On Handling Large Cases
Background
If a case involves a large number of students then it becomes impractical for the instructor to attend every primary hearing. The proposal doesn’t solve the workload problem but the extra flexibility may help on occasion.
Related topics to explore:
- More severe sanctions whenever the misstep involves uploading to Chegg, Coursehero, etc.
- Explore ways of streamlining the Primary Hearing so that the colume can be handled.
Changes…
Current Text | Proposed Text |
---|---|
4. Procedures. (a) At the primary hearing, the faculty member shall present evidence in support of the charge against the student. The student shall be given the opportunity to respond and, if he or she wishes, to present evidence refuting the charge. | 4. Procedures. (a) At the primary hearing, the faculty member (or designate) shall present evidence in support of the charge against the student. The student shall be given the opportunity to respond and, if he or she wishes, to present evidence refuting the charge. If a case involves more than three students then the instructor has the option of delegating their role in the Primary Hearing to a member of the staff or faculty who is affiliated with their department The designee must be approved its chair. |
(c) After hearing the student, the faculty member may either dismiss the charge or, if there is clear and convincing evidence that the student has violated this Code, find the student guilty. | (c) After hearing the student, the faculty member may either dismiss the charge or, if there is clear and convincing evidence that the student has violated this Code, find the student guilty. If a designee was used then it is upon the advice of that individual that the instructor rules on the case. The instructor may wish to engage with the student before making a decision. If such a dialog takes place then it is to be treated as part of the Primary Hearing |
Comments posted below are anonymous unless you identify yourself in the comment.
COMMENTING CLOSED
6 thoughts on "On Handling Large Cases"
Comments are closed.
While I understand that it is untenable for faculty to conduct multiple primary hearings when groups of students cheat on a single exam or assignment using commercial sites like Chegg, and we have to allow for some delegation, I hate to take the faculty member out of the equation completely. For some students who cheat, they become reflective about their cheating and/or become remorseful when they understand that they have damaged their relationship with their professor and their professor “is disappointed in them.” The student in the film Cheating talks about this being the worst ramification of her cheating. I’ve heard other students say this as well. I think it would be worth thinking about how we can both retain the faculty member’s voice and make the process manageable through delegation.
Sounds fine. Is there ever a situation where a primary hearing would include a group of students who exhibited the very same behavior? Or does the importance of confidentiality preclude anything other than individual hearings? If the students were to each agree to a primary hearing with multiple students?
I have no experience with this topic and the student use of the programs used in large classes but I think this is a reasonable approach to spread the workload for professors of large classes that may experience this type of cheating most frequently.
I support these changes.
Note: Some departments don’t have chairs. Should we add or associate dean?
“The designee must be approved its chair.”
The Office of the Judicial Codes Counselor does not support the proposed change. The combination of distancing the accusing instructor from the process while still empowering that instructor to make a decision about responsibility risks depriving students of a fair process. We do, however, understand the desire to spread the burden of a heavy caseload across the department/college, so we propose allowing the instructor to delegate their role of presenting evidence at the primary hearing to another staff or faculty member associated with the department, if and only if a more neutral party (such as a Department Chair or another faculty member) is empowered to make the ultimate decision about responsibility at the Primary Hearing. Our experience has shown us that having instructors play the dual role of accuser and arbiter often means that professors come to Primary Hearings having already made up their minds and unwilling to allow compelling evidence to change them.
Primary Hearings often involve back-and-forth between complainant and accused. That back-and-forth can be especially important in cases involving multiple students, where determining, for example, “who did what when” might be crucial to shading verdicts and penalties. Whatever designees take the place of the complainant must be competent to handle that back-and-forth and als0 have enough of a grip on the big picture to conduct individual Primary Hearings with the whole case in mind.