Back to Index

                                                                            WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC COORDINATING COMMISSION MINUTES

Regular Meeting  --  May 9, 2006

Chair Tom Downing called the meeting of the Academic Coordinating Commission to order on May 9, 2006 in OM340 at 4:04 p.m.  There were fourteen (14) members present, one (1) guest, one (1) registrar, one (1) recorder for a total of  seventeen (17). (See attached roster). 

Approval of ACC minutes

Commissioners approved the minutes of April 25 with a correction to a date.

Announcements and Reports:

Commissioners reviewed openings on the ACC, and are encouraged to view standing committee vacancies on the Senate website at http://www.acadweb.wwu.edu/senate .

Commissioners will elect the Chair at the May 23^rd meeting, as well as appoint Standing Committee members, and will hear comments from members completing their terms on accomplishments over the past two years.

AGENDA ITEMS

READING of Curricular Minutes – Exhibit B:

The following minutes were accepted by the Commission:

MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT

Robert Thorndike made a MOTION, seconded by Jim Hearne, “that we postpone consideration of the Graduate Council minutes of April 18^th on the grounds that we just received them at the beginning of the meeting and have not had time to review them. These minutes contain the Graduate Council’s proposed catalog copy reflecting the new “time to degree” policy, which can take effect as soon as the ACC approves it, even though the policy will not appear in the 2006/2007 catalog (since it is not more burdensome than the current policies). These minutes also include an evaluation of the MA program in Political Science, and the chair distributed a response to the review from the Political Science Department. The motion passed unanimously.

Withdrawal Policy – Formation of Ad Hoc Committee

Commissioners asked if the Ad Hoc Committee should look into all aspects of the current withdrawal policy or simply re-examine the principal issue that came up recently in ACC, namely the question about whether it is appropriate to assign a W to a student who withdraws from a class between the end of Phase III and the end of the second week of classes (as happens under the current policy). Members will review portions of the recent minutes dealing with the withdrawal policy for guidance, but they will be permitted to consider any aspect of the Add/Drop and W policies they wish.

Motion

James Hearne made a MOTION, and Robert Thorndike seconded, that the charge to the committee read as follows:

The Ad Hoc Committee shall examine the Withdrawal Policy at Western and make recommendations regarding changes by Winter Quarter 2007.  The membership shall consist of the Provost, the Registrar, the Associated Students Vice President for Academic Affairs, one additional student, and one additional faculty member.

The motion passed.

Membership

The membership was filled when James Sanders, ASVP, and Lauren Balisky were appointed as student representatives, and James Hearne as faculty representative.

Academic Dishonesty Policy

§    Commissioners were prompted to review the Academic Dishonesty Policy because of concerns expressed in the Executive Council of the Faculty Senate.  The way the policy works at present is that a student accused of academic dishonesty by a faculty member, can appeal to the chair, then to the dean, and then to the Student Academic Grievance Board.  This is odd for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the appeal is represented as a grievance against the faculty member, and perhaps the department chair and dean as well. Moreover, the conditions permitting such an appeal as limned on page 373 of the current Bulletin do not seem to have anything to do with academic dishonesty, but rather arbitrary and capricious acts of the faculty, arbitrary or capricious standards or “erroneous actions” taken by the academic unit. There is also considerable empirical evidence that faculty are often made to feel as though they are the ones on trial in the proceedings of the Student Academic Grievance Board in academic dishonesty cases.

§    Chair Downing suggested that the ACC (presumably the new one to be seated on May 23^rd) should confer with Student Life, and then form a committee that will take academic dishonesty out of the current grievance procedure. The chair suggested one possibility: A committee, called the Academic Dishonesty Appeals Board, will be formed (perhaps its members can be drawn from the same pool and in the same fashion as members of the Student Academic Grievance Board) whose task will be limited to deciding whether an act of academic dishonesty has occurred and whether the punishment for it was proportionate to the offense. Further, the formal role of the chair and the dean would be eliminated, and the appeal of the faculty member’s finding would go directly to the Board.

A free-ranging discussion ensued, in which the following points and comments were made:

§    One Commissioner suggested leaving the department chair in the process as a potential mediator.  However, nothing prevents the student from talking to the chair, but that ought not be part of the formal process.  Provost Bodman reported that for the relatively small number of cases in which academic dishonesty occurs, the current process is very burdensome.  In almost every case the chair has supported the faculty member; and the dean has supported the chair.  So being part of the process is simply a complication, and the process can be a lot more simple than it is now. In the case of academic dishonesty, a “buffer” is not needed.  This not about the appropriateness of the grade.  Rather, it is a case of academic dishonesty which the faculty member brings against the student.  This ought to go directly to the Board, and the Board renders a decision.  This new process would focus and limit the attention to the (allegedly) offending student.

