The University of Oklahoma
(Norman campus)
Regular session - April 14, 2003 - 3:30 p.m. - Jacobson Faculty Hall 102
office: Jacobson Faculty Hall 206
phone: 325-6789
e-mail: facsen@ou.edu web site:
http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/
The
Faculty Senate was called to order by Professor Ed Cline, Chair.
PRESENT: Abraham, Baldwin, Bozorgi, Bradford,
Brady, Carnevale, Cline, Davis, Ferreira, Fincke, Gensler, Gottesman, Hanson,
Hart, Havlicek, Henderson, Huseman, Kauffman, Knapp, Lee, London, Madland,
Magid, Maiden, McInerney, Milton, Morrissey, Newman, Pender, Rai, Ransom,
Robertson, Rodriguez, Rupp-Serrano, Russell, Scherman, Sievers, Striz, Tarhule,
Taylor, Thulasiraman, Vale, Watts, Wheeler, Whitely, Wieder, Willinger
Provost's office
representative: Mergler
ISA representatives: Lauterbach
UOSA representatives: McFayden
ABSENT: Beach, Cuccia, Devenport, Frech,
Hartel, Wyckoff
________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Announcement: 2002-03 Campus Departmental Review Panel
Senate Chair's Report:
Senators who received awards
Health benefits
Regents' policy manual
Preliminary nominations for committee
vacancies
Proposed revisions in Academic Misconduct
Code
Midterm grade report
_________________________________________________________________________________
The
Faculty Senate Journal for the regular session of March 10, 2003 was approved.
The
following faculty will serve on the 2002-03 Campus Departmental Review
Panel: Keith Gaddie (Political
Science), Barbara Greene (Educational Psychology), Scott Gronlund (Psychology),
David Gross (English), Peter Krug (Law), James Martin (Educational Psychology),
Bill McManus (Construction Science), Dan O'Hair (Communication), Joyce Palomar
(Law), Sandra Ragan (Communication), Larry Toothaker (Psychology), and Courtney
Vaughn (Educational Leadership & Policy Studies). The five units in Business, five units in Fine Arts, Aviation,
and Journalism & Mass Communication will be reviewed.
Prof.
Cline congratulated the senators who received awards at the faculty tribute
April 10.
Prof.
Cline announced that enrollment for the health care plan was going on and
informational sessions were being held.
All employees have to re-enroll in one of the new health insurance
plans.
At
its meeting with President Boren last week, the Senate Executive Committee
suggested that the administration put out requests for proposals to various
insurers to see if there are other health care plans that are competitive with
the state plan. Many faculty members
had requested that the university provide a Blue Cross/Blue Shield option. However, the state plan does not allow other
insurers. The Executive Committee also
discussed with the president the possibility that Human Resources would present
health care proposals in the first semester of the year, which would allow more
time to study the proposals before we have to decide on a plan and enroll. The president agreed that that was
reasonable.
Prof.
Cline thanked Professors Al Schwarzkopf, Mike McInerney, and Valerie Watts for
going to the state Capitol last week to thank legislators for their support in
general and for their support, in particular, on the tuition bill.
A
task force chaired by Prof. David Levy (History) reported to the Senate
Executive Committee on the revisions being proposed in the regents' policy
manual. A number of issues need to be
addressed. A task force will be
appointed to recommend specific changes.
These changes will be presented to the Faculty Senate next academic
year. President Boren and Provost
Mergler indicated that the Senate will have plenty of time to submit
revisions.
The
Committee on Committees' nominations for end-of-the-year vacancies on
university and campus councils, committees, and boards (attached) were presented
at the meeting and will be voted on at the May meeting. Nominations can be made from the floor with
the permission of the nominee.
