University Wide Impact Committee (UWIC)
Minutes
March 4, 2004

Members present:  K. Gatzke, N. Chrissidis, J. Mielczarski, S. DiFrancesco, S. Jackson, C. Barrett, S. Bochain, N. Henderson, N. Marano

Guests:  Chris Piscitelli, Kelly Ritter

Topic:  Academic Dishonesty

Meeting began: 9:40 a.m.

Kelly Ritter (English Department) began our discussion by sharing what she has learned from her research into plagiarism by students who use online "paper mills." She spoke about a culture that develops in academic settings where plagiarism is tacitly understood to be part of the system. This culture appears to have these characteristics: 1) Students take a pragmatic, economic approach to their education, and plagiarism is a tool used to reach an economic goal (getting a degree to get a job); 2) Written assignments, the intellectual products, do not have value as faculty repeatedly assign the same projects each semester and may not read and grade students' papers thoughtfully. Members of the committee asked questions, and the discussion turned to punishment or appropriate consequences for academic dishonesty. The consensus was that consequences should result in a firm and consistent message to students. However, we returned to the notion that prevention through pedagogy that discourages academic dishonesty and values student work was a worthy goal.

We then heard from Chris Piscitelli who informed the members that as director of judicial affairs he hears 5-8% of academic dishonesty cases, adding that there is disparity and inconsistency among faculty in the way they respond to cases of plagiarism. At this time, there is a process in place, but it does not allow for general reporting to Student Affairs. Chris has drafted an adopted academic honesty policy from Central Connecticut State University clearly outlining a process for reporting academic dishonesty that he has submitted to the Faculty Senate. We then discussed the importance of building a culture throughout the university from the ground up that would make acceptance of such a policy likely. Suggestions for opening the topic to all members of the university were made. There was general agreement that due process as part of any policy on academic dishonesty was essential.

The meeting ended at 11:50 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Laine Marano