Honesty is a Virtue at Georgia State

A Senate subcommittee of Georgia State University assembled yesterday to revise the

Academic Honesty Policy.
The Admission and Standards committee proposed a motion that revised portions of the
Academic Honesty policy. The motion had six recommendations to create consistency and clarity
for all departments, colleges, and students.
We want to make sure that students know whats expected of them and what their route
is for appealing at different parts of the process, said Sara Weigle, chair of the Admission and
Standards committee.
According to the committee, the first recommendation was, The faculty member must
consult with the department chair regarding appropriate academic and/or disciplinary penalties
before filling a change of academic honesty.
The committee thought this would bring consistency throughout the departments. Many
members agreed, including George Rainbolt.
This is a very important thing because ... some first year GTA decides they are going to
fail someone out of school because they copied a paragraph, so its good to have the
consultation, said George Rainbolt.
Rainbolt wanted the students to receive a fair punishment and consulting with a
department chair could lead to the proper course of action; he meant no offense towards the
teachers capabilities.
The next recommendation started a debate and worried some of the members. The second
recommendation was, The notice of academic dishonesty is sent to the student by the college
dean, not the faculty member.
Staff Senator, Shelly-Ann Williams, was worried about the capability of other colleges
being able to complete the task.
Now we are adding additional work load to the college deans offices where they may
not have someone in place said Williams. I dont know if every college has the man power
to be the owner and to send all of those out.
Richard Phillips, Associate Dean for Academic Initiatives and Innovation, was quick to
support the second recommendation.
We want the University to be very professional and how it deal with these kinds of
situations with students so they feel like they do get a formal due process and that they are
treated fairly even if they dont like the outcome, said Phillips.

Phillips represented the students, but Williams made a point of representing the staff and
the extra work load they will have to carry.
The third recommendation was the time allowed for an appeal is reduced from 20 to 10
days.
If the motion is passed, this information could be critical for a student wanting to appeal.
A student can be charged with academic dishonesty even after being graduated, so 10 days can
make all the difference.
One case that I know of was that the plagiarism was found over two years after and they
had graduated and we went ahead a charged them two and half years later and the lost and
their degree was revoked, said Phillips.
No matter how much time passes, students can be charged with academic dishonesty, so
the rules can be vital information.
The fourth and fifth recommendations were presented with ease and were quick to be
accepted. The recommendations were, The policy makes clear that the student may be notified
either by certified mail or via the students university e-mail account. With the development of
technology notifying a student through their university email can be an easier and faster way to
inform the student of academic dishonesty.
Email account is how students get notified of everything, said Weigle.
The fifth recommendation was, The policy suggests but does not mandate that
department create their own statements of what constitutes academic dishonesty within the
context of a specific discipline, along with recommended penalties for infractions.
The final recommendation was to bring clarity to the document and to provide example
of unauthorized collaboration.
There have been some questions about what unauthorized collaboration means, said
Weigle. I think we actually borrowed language from somebody elses Academic Honesty
policy.
The entire committee laughed and asked if Weigle had approval.
I have input from someone, said Weigle, providing a quick example of authorized
collaboration.
The meeting wrapped up shortly after and the committee agreed to forward the motion in
to the final revision stage. The revisions will be voted on at the next Senate meeting, April 17,
and then will go into effect immediately.