§    Michael Meehan reported he had incontrovertible evidence that the current system is incredibly onerous on the workload of faculty.  Currently it seems like an exercise to make work for faculty who have gone to the extra effort to make sure that academic dishonesty by a student dishonors the other students who are doing the work.  Meehan supports expelling students found cheating.  One of the problems here is that there are not clearcut guidelines across departments so that everybody knows what they are.  In computer science, if you cheat with code or any other way, you get an F for the entire course.  This should not be negotiable.

§    Provost Bodman pointed out that the handbook differentiates between a major offense and a minor offense.  There are times when a student is demonstrated to have copied one sentence from a work, and that could be a major offense if no distinctions are made.  

§    Jeff Purdue concurred, indicating that there are differences in disciplines in how people would like to treat plagiarism.  Many students do not know what constitutes plagiarism.  They have to learn somewhere what it means.  They frequently admit without hesitation because they don’t know they did something wrong.  Especially with paraphrasing, they have to learn they have to document sources.

§    Meehan would like to insist that departments must come up with published guidelines as to what plagiarism is.  Faculty would differentiate between cheating on an exam, a serious offense, and simply getting help on an assignment, which at times is encouraged.

§    James Sanders asked if decisions rendered by the new committee would be appealable to the provost (the answer appears to be that they would).

§    Downing thinks the new proposal would make students a little more reluctant to go before such a board.  It is one thing to present yourself as having a grievance, another to present yourself as a defendant.

§    John Rybczyk would like to know, before this policy is implemented, if there can be an estimation of how many cases actually are appealed. Many are resolved by the faculty, and go nowhere else.  Would there be a large caseload to this committee every quarter?

§    Student representative Chiho Lai pointed out that committee members have to go through the whole analysis of the case, regardless of whether the dean or the chair weigh in on the case. 

§    Joe St. Hilaire, Registrar, reported that about 15 to 20 cases result in students getting an F due to academic dishonesty in any particular quarter.  Many of these, however, are uncontested.  The faculty member imposes the sanction, covering 75 to 80% of those cases.  The rest go to the chair and the dean, who uphold the decision; beyond that, very few actually get to the committee.

§    Commissioners concluded that going to the chair and dean who appear always to just back up the faculty member is not fair, or at least pointless.

§    Bob Thorndike asked whether Commissioners envisioned this committee as having the authority to alter the consequences of the action.  For example, if the penalty was F for an assignment, and not F for the course, would the board have the authority to alter the punishment suggested by the faculty member, using the policy that distinguishes between major and minor offense?  There is always the risk they could find against the faculty member on the charge itself. 

§    Provost Bodman suggested you could have the penalty assigned by the committee initially, that is, to take the punishment out of the hands of the faculty member altogether. Others disagreed and maintained that it has to be part of the committee’s role to support or overturn the penalty imposed by the faculty. Again, departments must publish their requirements, and faculty must make it clear in the beginning what their requirements are.

§    Some departments have codes of ethics, such as computer science, where students have to sign about make formal commitment concerning their use of code, and the computer labs.

§    The committee then has to be familiar with all of the policies of the different departments to make sure they know the requirements in a particular department.

§    Stan Tag asked if the makeup of the board would be the same as the Academic Grievance Board, a mixed committee of faculty and students. 

§    Provost Bodman suggested that if students ran the committee, with some faculty oversight, they would be much less lenient than a committee comprised in part of faculty.

§    Jim Hearne supported this idea, and pointed out that it makes the matter of Academic Honesty the honor of the institution, in which students have a vested interest, rather than making policemen of the faculty.  Dishonesty will diminish the value of students’ degrees.  It is possible to have a faculty member presiding over a panel of students, who are responsible for fair play; remembering, of course, that a cheater is usually a good advocate for himself.

Chair Downing will bring the comments to the Executive Council

Adjournment

Commissioners adjourned at 5:15 pm.

Rose Marie Norton-Nader, Recorder, May 9, 2006

ACADEMIC COORDINATING COMMISSION 2005-2006 ROSTER