2008 Woodie Awards
From the Archives:
Prof Lauds Academic Integrity Committee
Robert B. Shaw
Issue date: 1/28/08 Section: Features
This article appeared as a Letter to the Editor in the December 6, 1977 issue of The Clarkson Integrator.
I had the misfortune to be a party in what I believe was the first formal hearing held by the newly established student Committee on Academic Integrity. This arose out of my complaint against two students in my class in Corporation Finance (FN 361) on a charge of collaboration in the first regular examination. The hearing was conducted by the Academic Integrity Committee on the evening of November 9. The evidence was purely circumstantial and consisted entirely of a large number of identical entries - in many cases, of identical errors - on the two exam papers. The fact that collaboration had occurred was quite apparent; the real question was, which student had copied from the other.
During the hearing one student admitted his guilt. The committee felt that no charges could be proved against the other.
In my opinion the Committee conducted the hearing with dignity and with due respect for the rights of all persons involved, and I consider the decision and penalty to be reasonable under the circumstances.
Whether this procedure represents the best way to handle violations of this sort I am not sure, but I am certain that suppression of cheating depends very largely upon students' attitudes and there is no doubt that the great majority of students represent the party who are primarily and adversely affected by cheating. Accordingly, I welcome evidence of serious student concern with this problem.
I had the misfortune to be a party in what I believe was the first formal hearing held by the newly established student Committee on Academic Integrity. This arose out of my complaint against two students in my class in Corporation Finance (FN 361) on a charge of collaboration in the first regular examination. The hearing was conducted by the Academic Integrity Committee on the evening of November 9. The evidence was purely circumstantial and consisted entirely of a large number of identical entries - in many cases, of identical errors - on the two exam papers. The fact that collaboration had occurred was quite apparent; the real question was, which student had copied from the other.
During the hearing one student admitted his guilt. The committee felt that no charges could be proved against the other.
In my opinion the Committee conducted the hearing with dignity and with due respect for the rights of all persons involved, and I consider the decision and penalty to be reasonable under the circumstances.
Whether this procedure represents the best way to handle violations of this sort I am not sure, but I am certain that suppression of cheating depends very largely upon students' attitudes and there is no doubt that the great majority of students represent the party who are primarily and adversely affected by cheating. Accordingly, I welcome evidence of serious student concern with this problem.
Be the first to comment on this story