In
the February, 2002 issue of this Report, Nathan Makdad identified
“Ten Challenges Facing Campus Mediation Programs.”
Two of those challenges were “Association with Other
Campus Departments,” and “Developing New Programs
to Reach and Educate Students.” A recent revision of
the University of Georgia (UGA) academic honesty policy,
while perhaps not fully conquering those challenges, does,
we believe, provide an example of the creative and effective
use of alternative dispute resolution in higher education.
Change
is in the Air
During
1998-1999, UGA underwent an administrative organizational
change from a Vice President for Academic Affairs model
to a Provost model. In 1999, the new Provost created an
Office of the Vice President for Instruction (OVPI) and
included in that office oversight and administration of
the University’s academic honesty policy, A Culture
of Honesty. (Administration of the policy had previously
been moved from Student Affairs to Academic Affairs and
was revised by a faculty committee in 1994.) The organizational
changes and the changes in both substance and location
of the honesty policy came together with a newly-appointed
Associate VP-Instruction and a professional staff member
who had somewhat unexpectedly been assigned as Coordinator
of Academic Honesty, to produce a climate of high expectations
-- and high anxiety.
The Associate VP and Coordinator (co-authors of this article)
spent the 1999-2000 academic year struggling to administer
an honesty policy which provided a solid foundation for
an honest university community but whose language was
in some parts too specific and in others too vague. The
result was a process defined in the policy as an academic
hearing which involved student investigators, opening
and closing statements, witnesses, advisors, evidence,
and a hearing officer. A five-member panel (three students,
two faculty members) was charged to decide guilt or innocence
based on a preponderance of the evidence (or, in some
cases, clear and convincing evidence.)
Although this structure created a number of problems,
the major problems were that the policy did not look or
feel very academic (except that it involved students and
faculty) and it did not serve to educate students about
honesty and integrity. Additionally, it required a three
to four hour block of time during which as many as twelve
people were available to attend the hearing. The scheduling
problem meant that it was not unusual for the resolution
of a charge to take as long as three months.
If
It Is Broke, (Do Your Best To) Fix It
During
Spring 2000, a committee of students, faculty, and administrators
was asked to study A Culture of Honesty and suggest revisions
for a streamlined and more educational version. The committee
members met with various administrators, faculty members,
and students to hear concerns and suggestions for improvements
to the policy. Faculty members expressed frustration with
the existing policy because it minimized their involvement.
Students wanted a policy that was easy to understand and
included procedures for handling cases of alleged dishonesty
more quickly. Through the discussions about the existing
policy, it became apparent that a critical component missing
from the process was the opportunity for the student and
the faculty member to attempt to resolve the disagreement
in a timely and educational manner. The members of the
Culture of Honesty Policy Review Committee concluded that
a modified version of a highly successful mediation process
which had been initiated on campus some years before might
address the concerns described by both faculty and students.
The Facilitated Discussion and Hearing Model of Academic
Honesty was created.
Facilitated
Discussion Model
The
Facilitated Discussion & Hearing Model for resolving
academic dishonesty disputes at UGA was developed and
subsequently approved by the University Council, the governing
body of the University, on September 28, 2000. The new
model provides for an immediate discussion between the
faculty member and the student which is facilitated by
a trained and neutral third party. No other individuals
are allowed in the room during the discussion.
The first allegations of dishonesty under the new policy
were reported within 3 class days after the new policy
went into effect. The Associate Vice President and Coordinator,
both trained mediators, facilitated these initial cases
but knew that other faculty and staff members would need
to be included if the projected increase of reports of
dishonesty came to pass. UGA faculty and staff members
who had already been trained in mediation were contacted
and invited to attend a session on Academic Honesty. The
Coordinator of Academic Honesty educated these potential
facilitators about the academic honesty definitions, policy,
and procedures so that they would be able to guide the
student and faculty member through an educational and
fair discussion. Facilitators observe (at least) three
discussions and co-facilitate at least two before being
certified by the Office of the Vice President to facilitate
on a regular basis.
The Facilitator begins each Discussion with an explanation
of the University’s process for resolving academic
dishonesty allegations, the possible outcomes to the discussion,
and confidentiality issues. The four possible outcomes
are that, 1) the allegation is dropped and the charge
dismissed, 2) the student acknowledges the violation and
receives a sanction, 3) the student acknowledges the violation
but the student and faculty member cannot agree on a sanction,
or 4) the student denies the dishonesty violation. If
the student acknowledges guilt, the faculty member is
free to suggest any (reasonable) sanction or set of sanctions.
The result of outcomes 3) and 4) is that the case goes
to a Hearing Panel to be heard and decided.
Following the introductory comments of the facilitator,
the faculty member explains why the case was reported
and why academic honesty and integrity are important to
all members of the University community. A dialogue ensues
and if dishonesty is acknowledged, the faculty member
identifies the sanction(s) that s/he feels is appropriate.
In some cases, the student simply accepts or rejects the
sanction and in others, the student tries to negotiate
for a different sanction. The discussion is theirs to
have and the allegation theirs to resolve, if possible.
Unlike a mediator, the Facilitator does not offer opinions,
solutions, or suggestions. Once the discussion begins,
her role is to answer any questions about the policy that
may arise, help keep the discussion on track and moving
forward, and finalize the discussion with a form that
is completed and signed by the student and faculty member.
A flow chart of the process and the agreement form used
are available online.
Talk
May Be Cheap, But It Can Also Be Highly Effective
We
truly believe that this new model is creating a stronger
culture of honesty on campus.
Since September 2000, nearly 300 cases of alleged academic
dishonesty have been processed under the University of
Georgia’s Facilitated Discussion Model. Faculty members
are reporting incidents of dishonesty at a rate of at
least twice as many as before the change. Cases that used
to take up to three months to be heard are being resolved
on average in seven days. Concerns that the policy would
provide lighter sanctions for dishonesty have proven incorrect.
In the Facilitated Discussions, approximately 65% of all
students charged have admitted their guilt, 28% of the
charges have been withdrawn by the faculty members, and
only 6% of the cases end up in the formal Hearings. (The
additional 6% are pending at any given time.) Sanctions
agreed upon during discussions are at least as severe
as the required minimum sanctions under the old policy.
Examples of sanctions under the Facilitated Discussion
Model include a WF or F in the course, a notation on the
student’s transcript indicating that the student
has violated the academic honesty policy, suspension for
a term, a grade of zero on the assignment, and writing
assignments on academic integrity. Faculty evaluations
of the Facilitated Discussion Model are overwhelmingly
positive.
Although there are some other minor modifications to A
Culture of Honesty that we would like to make in the coming
year(s), our experience applying a form of alternative
dispute resolution to an academic process has been extremely
positive. What was once an adversarial, non-educational
and punitive process is now a discussion, the outcome
of which is an educational, fair, and timely resolution
of a serious conflict.
Deborah Craddock-Bell, Coordinator of Academic Honesty
University of Georgia
dbell@uga.edu
Ann R. Crowther, Associate Vice President for Instruction
University of Georgia
acrowthe@uga.edu
