1.
On May 3
(Alt Day eve) the seniors are requesting drivers to take them to Duke Gardens
for their senior dinner. Volunteers
are needed; please email Kenny Gibbs.
2.
Next
year, some external doors giving access to NCSSM will be controlled
electronically by cards. A
committee is being formed ASAP to consider various strip and chip technology to
recommend for inception. Volunteers
are welcome for this one time only meeting (to recommend which doors should open
this way). Please let Myra Halpin
know if you are interested.
3.
The Math
Department will be putting recommendations for next year’s math courses for
this year’s juniors in advisor’s boxes next Monday.
Discussion
Items:
1.
Changes
to the student code of conduct.
The Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Integrity’s
document regarding academic honesty will be in the front of next year’s
handbook. The faculty debated the
changes to this year’s policy, which consists primarily in returning to a two
level system (Level II and Level III) for dealing with cases of academic
dishonesty. Many faculty
recommended that, in the section titled “Level II Definition and Examples
#1” that we insert a statement that guidelines for academic integrity are also
covered in the statement of principles in the student handbook – not just in
teachers’ course expectations. Steve
was unsure we could make a change, as the statement is not Board policy, but is
referenced as Board such.
The larger discussion centered on whether or not
there should be a distinction made among gradations of cheating.
Those who felt that a two level system was better argued that it gave the
teacher more flexibility in deciding how serious the offense was.
Many faculty agreed that all cheating was not equal, that some was
premeditated and vicious (such as stealing and copying a teacher’s exam for
distribution) versus spontaneous (such as letting one’s eyes wander during a
quiz). Some faculty who favored a two level system also were
concerned that the efficacy of relegating academic honesty immediately to a
Level III made conviction all but impossible since the institution seems to feel
a reluctance to expel a student for cheating.
Thus, a minority also supported separating cheating into Level IIs and
Level IIIs for pragmatic reasons. On
the other hand, many faculty members maintained that cheating is cheating.
There was strong sentiment that we, the faculty, should not lower our
standards simply because expulsion might be the outcome of a hearing board that
hears a case concerning academic honesty. Some
faculty encouraged us to think about what message we are trying to send. With a
two level system, are we saying that faculty should have flexibility in handling
cheating? Or are we saying that there are, in fact, two types of cheating?
We need to say more strongly that we value academic honesty and that we
want to help the student.
Motion: That
we accept the changes back to a two tiered system consisting of Level IIs and
Level IIIs as modified by the Ad Hoc Committee, with the modification to include
the reference to the Statement of Principles.
Vote: 17
in favor, 11 opposed, 3 abstained.
Discussion Item 2: Emergency Suspensions
The new emergency suspension statement explicitly
mentions drugs, weapons, and alcohol as grounds for being determined to be of
danger to oneself or others and subsequently suspended from classes and
residential life. The discussion
concerned whether or not the policy of suspending a student prior to a hearing
was satisfactory. Many faculty
expressed concern about the potential harm to students who miss several days of
classes until their hearing, and who are subsequently found innocent of the
charges. This harms the student and
hinders their ability to be successful academically; it smacks of punishment
before being found guilty. Faculty
were also concerned about the vague nature of how the word “dangerous” would
be interpreted by different people in applying this policy.
Other faculty pointed out that they felt comfortable with having a
colleague (such as Tom Clayton, Warren Basket, or Joan Barber) make a
determination regarding the safety of a “dangerous” student.
Several faculty felt uncomfortable with having potentially dangerous
students in their classes and would continue to be willing to suffer the burden
of helping the student catch up with missed work.
Motion: That
the faculty endorse the proposed changes with the caveat that the policy of
suspension prior to hearings be applied thoughtfully because it will hurt the
student academically”.
Vote: 19
in favor, 8 opposed, 2 abstained