Revisions
in the Academic Misconduct Code (attached) were proposed by
Assistant Provost Greg Heiser, in consultation with student leaders and the
Faculty Senate Executive Committee. The
Senate will vote on the proposal at the next meeting. Dr. Heiser first pointed out some of the small changes in the
draft dated 4/9/03. He eliminated the
steps at the beginning. They were never
an official part of the code. Web sites
and other user-friendly ways summarize the process. A small change was made in the definition of academic misconduct. To speed things up, the charge would go to
the Campus Judicial Coordinator instead of the dean (section 2.4). The student would get 15 days rather than
two days to request a hearing. A small
change was made in the section on maintaining the records of sanctions (section
7.6). Students often do not realize
that the misconduct record lives on after the incident is over. The main change is in section 2.3. In some cases of academic misconduct, the
incident could be an instructional matter rather than a disciplinary
matter. Under the current Academic
Misconduct Code, it is not officially permitted for faculty to assign a grade
reduction, although it has been a practice on campus. Any time a conclusion is drawn that a student's conduct
constituted academic misconduct, a charge is supposed to be filed, and that has
certain advantages. The student then
gets due process. But it turns what
could be a “teachable” moment into a procedure that could take months to clear
up. By instituting this additional
option--the admonition-- it might be possible, in some cases, to set the
student straight and move on. Whenever
the instructor determines that the incident that meets the definition of
misconduct might be better treated as an instructional matter rather than a
disciplinary matter, s/he would let the student know what happened and what the
appeal procedure is and would give the student up to a zero on an
assignment. Because this step would not
result in a record of academic misconduct, it would be restricted to
assignments that are not the most important coursework. The student would have a right to
appeal. This is a considerable change
from current procedure, in which the instructor has to file a charge and the
student has to meet with the campus judicial coordinator before anything
official is permitted to happen.
Prof.
Milton asked whether the process was similar to what other universities
do. Dr. Heiser said he had looked
mostly at Big 12 institutions, and there was quite a range. At OSU, an incident is handled by the
faculty member. OU is at the other end
of the spectrum, where a faculty member has to file a formal charge. Kansas State has an honor system, in which a
charge has to be filed and investigated by a special committee before anything
can happen.
Prof.
Taylor said she liked the idea of having an option. However, rather than a grade change, which could be appealed,
there should be a standardized agreement for the student to sign saying they
accept the penalty. It is the
responsibility of students to prove that they did not commit misconduct. It should not be the burden of the faculty
member to prove that they did. Dr.
Heiser said currently, the burden of proof is on the faculty member to show by
a preponderance of evidence that the student committed academic
misconduct. Dr. Heiser's concern is
that students could say they were coerced if they were required to sign
something. Another suggestion that was
discussed was whether to have a witness, but he chose not to move in the direction
of additional procedures. Prof. Taylor
said her understanding was if the student challenged the grade reduction, then
the incident would move into the regular academic misconduct path and later on
to the grade appeal path. Dr. Heiser said that was correct. The other way that an admonition could move
into the regular stream is that the matter had to be reported centrally. If a student was a repeat offender, then the
admonition option would be foreclosed.
Prof. Magid asked how the records of admonition would be kept. Dr. Heiser said they would be kept by the
provost office. It would be possible
for the provost office to review an incident to see whether a student's acts
were egregious enough to merit something more than a grade reduction. Because the time frame is fairly short, the
provost office will depend largely on the faculty's judgment about the
appropriate penalty. Prof. Magid asked
whether student government agreed that an admonition would not be appropriate
in a second incident. Dr. Heiser
replied that for quite some time, the UOSA General Counsel’s office had wanted
some way that matters could be settled without moving through the entire,
sometimes slow, procedure.
Prof.
Havlicek asked whether faculty would have to indicate the grade a student would
have received if s/he had not committed academic misconduct and the grade
imposed because of the act. Dr. Heiser
said his assumption was the faculty member would give meaningful information to
the student about the penalty. Prof.
Hart said he would like an explanation of the logic behind using the admonition
for some parts of the coursework and not for others. He said he thought it would send a message that it was okay to
negotiate on certain assignments but not others. He said, "It seems to me academic misconduct is academic
misconduct." Dr. Heiser said he
had left out all limitations in an earlier version, but student affairs and
student government had wanted some limitations. For important assignments, it probably would not be appropriate
to use an admonition This option
suggests a face-to-face meeting, which is difficult in the case of end-of-term
assignments.
Prof.
Tarhule noted that new students might not know what they could and could not
do, and he was inclined to be more forgiving of new students than senior
students. He asked whether there was
any provision that made that distinction.
