Turning a blind eye to cheating
By Bobby Philbrook
Issue date: 2/21/08 Section: Scene
Originally published: 2/20/08 at 8:49 PM PSTLast update: 2/20/08 at 8:48 PM PST
Author David Callahan spoke about what he calls the "national cheating epidemic" on Tuesday. His lecture on integrity in universities complimented anti-racism activist Tim Wise's lecture on diversity and racism last fall.
Both are important ethical issues that pertain directly to our school, but somewhere along the line, a full-fledged institutional response was mustered to encourage diversity, while preserving academic integrity got swept under the rug.
Any engineer or business student will tell you that people at this school cheat. The nature of the work (problem sets, Scantron exams) is part of the problem, but the high-stakes pursuit of a secure job in an insecure economy plays a role for these students as well.
Nothing can morally excuse a cheater, but rather than simply wallowing in our descent toward hedonism, the issue can be confronted.
We even have a model to follow. Callahan suggested that if universities put the same resources behind enforcing academic integrity as they do behind diversity efforts, students would cheat less and eventually reclaim respect for the intangible value of their personal honor.
Think about all the institutional resources devoted to encouraging diversity. We have an Office of Multicultural Learning, an Ethnic Studies Program, a Council for Diversity, Multicultural Learning and Inclusive Excellence, the Leadership Excellence and Academic Development (LEAD) program for first-generation college students, a Multicultural Center, the Unity Residential Learning Community, admissions officers tasked with recruiting students of color, a new campus minister for ecumenical and interfaith ministries and a bias reporting system.
How does our school currently address cheating, on the other hand? With a not-so-stern talk during Welcome Weekend.
There is no office or administrator devoted to the issue. The student integrity board remains largely invisible and is composed of only three students. The academic integrity session at orientation was actually cut last summer.
Callahan cited a study that said 44 percent of professors who had witnessed an act of cheating in the last year failed to pursue disciplinary action. Without clearly defined institutional support, it is no wonder so many professors turn a blind eye rather than address the issue head-on.
If academic integrity is an ethical issue comparable to diversity, then why does our school devote so many more resources to one over the other?
All it takes is one major scandal to give our school an inescapable local reputation for being soft on cheaters. That would devastate the value of our degrees.
Both are important ethical issues that pertain directly to our school, but somewhere along the line, a full-fledged institutional response was mustered to encourage diversity, while preserving academic integrity got swept under the rug.
Any engineer or business student will tell you that people at this school cheat. The nature of the work (problem sets, Scantron exams) is part of the problem, but the high-stakes pursuit of a secure job in an insecure economy plays a role for these students as well.
Nothing can morally excuse a cheater, but rather than simply wallowing in our descent toward hedonism, the issue can be confronted.
We even have a model to follow. Callahan suggested that if universities put the same resources behind enforcing academic integrity as they do behind diversity efforts, students would cheat less and eventually reclaim respect for the intangible value of their personal honor.
Think about all the institutional resources devoted to encouraging diversity. We have an Office of Multicultural Learning, an Ethnic Studies Program, a Council for Diversity, Multicultural Learning and Inclusive Excellence, the Leadership Excellence and Academic Development (LEAD) program for first-generation college students, a Multicultural Center, the Unity Residential Learning Community, admissions officers tasked with recruiting students of color, a new campus minister for ecumenical and interfaith ministries and a bias reporting system.
How does our school currently address cheating, on the other hand? With a not-so-stern talk during Welcome Weekend.
There is no office or administrator devoted to the issue. The student integrity board remains largely invisible and is composed of only three students. The academic integrity session at orientation was actually cut last summer.
Callahan cited a study that said 44 percent of professors who had witnessed an act of cheating in the last year failed to pursue disciplinary action. Without clearly defined institutional support, it is no wonder so many professors turn a blind eye rather than address the issue head-on.
If academic integrity is an ethical issue comparable to diversity, then why does our school devote so many more resources to one over the other?
All it takes is one major scandal to give our school an inescapable local reputation for being soft on cheaters. That would devastate the value of our degrees.
Be the first to comment on this story