New categories and revisions are going to be made to the university’s code of conduct in January 2015
Ohio University’s Student Code of Conduct is vague, and cases of academic misconduct are often blurred for administrators and students as a result of the brief document.
But come January 2015, new revisions for the code should be approved by the Board of Trustees that will explicitly define different kinds of academic misconduct.
Academic misconduct — defined by OU as dishonesty or deception in fulfilling academic requirements —includes plagiarism, forged attendance, cheating and fabrication.
The university’s records do not show how many specific offenses there have been, only how many total academic misconduct cases there have been.
Such cases are considered Code A offenses by the university and can result in probation, suspension, expulsion or other sanctions.
It’s now easier to catch students who plagiarize or commit forms of academic misconduct, said Martha Compton, Director of OU’s Office of Community Standards and Student Responsibility.
Blackboard’s plagiarism prevention service, SafeAssign, and other prevention websites, such as turnitin.com, have contributed to OU’s rise in misconduct cases, Compton said.
“I kind of jokingly say to students if you can find it on Google, so can your faculty member,” she said.
The 2013-14 academic year saw an increase in academic misconduct cases from 95 to 108 cases from the previous year, partially due to an isolated incident involving 25 members of an art class.
Prior to the 2010-11 academic year, academic misconduct cases were relatively constant, at about 45 cases each year.
“I think (plagiarism can happen) sometimes, especially with group work,” said Marissa Del Matto, a junior studying exercise physiology. “Just in general the world we live in now, everyone can look up things on the Internet.”
Compton estimates that about 50 percent of academic misconduct cases per year are due to plagiarism, meaning more than 50 cases were brought to the office’s attention last year.
Not all students, however, are reported to the university for acts of wrongdoing.
Though misconduct numbers have increased in recent years, Compton suspects the actual numbers are much higher than what her office sees.
“I think sometimes (professors) don’t report students to our office out of what they think is the best interest of the student, that they don’t want this on their record should they try to go to graduate school in the future,” she said.
It’s not mandatory for professors to report students to the university, and Community Standards has no control over the sanctions a professor may impose on a student caught in the wrong.
“Sometimes it’s not clear when faculty refer things to us, sometimes they just want us to be record keepers,” Compton said. “They don’t actually want us to contact the student, and we’re still sorting that out because for me, from an ethical standpoint, if a student’s got a record in our office, they probably need to know that.”
Students referred to Community Standards may be unaware that their work is considered plagiarized material, said Ruth Palmer, chair of Faculty Senate’s Educational Policies and Student Affairs Committee and an associate professor of classics and world religions.
“Knowing how to cite correctly (and) how to use the information given in somebody else’s publication is essential (in college),” Palmer said.
Community Standards, along with Faculty Senate’s committee, have been reworking the Student Code of Conduct, including fleshing out the brief section on academic misconduct.
Palmer said she hopes to present a draft of the revised code at senate’s November meeting, and again for a final vote in December.
The trustees, whose next meeting will be held in late January 2015, must approve the changes to the code before they officially go into effect.
“This is essential work,” Palmer said. “Everyone in Faculty Senate is going to be very interested (in) the different categories (of misconduct) we come up with.”
@DinaIvey
db794812@ohio.edu
