of Miami University's Student Handbook Monday.
A revised version of the policy, proposed by Special Assistant to the Provost Richard Nault, would revise the way academic dishonesty is reported, tried and appealed.
"We wanted to make the process clear to both students and faculty," Nault said. "In a survey, 44 percent of faculty said they had not pursued a case of academic integrity in their classes. I go at this process thinking that plagiarism and academic dishonesty are often the result of students not understanding what their responsibilities are."
The proposed version would shift the responsibility of determining punishment for academic misconduct from individual department chairs to the deans of colleges.
Under the current rules, a student accused of misconduct meets with the department chair and instructor, and the chair determines whether punishment is applicable and to what degree.
In the proposed version, the instructor would present the student and departmental adviser with evidence during a hearing. If the chair or designee conclude the student committed academic dishonesty, the chair would provide a report to the dean of the division in which the alleged violation occurred.
According to the proposed change, the dean would be ultimately responsible for issuing any sanction.
According to Provost Jeffrey Herbst, this revision is intended to create more equality in academic dishonesty cases across departments.
"There are some departments that have developed a culture where this is done, faculty understand it, and it's relatively easy, but there are some where that culture does not exist," Herbst said.
Nault also said the division between dean and student would create a fairer process, saying the department chair need not check into each student's academic history before forwarding a case to the dean.
"The chair will be a neutral person making a decision on that case, then it will be forwarded to the dean for a final decision," Nault said. "We very much want the chair to make a neutral decision."
The proposed changes were met with a great deal of opposition from faculty concerned that instructors would lose control over academic dishonesty cases.
"A dean does not have the time or effort to sit and look at what actually happened in a particular situation," said William Houk, professor of physics. "If it's clear, the faculty and chair of the department have the ability to forward their recommended sanction to the dean, that's fine. But this isn't clear."
In addition, the revision would eliminate the
University Appeals Board, the five-person panel consisting of student and faculty senate members now responsible for reviewing student appeals. Under the proposed legislation, a student found guilty of academic dishonesty may appeal only by writing directly to the dean of his or her division.
Senior student senate member Anne Towne said she is wary of the proposed changes.
"I think it underestimates the faith that deans have in their faculty members and department chairs," Towne said. "Having sat on the university appeals board for the last two years, I have heard two appeals of students with academic dishonesty in danger of being suspended. From my perspective, the hearings were very constructive. I'm an advocate for keeping the university's appeals board."
Carol Hauser, senior director of human resources, said she also supports preserving the appeals board.
"I trusted the board quite a lot, and I would be less likely to trust a single person," Hauser said.
