August 20, 2009: CREPUQ'S workshop
After a bit of a summer hiatus, I'm back to blogging about McGill and academic integrity.
Back on July 9, I received an announcement from the Conference of Rectors and Principals of Quebec Universities (CREPUQ) of their planned workshop on electronic plagiarism, to be held on October 29 at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières. I immediately responded that this was a topic of considerable interest and volunteered to give a presentation about the issues I have encountered in this regard, as well as some of the reports I have received from colleagues at other universities.
Not at all surprisingly, my offer was politely declined today, with the official citing as an excuse that the organizers already selected speakers based on "very specific criteria concerning the tools recently used or created in universities". There may well be an element of truth to this, although the workshop announcement clearly articulates the themes of the workshop as follows:
Not to be sound self-aggrandizing, but doesn't it seem that the individual who built up this website, documented the systemic abuses of academic integrity related to electronic plagiarism, and taken steps to combat it by meeting with student groups and promoting changes to the academic code, would have something to say about these topics of relevance to the audience?
Of course he would. But then, is that what CREPUQ wants? Keep in mind that the President of CREPUQ is, after all, McGill's current Principal and Vice-Chancellor, and come to think of it, inviting a McGill prof to shine a bright light on the reality of what takes place at her university is probably not the best form of advertising one could put out to an assembly of academics from Quebec universities. Naturally, it would look a lot better for McGill to talk about the tools put in place to help detect plagiarism, rather than what happens when someone is caught. But then, if you don't administer a fair system for punishing the offenders, what's the point of the technology?
Numerous politicians are criticized for their folly of surrounding themselves with "yes-men" who don't dare point out problems from within. CREPUQ, in organizing a workshop intended to address a very important issue but deliberately excluding from the agenda discussion of the actual problem, is very much guilty of the same behaviour.
April 23, 2009: More pettiness from our senior administration
On April 22, I received a memo from the [Senior Administrator, Faculty of Engineering], informing me that several of my recent expense reports "do not comply with University procedures applicable to claims for reimbursement". This administrator, demonstrating exceptional largess (I note, sarcastically, given that I'm the one who brought in the associated research funds to the university), indicated that "we will exceptionally process your reimbursement request on receipt of [my] written assurance that..." and then proceeded to list several stipulations. The letter concluded, in typical pomposity, with "Please ensure that you are familiar with all University financial policies and procedures that are applicable to academic staff and if in doubt, seek assistance from appropriate resource staff."
Evidently unbeknown to my [Senior Administrator, Faculty of Engineering], I had already concluded a lengthy exchange with various heads of our Accounting and Accounts Payable office last year. This exchange resolved a series of problems associated with the default "regulations" concerning purchases, by granting me permission to put all my research-related expenses on regular expense reports. Of course, our [Senior Administrator, Faculty of Engineering] is a man of action, who treats computer systems staff as his personal police force to intimidate anyone who may dare to stand up to him. Thus, he is unlikely to deign to ask a simple question of a lowly professor before sounding off on his authority.
As those who have been following this site for some time already know, I have little patience for such displays of arrogance, especially after being delayed for over five weeks since initially submitting my expenses for reimbursement. Here's my reply:
Dear [Senior Administrator, Faculty of Engineering]
What a pleasure it was to receive a formal memorandum from your office that was not associated with threats of disciplinary action. With regard to the content of your note, I'm afraid that despite your best efforts to familiarize yourself with the University's established polices and procedures, you may have overlooked my communications with our General Accounting and Accounts Payable office on this very matter. The next time you go pilfering through my private correspondence, perhaps you should check my email with [Administrators, General Accounting and Accounts Payable] between February and April of 2008. In brief, notwithstanding the terms of clause P3.5 of the policy on Reimbursement of Expenses, I received explicit permission in early April of last year to continue submitting expense reports for all research-related purchases.
I appreciate that you have been keeping busy with your tireless efforts to send students a clear message that there is zero tolerance for academic integrity offenses (e.g., as documented at http://degradingmcgill.ca/blog.html#mar18). As such, I would be happy to save you the trouble in the future by providing you with copies of my email, so that you don't need to waste your valuable time ordering others to retrieve my files for you in total secrecy.
