Jan. 15, 2002
Senate Tables Changes
To Academic Integrity Council
Efforts to Expand Council Participation Are Put
On Hold After Questions About Permanent Record
By John Boswell
At its first meeting of the academic year, the Faculty
Senate considered a resolution brought to it by the Joint Committee
of Faculty and Students. This resolution grew out of the requirement
that the code of academic integrity be evaluated every five years by
the committee and the associate vice president for academic planning
and special projects. The code had been in effect for five years as
of the last academic year, so this was the first review.
The committee recommended that the requirement that
only full-time students serve as members of the Academic Integrity Council
be changed to allow students registered for three credit hours to also
serve. Since a good portion of our graduate students are part time,
this change would allow greater representation of graduate students
on the council.
The rest of the changes had to do with the length
of time records of punitive sanctions about academic dishonesty can
remain on student records. The code is specific as to the number of
years the notation “academic dishonesty” can remain on the
“permanent record.” The problem that has arisen has to do
with the meaning of “permanent record.” The original assumption
of the committee that shepherded the code through the hurdles and into
being was that the permanent record was the transcript. When the time
came for a student’s record to be cleared, then “academic
dishonesty” was removed from their transcript.
However, evaluation of the process of the Academic
Integrity Council revealed that the academic integrity officer maintained,
without time limits, files of all proceedings. Further, faculty members
were keeping records of cases in which they had been involved. So, when,
in response to a question from a graduate school or employer, the University
is asked whether it has a record of a graduate being charged with academic
dishonesty, how is the University to reply?
The joint committee recommended language requiring
all files concerning a student’s academic dishonesty be destroyed
when their sanctions expire. In the discussion that ensued, the question
was raised about whether the University has the right to alter its records.
Another question was whether faculty members should be required to destroy
their records of cases that they had brought against students.
The resolution was tabled and the Joint Committee
of Faculty and Students will work with people who raised objections
before bringing the matter to the Senate again. Those who would like
to know more about the debate and whose fingers inadvertently hit the
delete button when the Senate minutes for this meeting came up on E-mail,
may access the Senate’s Web site.
Send feedback to: bygeorge@gwu.edu