Dr. Heiser said the policy could be applied equally to freshmen through
graduate students. He said he had seen
one or two instances where a faculty member determined that a graduate student
was genuinely unaware of certain rules.
Prof. Fincke asked whether a case in which one student copied or
plagiarized from another student would go through the whole process. Dr. Heiser responded that some faculty
members think they should file charges on both and let the Academic Misconduct
Board sort it out. Technically, the
burden is on the faculty member to present enough evidence from which a
reasonable board can conclude that a student committed the academic
misconduct. The admonition does not go
to that question one way or the other.
Prof. Russell commented that the faculty member is called upon to be
both the district attorney and the judge.
Dr. Heiser said he had discussed the proposal with Legal Counsel and
Prof. Steve Gensler (Law and a member of the Senate Executive Committee). What gets around the problem of the faculty
member fulfilling two roles is that a student's admission would not be
construed as an admission of guilt; it would be more in the nature of a
settlement. That is the way it is done
in a lot of systems.
Prof.
London remarked that given the amount of interest the proposal had already
generated, perhaps the whole faculty should be asked to provide comments. Dr. Heiser said that would be fine but that
he would like to have some version of this in place by next fall. Prof. Cline said he would solicit comments
from the general faculty, transmit them to the Senate Executive Committee and assemble
them for the senators.
Prof.
Taylor asked what would replace the steps that were being deleted. Dr. Heiser said the faculty member's guide
to academic misconduct was on the provost’s web site. Also, a flow chart is on the web site and part of the Faculty
Handbook. The steps were ambiguous
and really were not part of the code.
Only the verbal description would be deleted. Prof. Taylor said she thought it would be helpful to faculty to
have some reference of where to get information.
Prof.
Wieder wondered whether a department could further specify the acts that would
require the full process. There is
tremendous variation in the way in which incidents are handled, and it can
cause stress in a department. Dr.
Heiser commented that there always will be the possibility for some variation
campus wide. He thought a department
could issue guidelines but wondered whether a department could override a
faculty decision. Provost Mergler said
she thought it would be useful for departments to have discussions about the
parameters faculty members use for academic misconduct. There is a change in this generation of
students in how they perceive knowledge and the Internet. Dr. Heiser added that another issue was courses
that have many sections, possibly taught by TAs or adjuncts.
Prof.
Fincke noted that she liked the current system because it is unambiguous. A faculty member cannot be pressured by
someone else to do something less than file a complaint with the dean. The change would certainly cut down the
load. It will be important, though, to
discuss the issues within the department.
Otherwise, there could be a lot of variation, which could send students
a mixed message. Prof. Whitely said in
his experience as chair of an Academic Misconduct Board, faculty never bring a
case unless the preponderance of evidence was so great that there was no
question that a student committed academic misconduct. He asked, "Wouldn't it be appropriate
to have the same evidentiary standard for an admonition? Otherwise the student would be likely to seek
the alternative process." Dr.
Heiser said the evidentiary burden should be the same. He said he hoped this would not turn into a
system whereby students could get an admonition based on an unfounded
suspicion. The student would always
have the option to challenge, and the faculty member would have to show
guilt. Prof. Whitely commented that it
would be wise to make it clear that the same evidentiary standards apply to the
admonition alternative to reduce the probability that the student will decide
to go through the regular misconduct procedure. Dr. Heiser replied that it might be good to spell that out,
although he thought it was implicit. A
change UOSA had suggested, which was incorporated in section 2.2, was that the
faculty "shall," rather than "may," initiate a preliminary
inquiry. UOSA also requested that the
instructor provide the basis for the charge of academic misconduct.
Prof.
Striz pointed out that it would not be wise to go ahead with any of this unless
the instructor had proof. Because of
the effort involved, it is not the worth the chance of getting shot down later
on. Prof. Bradford observed that
faculty members were not being given an easy way to punish a student. They were being asked to judge whether the
student did something out of ignorance and to give the student a remedy. The purpose for recording the admonition is
if the student continues that conduct, we know it was not ignorance. Dr. Heiser said he was right that the aim
was to give the student a warning.
Hopefully the warning would be given when the student needs a warning
and not something stronger. Prof.
