Students saw the fliers everywhere in the School of Business building the first week of classes. In the men’s bathrooms, for example, they were taped above every urinal. They covered most of the other advertisements on bulletin boards throughout the building and even water fountains.
These fliers did not promote an upcoming concert or student organization meeting. They warned against cheating and the sanctions that could result from committing it, such as an “F” in a course, a permanent transcript notation or expulsion.
“During the spring 2006 semester in the School of Business,” the flier said, “21 students were charged with some form of cheating. After investigation 20 were FOUND GUILTY.”
Colleen Androvich, professional student adviser of the School of Business, created the flier campaign, which she said was the first of its kind at VCU. She said she made the fliers because many students incorrectly think cheating is not a major campus issue. The 21 charges in the School of Business also were an increase of cases from the previous academic year, Androvich said.
But the School of Business was not alone in hearing more honor system cases during the 2005-2006 school year. According to the 2005-2006 annual report for the VCU Honor System, the Undergraduate Student Honor Council heard 24 cases during the year, an increase of 14 from the previous year. The Monroe Park Campus Graduate and Professional Student Honor Council heard 17 cases, an increase of 14. The MCV Campus Honor Council heard 12 cases, an increase of one.
The honor system faculty coordinators, who include Androvich and others in the undergraduate school who hear honor system cases before they send them to the Undergraduate Student Honor Council, heard 116 cases, a decrease of 46 from the previous year. Overall, despite what seemed like mostly increases, VCU heard 169 cases from 2005 to 2006, a decrease of 21.
The report revealed that honor system cases in both the undergraduate and graduate schools overwhelmingly involved plagiarism, followed by cheating. For those cases that did not end in a “not guilty” verdict or were not pending at the time of the report’s release, the most common sanctions were an “F” assigned to the course or an “F” or zero for an assignment. Although Androvich’s flier warned about suspension or expulsion, there were no instances in which the university used them for punishment.
Reuban Rodriguez, associate vice provost and dean of student affairs, said the overall decrease of honor system cases pleased him. Hopefully, he said, the decrease means more students and faculty understand the honor system and therefore are adhering to it.
But it remains difficult to measure. Chris Saladino, a collateral instructor at the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs who has served on the Undergraduate Student Honor Council for three years, said the report’s conclusions only mean the number of reported cases decreased, not necessarily the actual number of violations committed.
Saladino speculated that a stricter adherence could have caused the decrease or that fewer professors reported students who may have violated the honor system. He mentioned a pervasive hesitation among professors at the University of Virginia, where he attended graduate school, to report their students because of the university’s policy of automatic expulsion for any honor violation.
“Professors are going to be a lot less willing to send you before the honor council if it means you’re going to be thrown out of school forever,” Saladino said. “It may be that there’s the same amount of cheating but a lot less enforcement. It poses a bit of a conundrum.”
Other professors, like many students, may not understand the technical wording of the honor system.
“You’ll find that some faculty don’t know what to do when somebody cheats,” Androvich said, adding that some professors may be “kind of afraid to point it out.”
Upon closer look, the annual report shows that some of the honor system cases were appeals. Of the 116 cases undergraduate faculty coordinators heard, for example, 16 were appealed or sent to the Undergraduate Student Honor Council.
– Reuban Rodriguez, associate vice provost and dean of student affairs
More students appealed their verdicts from 2005 to 2006 than the previous year, Rodriguez said.
Saladino said, among other factors, the increase of appeals has caused what he called a “backlogging” in the council in which he serves. As a result, many cases remain pending, which he said is troublesome for students who want to resolve their cases as quickly as possible.
Another factor contributing to the backlog is scheduling conflicts among faculty and students on the councils, Saladino said.
To resolve this issue, the revised honor system designates three students and two faculty to represent the Undergraduate Student Honor Council. Four students and three faculty currently make up the council.
“The reduction of the total number of members needed for a hearing would reduce the amount of time needed to adjudicate a case,” the draft says.
The draft also recommends a more cohesive system between the undergraduate and graduate and professional honor councils.
“In this current draft, what we’re hoping is that it’s truly one system for the entire university,” Rodriguez said. “Our current system looks like it’s one system, but there’s actually different procedures for undergraduate and graduate and professional students. Quite frankly, that’s becoming too confusing and too cumbersome.”
Amanda Rezba, co-chair of the MCV Campus Honor Council, said she and other graduate and professional students are skeptical of a more unitary system.
“In terms of how we feel about that, MCV students totally understand that there should be one system, and we support that,” she said. “But our concern is we don’t want our honor cases to include undergraduates. Our greatest concern is that really an 18-year-old honor council rep might not be the person best geared towards judging a future doctor or future dentist-somebody whose career is on the line.”
The University Council and the Board of Visitors have already approved the revised draft of the honor system, which will go into effect in fall 2007. The honor system mandates that every three years, the provost and vice president for academic affairs establish a committee to review the system and make recommended changes as needed.