Committee on Intellectual Integrity
Minutes of September 20, 2006

Present: Ameigh, Bozak, Chambers, Jalife, Kay, LeBlanc, Mandel, Murphy, Santos

* Update given over the release of the survey on Monday. There have already been 318 students and 51 faculty responses. The faculty list did not include some teaching faculty (for example, Librarians) who are on a professional staff list. A listing of professional staff was circulated to filter out teaching faculty from other professional staff. Along with Librarians, OLS staff and Residence Hall directors will be kept, as well as some select others who work regularly with students in a teaching/advising role. This adds 52 names, bringing the faculty count up to 363. Invitations went to 7491 students. There have been about a dozen bounces from student emails.

* A draft of the CII website structure was distributed for review and comment.

* Discussion continued regarding Sanction Guidelines. Along with language suggested by Mike Murphy, we need to emphasize that this piece only attempts to provide faculty with guidance on an appropriate academic penalty. There is a larger process and we need to provide faculty guidance on each step of the process. We also need to be clear that this refers only to the academic penalty option available to a faculty member. We need a separate document to assist faculty in choosing between an academic penalty versus filing judicial charges.

 There was extensive discussion over the inclusion of wording in Level 3 that would refer to students who sell or otherwise provide other students with papers that are then submitted. This wording was suggested by Barbara Shaffer. With the clarification that these are illustrative examples of misconduct at the highest level, and that an academic penalty wouldn't always be appropriate (student selling a paper isn't also in the class of the instructor), it was agreed to include the example as appropriate balance with buying/downloading a paper for submission.

 Discussion also briefly touched on ways to distribute this material to faculty. One goal would be to provide a single page flyer or info sheet that a faculty member could refer to for guidance. The CII website would have extensive support and the flyer would refer faculty to that site for comprehensive support.

* Our next project has two related parts. First, Jean Chambers shared a form letter she uses to contact students who have submitted questionable work at the end of a semester and is no longer on campus, thus cannot meet with the instructor. We will distribute that form letter electronically to committee members to review and revise. We will make it available as a model to faculty.

 Our next major task, related to the above, is to provide guidance to faculty in how to conduct a meeting with a student when discussing a questionable paper or exam. Faculty are uncomfortable in such situations and providing a template of structure and questions that might be used to facilitate a productive discussion will assist faculty in having successful meetings. The use of the work "witness" (students and faculty may have another present) seems to mark the meeting as adversarial and sets an improper tone for a constructive dialog. Cathy Santos will provide some alternative language. Gwen Kay has volunteered to craft an initial draft of such a document.

* There was a question regarding retention of material regarding reported incidents. Such material should be submitted to the Dean's Office along with the notification of an incident of misconduct, per campus policy.

Next meeting is October 4, 8am, 711 Culkin.

respectfully submitted,
David Bozak

 Last Updated: 7/9/07