1. What are your feelings about James Hunter College enforcing their rules that did not permit students accused of academic dishonesty to have legal representation in disciplinary proceedings only to turn around and violate their own Code of Academic Integrity when they did not let the accused students have “the right to ask questions of the witnesses who testify in Honor Council proceedings” because the professor was on sabbatical when the hearing was held? Keep in mind that the courts are close to unanimous in holding that there is no legal right to the full and active participation of an attorney in student disciplinary cases.
2. How ethical do you think it was for the chair of the panel to call the professor when the panel had adjourned for a week because they were not able to come to a verdict? Subsequently, most likely due to this call, John and Metad were found guilty.
3. Do you think thank academic dishonesty is properly categorized as a disciplinary offense, or should this be a matter or academic judgment?
4. There are many objections to this case that the lawyer who was hired by John and Metad came up with, some examples include, the insufficient time for the heating notice, John claiming to suffer from a mental disability, Metad’s plea that he was an international student, the fact that the hearing was a circus, the professor degrading John, and numerous others. Are any of these objections worthy of the court’s time/student honor council’s time? How would you have handled this situation differently?
Please feel free to respond to only some or all of the these questions! Also, if there is anything else from this case study that anyone would like to discuss, please feel free to do that as well.
I can understand how a university could have a rule not allowing legal representation to students for these types of hearings. I understand that these hearings can be very important and could possibly have a huge impact on everyone involved, but they are normally more informal than a court hearing, and it would drive up the cost and amount of time it takes to settle these hearings if attorneys were allowed to be involved. I do believe that the students should have had the right to question the professor. The college had a code of academic integrity policy that stated that the accused has the right to ask questions of witnesses during the hearing. I do believe that since the college didn’t allow this to happen that the college infringed on their due process rights and the college violated it’s own policy. Institutions need to follow their own policies so that everything is done fairly. Overall, I think it is a bad practice for institutions to not follow their own policies and one day that could lead to trouble for them. I just want to mention that I do believe the students were guilty; however they were still owed their due process rights according to the college policy.
Sara, you’ve posed some excellent questions for us regarding the James Hunter College case. Several issues about this case were concerning, and seem to be at the heart of the issue. (1). According to John and Metad, proper notice (in advance and in writing) was not given of the hearing. Established procedures require that adequate notice be sent to students in advance and in writing so students can prepare for, and be available to attend, the hearing. At Hunter, the written procedures required that students receive written notice five days in advance of the hearing. (2). At a minimum, arrangements should have been made for the professor to be present via conference call to participate in the discipline hearing. While cross-examination is not a constitutional “right” in student discipline hearings, the opportunity for clarifying or following up on statements is important. The professor was not present, so the two students were not able to address their “accuser”. The professor supplied a written statement; however this did not allow the students to question her regarding her perception of the events or to clarify basic “facts” which might have changed the end result. Cross-examination – and even simple clarification – serves to help insure a fair trial. Pavela discusses the “Golden Rule” approach in discipline hearings, and, undoubtedly the faculty member would have wanted to face her accusers had the situation been reversed. These two students were not accorded a very basic and critical component of a fair hearing. (3). Clearly, the professor’s testimony was essential to determining the final outcome of this case; due to remaining questions, the chair of the hearing panel contacted the professor by phone following the hearing without the rest of the discipline panel or the two accused students being present. The Chair then notified the other members of this hearing committee – providing the panel with what was then second-hand knowledge of the professor’s responses. This additional step precluded the accused students from participating, asking questions, or from having their opportunity to challenge statements made by their professor. In my estimation, this error in judgment on the part of the discipline committee was serious and at the very least, meant the two students did not receive a “fair” and “open” hearing. One even might be concerned that the guilt or innocence of these two students had been pre-determined prior to the formal discipline hearing. (4). Since no written notes or other proof of cheating were found, the merits of this case depended upon the professor’s statements or what occured. It doesn’t seem that other students were called to act as witnesses – or that there was much for others to have witnessed, other than the professor quietly telling John to sit elsewhere (a fairly common request during test-taking). Is it not possible that the students were telling the truth? They studied together for the test – a very common practice – so it is likely that they did have the same answers for the short answer questions, and both stated that they didn’t perform well in essay exams. In the absence of the professor, and given the severity of the punishment (suspension), perhaps the hearing panel could have looked at some other options for punishment. (5). Lastly, I loved the attorney’s assertion that even if it was proven that the two students did “collaborate” during the test, Metad’s culture allowed this type of “collaboration” so therefore Metad should be excused from facing these charges since the College had a commitment to encourage diversity! I hope John had his own attorney since this one seemed ready to sell him out in order to “save” Metad…
Matt, I think I have to agree with you about the fact that students were most likely guilty, but the fact that their due process was compromised; it is a really difficult situation to judge. The institutions do need to follow their own procedure though. I think, at some point, if they continued to act this way, they would be in trouble. But, we have to keep in mind that this is a private institution. Donna, I’m really glad that you brought up the “Golden Rule” part of the case study because that was a part that really made me think twice about the actions of everyone else because certainly, the teacher would want fair treatment as well. This article was full of things that could make someone crazy if they were trying to argue this case. I was very glad that it was prefaced by stating that the typical allegation would almost certainly be less complicated and contentious. It would be interesting to see how a “circus” like this would really be played out. Do you think the same judgments would be made if we brought this into court tomorrow and allowed the lawyer to be an active participant? Also, let’s pretend that the teacher was there for questioning too! What do you think the outcome would have been then?
