ACADEMIC INTEGRITY BOARD

The policy was first proposed by an ad hoc committee of 18-22 students, faculty and administrators in 1999. The committee was chaired by Tim Dodd and met for two years (1997-1999). Members of the faculty who served on the committee were Caroline Whitbeck (Philosophy and Engineering), Joanne Westin (Biology), Dave Matthiesen (Engineering), Debbie Lindell (Nursing), Jane Suretsky (Nursing), Judy Oster (English) and, briefly, Bill Deal (Religion). The policy was then presented to the Student Life Services and Environment Committee, chaired first by Cyrus Taylor (Physics) and later by Robin Dubin (Economics). It was presented at the spring, 2001 UUF meeting and tabled. The policy was adopted at the February, 2002 UUF meeting and the March, 2002 Faculty Senate meeting.

No. Honor codes are student initiated and student run. Students take full responsibility for upholding standards and all violations are handled by a student board. The ad hoc committee discussed an honor code system but students argued strongly that Case was not a good fit for an honor code. USG votes in 1992 and 1997 also rejected an honor code. The ad hoc committee believed that retaining the faculty role in adjudicating cases was valuable; developing a community responsibility-base policy was the goal. The proposed policy does contain some "best practices" from the Honor Code tradition: students educating students about integrity, the call to confront violators ("do something"), and possibly an integrity affirmation or pledge.

Again, we are not an honor code school. We don't have a tradition of unproctored exams. Proctoring is an accepted (and welcome) practice and "reasonable precaution" simply enunciates other common sense (but not always abided) practices. Students look to faculty to create a level and fair playing field; when faculty do not make common sense attempts to reduce the opportunities for cheating, students lose trust in those faculty. Students also must be conscientious and not engage practices that might unintentionally violate integrity standards or tempt less conscientious students to violate those standards.

Our wording is very careful. We say that violations "INCLUDE...", listing examples and definitions is part of the practical education of students and faculty. They are examples and not the only means of violation.

Yes, to a degree. But it is vitally important that policy creates equity and fairness (not to mention due process). Similar violations should receive similar sanctions. Individual departments and individual faculty should not develop reputations as hard or soft on integrity violations. It is imperative, from a legal standpoint, that we state policy clearly and adhere to it strictly. Reporting violations and abiding by sanctioning guidelines is essential to a just, fair and well-functioning policy.