I Can’t Serve this Scoop
I’ll take the large sugar cone with Chocolate, Strawberry, and do you have any Academic Mistachio-Conduct Crunch?
BY: NOAH FARBERMAN
Artwork Courtesy of Noah Farberman // THE UNDERGROUND
About a month ago something happened at the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus (UTSC) involving academic misconduct accusations, grade threats, and some online public outbursts. But I can’t tell you about it. In fact, according to guidelines involving the copyright surrounding Quercus (The platform which online UTSC courses run through), I technically shouldn’t know as much as I do. Instead of getting to talk about the intense case between a professor and their class, I’m stuck questioning the ethics of information sharing, which, in a way, is exactly what I wanted to talk about through my case study. So why not take a step back and figure out how my inability to describe the situation is a result of how, irrelevant from the accused offenses, both parties broke a bit of academic procedure.
Let’s go over some basics. I read four documents that all cover different aspects of academic behaviour, procedures, and conduct. I was looking for something specific: the specific procedures that are set in place, by the University of Toronto Scarborough, to be followed in the instance of academic misconduct. There’s actually a web page that explains the process and procedures pretty simply.
To summarize it, when a student is accused of academic misconduct there are four levels of action to follow. The first level, and the part of the process that interests me right now, is: The Instructor. Subsequently, and depending on if a student admits to fault or if an instructor rescinds the accusation at the first level, students are to meet with the department (level two). The faculty or division is level three. It is during level three, in a meeting with the Dean, where a student may be recommended for tribunal. Tribunal is where the case will be heard and sanctions will be employed. I also read a case study in which a large proponent of the process is gaging how the student handles each section, their remorse or honesty, their willingness, etc. A student’s actions throughout the entire process help the tribunal determine sanctions. Now all that is fine and fancy, when it’s followed.
I was shown evidence of an instance when it wasn’t. The problem is, I was shown something I shouldn’t have seen. It was some text that was copied and placed into a word processor, then placed into a google drive, with a link that was sent to me over Reddit, of all places. The actual texts were copied from two places, the accusing professor’s Quercus posts and some personal emails from the prof to the student.
Did you know that everything posted on Quercus for a course is copyrighted and
only allowed to be viewed by people in or teaching that specific course?
I want to talk about myself, for a second. I really want to talk about how this is the first time I’ve investigated academia. When I reached out to the initial Reddit poster it was before I knew about the Quercus rule. When I heard back, and not only heard back but was met with a willingness to discuss, it was riveting. I was excited. I got the scoop! And then I read the rules. And honestly, I put the project aside, I lost interest and focused on my September classes.
My deadline was coming soon and I was struggling to find an interesting new topic when I heard back from someone I didn’t expect to get an answer from: a department chair. Sometime in September I had sent an email with a series of questions about how professors are trained in processes and how the procedures were implemented by professors on average, so forth. I mainly wanted to know about the training and what happens when a prof fails to follow the procedures.
The chair was curt, understandably. They gave textbook replies and even cited something I had missed in my own reading. The thing I missed was pretty crucial, here’s my question and the chair’s reply.
Me: If a professor fails to follow the proper procedures when accusing a student of academic misconduct, could the student still become liable?
Chair: This is addressed in the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, Section C.i(a), point 11.
They’re very right. According to the Code of Behaviour, which is a document that goes into more depth on the information provided in the Process and Procedures File:
“Normally, decanal procedures will not be examined in a hearing before the Tribunal. A failure to carry out the procedures referred to in this section, or any defect or irregularity in such procedures, shall not invalidate any subsequent proceedings of or before the Tribunal, unless the chair of the hearing considers that such failure, defect or irregularity resulted in a substantial wrong, detriment or prejudice to the accused. The chair will determine at the opening of the hearing whether there is to be any objection to an alleged defect, failure or irregularity.”
This means that unless there is reason that the professor’s failure has caused “substantial wrong, detriment or prejudice to the accused,” the process will proceed as planned, with no part of the initial accusation being invalidated.
I’m not a judge, I can’t decide what’s justifiable in this or any situation. But the events, as they were described and shown to me, were that of a professor failing to follow the first steps of those procedures. Unfortunately, I shouldn’t know that.
Did you know that the first thing that is supposed to happen when you
are accused of any academic misconduct is to be offered a personal
one-on-one meeting with your professor to discuss the accusation, at which
point it may be rescinded or escalated?
Besides my embarrassing incomplete information, the chair provided me with a much more interesting piece of insight. Here is another question and answer I received:
Me: I am wondering that, in situations involving student academic misconduct accusations, if a professor reports a student but fails to follow the procedures and guidelines set forth by the school, what procedures are followed to investigate and reprimand the professor?
Chair: I've only seen this happen with inexperienced instructors who were not sufficiently familiar with the correct procedures. When this occurs, we look into what happened, we explain the proper procedures to the instructor, and we advise on how to handle the current case, and future cases, properly. At that point we also get involved to make sure that the particular case being reported is then handled correctly.
While the department chair didn’t answer all my questions, they did evoke a few more. Mainly, how do they define inexperienced? What sort of training results in professors that still require further experience?
Did you know that no matter how many students in a course are accused,
they are each entitled to their level one professor meeting before any action
can be taken?
It was very interesting, and just as exciting, to hear the administration's point of view on situations like these. Much like my own personal concern about breaking any protocols, the chair is careful with their words. They never mention anything specific and even cite some of the readings I mention back at me. The point is, from a procedural point of view, the chairs seem to know their stuff.
So what happened with this prof? They’re probably inexperienced. They probably had been reported, and they probably had the procedures re-explained to them. And honestly, with an organization this big and this serious, with an unfortunate but necessary blockade on transparency, probably is a great thing.
What happened with the students? I’m not going to ask. I’m not following up with my sources. I’m not even going to check Reddit for updates. I don’t want to know, because knowing might put me in jeopardy.
Isn’t that wild? Isn't that exciting? I’m some student-journalist writing for an in-house paper and the first piece of investigation I do puts me in a deadlock with academic codes!
I went into this report hoping to shed light on unnecessary stress students were given over the summer. For a while, I almost wrote about how whether or not the students did what they were accused of (there is literally no way to prove certainly), they broke a different code by talking about it publicly. Heck, for a while, this article just didn’t happen.
I’m not being censored. I’m not covering up a story. I’m following the rules set in place by the institution I’m paying to teach me. And that’s pretty freaking exciting. You have my full permission to quote me on this: Rules are freaking cool. Everyone should follow them, especially if you’re paying or being paid to follow them.
And the reason it’s so freaking cool? Because by keeping my mouth shut, everyone has one less thing to worry about.
Saying I can’t serve this scoop is a lie. I can. But I never will.