Most institutions prohibit attorneys and parents (without permission) for attending, let alone representing a student in a hearing (academic or judicial) - these are policy infractions and not determined in courts of law. Institutions vary on who hears/handles academic honesty infractions, but to my knowledge all have some type of process.
Different levels of evidence are used and it is fundamentally not a criminal/civil case. Typically there is not a finding of guilty/not guilty as these are "legal" terms - most judicial processes find the student responsible/not responsible for violating policy. The University wants to deal with the students appropriately - UNFORTUNATELY, by not following written protocol the judicial body was in error and if I was advising the students, I would suggest they appeal. Now, here is the interesting part, and not similar to the court at all - typically an appeal for procedural misconduct if granted either remands the case back the original board or a different board (ASCA Model Code of Conduct) - it does not just find the student not responsible, so the prudent thing would be to rehear the case with all the "t's" crossed and "i's" dotted.
I believe that academic dishonesty should be considered a disciplinary offense in all cases. The purpose of a Student Code of Conduct is to provide a set of guidelines and ethical barometer by which students are to behave in an educational setting. Anything that goes against the Student Code of Conduct should be considered a disciplinary offense. While I understand that some universities choose to put anything dealing with academic dishonesty as part of an honor code (and therefore sanctionable under a separate set of rules), if the main goal of the university is to provide an education and an offense is being committed that goes against the very existence of the educational system (which is guided by the exchange of ideas and proving that information has been learned), then it should be a disciplinary matter.
1. What are your feelings about James Hunter College enforcing their rules that did not permit students accused of academic dishonesty to have legal representation in disciplinary proceedings only to turn around and violate their own Code of Academic Integrity when they did not let the accused students have “the right to ask questions of the witnesses who testify in Honor Council proceedings” because the professor was on sabbatical when the hearing was held? Keep in mind that the courts are close to unanimous in holding that there is no legal right to the full and active participation of an attorney in student disciplinary cases.
ReplyDelete2. How ethical do you think it was for the chair of the panel to call the professor when the panel had adjourned for a week because they were not able to come to a verdict? Subsequently, most likely due to this call, John and Metad were found guilty.
3. Do you think thank academic dishonesty is properly categorized as a disciplinary offense, or should this be a matter or academic judgment?
4. There are many objections to this case that the lawyer who was hired by John and Metad came up with, some examples include, the insufficient time for the heating notice, John claiming to suffer from a mental disability, Metad’s plea that he was an international student, the fact that the hearing was a circus, the professor degrading John, and numerous others. Are any of these objections worthy of the court’s time/student honor council’s time? How would you have handled this situation differently?
Please feel free to respond to only some or all of the these questions! Also, if there is anything else from this case study that anyone would like to discuss, please feel free to do that as well.
I can understand how a university could have a rule not allowing legal representation to students for these types of hearings. I understand that these hearings can be very important and could possibly have a huge impact on everyone involved, but they are normally more informal than a court hearing, and it would drive up the cost and amount of time it takes to settle these hearings if attorneys were allowed to be involved. I do believe that the students should have had the right to question the professor. The college had a code of academic integrity policy that stated that the accused has the right to ask questions of witnesses during the hearing. I do believe that since the college didn’t allow this to happen that the college infringed on their due process rights and the college violated it’s own policy. Institutions need to follow their own policies so that everything is done fairly. Overall, I think it is a bad practice for institutions to not follow their own policies and one day that could lead to trouble for them. I just want to mention that I do believe the students were guilty; however they were still owed their due process rights according to the college policy.
ReplyDeleteSara, you’ve posed some excellent questions for us regarding the James Hunter College case. Several issues about this case were concerning, and seem to be at the heart of the issue.
ReplyDelete(1). According to John and Metad, proper notice (in advance and in writing) was not given of the hearing. Established procedures require that adequate notice be sent to students in advance and in writing so students can prepare for, and be available to attend, the hearing. At Hunter, the written procedures required that students receive written notice five days in advance of the hearing.