In the meantime, I provide you my continued assurance that:
- All items were received in good order and none have been returned.
- I assume responsibility for asserting any claims that may arise under product warranties
- I will ensure that any amounts of refund or credit associated with possible returns are credited to the appropriate fund
I trust that you will cease imposing obstacles to my request for reimbursement of these (reference #00283831, 00285634, 00285962) and future expenses. Kindly confirm that this is the case.
As always, with my very best regards.
April 15, 2009: Another farcical Senate Meeting
In the period for formal questions, Senator [...] asked for a status report on the updating of McGill's Code of Conduct concerning the use of computer facilities, which the [Senior Administrative Officer] had undertaken to bring to Senate for discussion in the 2008-2009 time frame. [Senior Administrative Officer] answered that it had been hoped to launch consultations on the subject this year, but that before the process begins she wishes to prepare a draft document on best practices being followed in North America; she hopes this can be done in the fall. She added that the existing Code has not been repealed. Senator [...] asked if the subject could be added to next year's edition of the Senate Calendar of Business so that the issue does not drop out of sight. The Principal agreed to add the topic to the Calendar.
In other words, despite the explicit commitment made by the [Senior Administrative Officer] in response to a question in Senate the previous year that:
The Office of [Senior Administrative Officer], in consultation with other campus administrators and academics, will undertake a review of the Code of Conduct, together with the McGill Computing Facilities management guidelines this year. A revised document for discussion will be brought forward in 2008-2009 timeframe...
this administrator had undertaken no such review and was not bringing forward any revised document for discussion. Such mustelidian behaviour is not at all unexpected, but the resounding chorus of silence from the other Senators was entirely disappointing. This is why I'm urging some to put forward the following questions at the next opportunity:
PREAMBLE:
On March 11, 2008, the Senate Committee on Staff Grievances and Disciplinary Procedures wrote:
"The right to privacy is premised on compliance with the Code itself and on compliance with all other McGill policies also when using the MCF. Failure to comply would therefore negate any privileges specified in the Code."
In the April 8, 2008 meeting of Senate the [Senior Administrative Officer] stated "our IT staff are attuned to the need to avoid invading the privacy of users as much as possible."
QUESTIONS:
It has since been pointed out to me, quite correctly, that "the right to privacy is [not] lost because of an inadvertent failure to follow policy. It seems to me clear that the right does not exist for anyone these days. The [Senior Administrative Officer] said as much last year." In that sense, my third question is moot, but I still think it is worth posing to wake others up to the present, disturbing reality.
April 2, 2009: Continued silence from our "technically literate" Engineering officers
I recently heard another anecdote regarding the long-standing erosion of any semblance of academic integrity in our faculty. This one goes back a number of years, but the incident was no less disturbing with the passage of time. In this particular case, a TA caught various groups of students engaged in blatant plagiarism on their lab reports. After documenting the incidents with careful precision, the students were called in to explain themselves. Several groups confessed outright, others were less forthright. The instructor diligently brought the details forward, first to the [Senior Administrator of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering], then to the [Faculty of Engineering Administrator], who, only after much convincing, agreed to take any action.
Eventually, the appropriate punishments were meted out. These ranged from a zero on the plagiarized reports, to no penalty, depending in large part on whether or not the students admitted to their cheating. However, some of the students were about to graduate, and in several cases, the zero mark would drop their overall grade to a fail, requiring them to retake the lab. To avoid such a "harsh" penalty, the university decreed that these students should be assigned a low grade, but not a failing grade. And then, for consistency, it was necessary to "correct" the grades for those cheating students who weren't about to graduate. In some cases, this meant raising the grades to the same level, or above that of other students who did their work honestly, but were nevertheless borderline.
Sound familiar? Unfortunately, it seems to be something of a recurring phenomenon at McGill.
No wonder the senior professors largely gave up on the "disciplinary process" years ago. It's a farce.