Bradford asked about the situation in which a student could have been honestly
trying to do his best and did not know a particular conduct was wrong. Dr. Heiser said in a case like that, the
current way to proceed would be to file a charge and let the Academic
Misconduct Board or dean decide the fault and intent. The proposal would give that decision, in large part, back to the
faculty.
Prof.
Vale said she liked the idea of an admonition, which she used effectively
once. Her director would welcome a
discussion with the faculty as to what is appropriate for an admonition There are degrees of misconduct, which her
school can figure out and still keep the checks and balances in place. Dr. Heiser noted that the admonition would
give faculty extra responsibility to decide which option was more appropriate,
but he hoped this was something faculty would appreciate. Prof. Vale said when she was chair of a
board, very few cases were filed. That
indicated to her that the faculty was very discriminating about turning cases
in and handled incidents well.
Prof.
Baldwin said he assumed that if a student did not accept the admonition, the
instructor could drop it or upgrade it to a full academic misconduct
charge. Dr. Heiser said it would be
upgraded simply by the student's decision to contest it. Students would have fifteen days to contest
the admonition, and the only way they could contest would be by going through a
hearing. The faculty member could still
have some power over the procedure, in that s/he could withdraw the complaint
or recommend that the case no longer deserved academic misconduct. Prof. Baldwin wanted to know whether a
student who had agreed to an admonition could later contest it. Dr. Heiser answered that once the time to
contest had elapsed and the time for the provost to impose an institutional
penalty had elapsed, then the student had no more power to alter the decision.
Prof.
Abraham asked if the student appealed and it went to the board, whether a
record would be put in the student's file.
Dr. Heiser said that once a student appeals and it goes to a hearing,
the result is a judgment of guilt, and that constitutes a record. The decision could be altered based on a
professor’s recommendation. Prof.
Abraham pointed out that there is a separate university sanction. Dr. Heiser said that in some cases, a
separate university sanction is nothing more than a censure.
Prof.
Fincke asked for clarification of "regular class days." Dr. Heiser said it meant university, working
days. Ms. Beth McFayden, Graduate
Student Senate liaison, asked about the Intersession classes exception. Dr. Heiser said those days were excluded
because a lot of offices are shut down during those periods.
Prof.
Havlicek asked whether faculty would be asked to enter a second opinion about a
penalty if a student requested an appeal of an admonition. Dr. Heiser said he would give that some
thought. He said the system should have
an instructional component, and he would hate to penalize students for
exercising their rights. On the other
hand, there is something to be said for giving some consideration to students
who accept responsibility in a timely way.
Prof. Hart asked about a professor's liability if the student got legal
representation. Dr. Heiser said the
professor would not be liable since s/he would not be asking for any particular
penalty. In a hearing, the professor is
trying to establish guilt.
Dr.
Heiser explained that the university has had an increase in the number of
academic misconduct cases. He said he
did not think any one approach would help with the problem. He hopes this admonition is closer to what
some people might be doing already.
UOSA will be considering an academic integrity pledge that would sum up
the expectations of the student community.
He hoped the Faculty Senate would applaud those efforts. Whether or not UOSA passes the pledge, there
is nothing now that would prevent faculty from adding integrity statements to a
syllabus, test, or other assignments.
Prof.
Milton said the midterm grade report now asks faculty to report students who
are receiving Cs. The cover letter says
students with Cs, Ds, and Fs are at risk.
He said he thought this promoted grade inflation. His department is most unhappy. Prof. Hart said his department had the same
discussion and was unhappy about the change.
The implication is a C is a bad grade.
Provost Mergler said the initiative came out of the task force on
retention and reflected the desire of academic counselors to get a better
sense, particularly for freshmen and sophomores, if they are headed into
difficulty. The report is now called
the early progress grade advisory report, and it includes Cs. The recommendation was to do reports earlier
in the semester so the academic counselors would have the information in time
to help students perform the best possible.
All that is being asked is for faculty to give as much information as
possible slightly earlier in the semester.
The
meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. The next
regular session of the Faculty Senate will be held at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, May
5, 2003, in Jacobson Faculty Hall 102.
____________________________________
Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator
____________________________________
Valerie Watts, Secretary