(2). At a minimum, arrangements should have been made for the professor to be present via conference call to participate in the discipline hearing. While cross-examination is not a constitutional “right” in student discipline hearings, the opportunity for clarifying or following up on statements is important. The professor was not present, so the two students were not able to address their “accuser”. The professor supplied a written statement; however this did not allow the students to question her regarding her perception of the events or to clarify basic “facts” which might have changed the end result. Cross-examination – and even simple clarification – serves to help insure a fair trial. Pavela discusses the “Golden Rule” approach in discipline hearings, and, undoubtedly the faculty member would have wanted to face her accusers had the situation been reversed. These two students were not accorded a very basic and critical component of a fair hearing.
(3). Clearly, the professor’s testimony was essential to determining the final outcome of this case; due to remaining questions, the chair of the hearing panel contacted the professor by phone following the hearing without the rest of the discipline panel or the two accused students being present. The Chair then notified the other members of this hearing committee – providing the panel with what was then second-hand knowledge of the professor’s responses. This additional step precluded the accused students from participating, asking questions, or from having their opportunity to challenge statements made by their professor. In my estimation, this error in judgment on the part of the discipline committee was serious and at the very least, meant the two students did not receive a “fair” and “open” hearing. One even might be concerned that the guilt or innocence of these two students had been pre-determined prior to the formal discipline hearing.
(4). Since no written notes or other proof of cheating were found, the merits of this case depended upon the professor’s statements or what occured. It doesn’t seem that other students were called to act as witnesses – or that there was much for others to have witnessed, other than the professor quietly telling John to sit elsewhere (a fairly common request during test-taking). Is it not possible that the students were telling the truth? They studied together for the test – a very common practice – so it is likely that they did have the same answers for the short answer questions, and both stated that they didn’t perform well in essay exams. In the absence of the professor, and given the severity of the punishment (suspension), perhaps the hearing panel could have looked at some other options for punishment.
(5). Lastly, I loved the attorney’s assertion that even if it was proven that the two students did “collaborate” during the test, Metad’s culture allowed this type of “collaboration” so therefore Metad should be excused from facing these charges since the College had a commitment to encourage diversity! I hope John had his own attorney since this one seemed ready to sell him out in order to “save” Metad…
Matt, I think I have to agree with you about the fact that students were most likely guilty, but the fact that their due process was compromised; it is a really difficult situation to judge. The institutions do need to follow their own procedure though. I think, at some point, if they continued to act this way, they would be in trouble. But, we have to keep in mind that this is a private institution.
ReplyDeleteDonna, I’m really glad that you brought up the “Golden Rule” part of the case study because that was a part that really made me think twice about the actions of everyone else because certainly, the teacher would want fair treatment as well.
This article was full of things that could make someone crazy if they were trying to argue this case. I was very glad that it was prefaced by stating that the typical allegation would almost certainly be less complicated and contentious. It would be interesting to see how a “circus” like this would really be played out.
Do you think the same judgments would be made if we brought this into court tomorrow and allowed the lawyer to be an active participant? Also, let’s pretend that the teacher was there for questioning too! What do you think the outcome would have been then?
Most institutions prohibit attorneys and parents (without permission) for attending, let alone representing a student in a hearing (academic or judicial) - these are policy infractions and not determined in courts of law. Institutions vary on who hears/handles academic honesty infractions, but to my knowledge all have some type of process.
ReplyDeleteDifferent levels of evidence are used and it is fundamentally not a criminal/civil case. Typically there is not a finding of guilty/not guilty as these are "legal" terms - most judicial processes find the student responsible/not responsible for violating policy. The University wants to deal with the students appropriately - UNFORTUNATELY, by not following written protocol the judicial body was in error and if I was advising the students, I would suggest they appeal. Now, here is the interesting part, and not similar to the court at all - typically an appeal for procedural misconduct if granted either remands the case back the original board or a different board (ASCA Model Code of Conduct) - it does not just find the student not responsible, so the prudent thing would be to rehear the case with all the "t's" crossed and "i's" dotted.
I believe that academic dishonesty should be considered a disciplinary offense in all cases. The purpose of a Student Code of Conduct is to provide a set of guidelines and ethical barometer by which students are to behave in an educational setting. Anything that goes against the Student Code of Conduct should be considered a disciplinary offense. While I understand that some universities choose to put anything dealing with academic dishonesty as part of an honor code (and therefore sanctionable under a separate set of rules), if the main goal of the university is to provide an education and an offense is being committed that goes against the very existence of the educational system (which is guided by the exchange of ideas and proving that information has been learned), then it should be a disciplinary matter.
ReplyDelete