This prompted another follow-up letter to those responsible for this continued state of affairs:
Dear [University Administrator] and [Faculty of Engineering Administrator],
As another week has elapsed without a response, I'm resending my note of March 25 (below).
[University Administrator], might I also take this opportunity to inquire if you are having similar difficulties in obtaining email responses from [Faculty of Engineering Administrator] regarding matters of academic integrity? For someone who professes to be sufficiently well versed in the intricacies of computer software in order to make determinations regarding the provenance of such code, I find it rather surprising that he appears unable to provide a cogent response to a simple question, posed on numerous occasions between November 20, 2008 and the present.
[Faculty of Engineering Administrator], is there another form of communication that would be preferable? You don't seem to respond to email nor do you respond to my greetings when I encounter you, by chance, in the hallways. I'm not quite sure how best to reach you.
Regards,
- Jeremy
March 25, 2009: Please do something to deter plagiarism
Here's a copy of an email a student recently sent to his professor in another course:
Dear [...]
My name is [...]. As a student enrolled in your [class], it has come to my attention that during the in class quizzes multiple students have been plagiarising on classmates. Furthermore, the students in question end up with higher grades on these quizzes relative to other honest students. Seeing that the quizzes add up to a considerable amount in our final grade (20%), I would consider in the future terms to have different versions of the quizzes or to simply get a bigger classroom. I believe the quizzes are essential in learning the material and I do not wish to see them disappear, I just hope that future actions would be taken to deter plagiarism.
The professor responded with a lengthy note, but summed it all up with "I cannot do more".
Should anyone be surprised? When the consequences of reporting plagiarism are that one may be harassed, not only by the guilty students, but also by the administration, why would any professor waste their time (and possibly risk their position) to uphold principles? Welcome to McGill.
The note above, along with other recent anecdotes, motivated me to try my hand, once again, at eliciting a response from the relevant member of the Faculty of Engineering administration responsible for such matters:
Dear [University Administrator] and [Faculty of Engineering Administrator],
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on some of the recent examples of how academic integrity violations are being handled by our faculty, for instance, http://degradingmcgill.ca/blog.html#mar18
I know, of course, that "you can't discuss the specifics of any case", but in general, would you be willing to comment as to whether you think we're doing a good job in this respect?
Also, [Faculty of Engineering Administrator], I'm wondering whether you'll be responding to my email queries going back to November 20 concerning statistics on academic integrity in our own Faculty. I find it perplexing that other [Administrators] from some of our larger faculties dutifully report such information to members of their own faculties, but you appear to be much more secretive about this information. Perhaps, you are still misunderstanding my original question, in which case, I'd be happy to explain my query to you in person. Are you available for a meeting later this week?
Best regards,
- Jeremy
March 18, 2009: Very disturbing news
I had long hoped that by exposing the egregious violations of academic integrity at McGill University, in particular within my own Faculty of Engineering, that certain administrators would be pressured (or shamed?) into enforcing at least a token measure of respect for these principles. Alas, recent communications with a reliable source suggest otherwise:
Last semester, the powers that be decided that a certain course with a large enrollment would allot a percentage of the term grade to student performance on a series of quizzes. This was seen as a possible way to boost the traditionally low grades and associated high failure rate, by encouraging students to keep up with the relevant course material. In typical "let's make this as customer-friendly as possible" mode, only the best 7 out of 10 quiz marks for each student would be counted toward their final grade. Fair enough... so far.
But then, some students aced the first 7 quizzes, and figured, why bother with the remaining 3? And in either a spirit of camaraderie (if done for free) or entrepreneurial greed (if for a fee), these students offered to write the remaining quizzes on behalf of other students who, perhaps, didn't have quite so high marks. The problem, of course, is that at least one student was caught doing so, by an observant TA, who duly reported the offense to the Faculty Disciplinary Officer.
Seems like a pretty clear-cut case of cheating, doesn't it?
Nope, not at McGill. Apparently, the decision of our illustrious leaders in this instance was "I'm sorry, there's really nothing we can do here..." So, (at least) one student received the quiz marks for a quiz he did not write, and neither student received any punishment.
I'm sorry... I have to empty my stomach contents forcefully through my mouth. I am appalled, I am disgusted, and I am very, very sad, that certain spineless sycophants are allowed to continue corrupting the reputation of our once esteemed institution.
February 10, 2009: Statement to the Dean of Student's Workgroup
I've been invited to address the Workgroup convened by the Dean of Students to consider revisions to the current Code of Student Conduct. Here is the statement I will be reading in today's meeting:
First, I applaud the members of this workgroup for volunteering their time and effort to attempt to improve certain elements of the Code of Student Conduct. I would also like to thank Dean [...] for inviting me here today. Given my outspoken criticism of the McGill administration in its handling of matters of academic integrity and student discipline, asking me to address a McGill workgroup contemplating revisions to the Code no doubt ruffled some feathers. Under these circumstances, I commend Dean [...] for giving me the opportunity to meet with you, in particular, as what I have to say is not particularly pleasant.
Most McGill colleagues with whom I have spoken were oblivious–often deliberately so–to the regulations concerning the process for handling "alleged cases of student plagiarism". Many faculty simply mete out the punishment to cheaters that they feel is appropriate, typically a grade of zero on the offending piece of work. Among those who do so unaware of McGill's regulations, this course of action may seem entirely sensible. For the faculty who are aware of the Code yet choose to ignore it, there is a common perception that bypassing the official process is both expeditious and ensures that common sense prevails. Again, from the feedback I've received, rarely, if ever, are such penalties challenged.
Those few who purportedly follow the regulations to the letter and claim to be pleased with the outcome either admitted that they had no idea of the outcome, or abused their powers to access supposedly confidential student records to determine whether the student had been punished. In reality, the current policies regarding student discipline may well be "honoured more in the breach than the observance". Clearly, something is broken here.
Common sense suggests that professors have achieved a level of knowledge in their respective fields that qualifies them to teach a particular subject and assess student learning in their courses more so than someone unfamiliar with the course. Similarly, their expertise qualifies professors to assess whether a piece of work in that subject was likely plagiarized. Granted, such judgement is fallible, but so too is that of a Faculty Disciplinary Officer, who, at present, can dismiss an allegation of plagiarism with no accountability and no recourse for the professor to appeal the decision. Worse yet, unlike the accepted definition from English dictionaries and other universities, McGill takes the unusual stance that plagiarism occurs only when "using someone else's work with the intent to deceive".
Under these circumstances, is it any surprise that several senior professors have expressed contempt for the "Disciplinary Procedures" found in the Green Book?
Understandably, this workgroup was constituted with a narrow mandate to consider only procedural changes to Chapter 2. Some simple fixes to a number of the problems I've identified are obvious, in accordance with principles of natural justice or procedural fairness. However, I would like to suggest that without attention to the larger issues of academic integrity and the broader context of the role of the professoriate in our university, the results of your efforts risk very much becoming yet another band-aid among the pile of 18 revisions that have been applied to the Code of Student Conduct since its adoption in 1981.
As enshrined in the present Code, students at McGill enjoy certain rights:
- Every student has a right to consult any written submission for which he or she has received a mark and a right to discuss this submission with the examiner, and
- Every student has a right to an impartial and competent review of any mark.
I have often wondered why no parallel rights are afforded to professors. For example, McGill offers no provisions of:
- Every professor has a right to assess the written submission by a student according to the same evaluation criteria established for all students in his or her class, and
- Every professor has a right to be free of coercion by students and administrators to inflate grades
In this respect, I have seen at McGill example after example of flagrant violations not just of fundamental academic principles, but of basic common sense, often perpetuated in the name of "student rights". These include:
- colleagues besieged by students who wish to go through the entirety of their final examinations, arguing over every lost mark, and who eventually realize that it is easier simply to give students whatever grade they demand
- representatives of the Associate Dean explicitly request that a colleague attempt to raise a student's final examination mark to help boost a letter grade
- an Associate Chair brazenly invents new rules, explicitly contradicting Faculty policy, in efforts to exclude the professor from verifying a TA's assessment of a student's assignment
- a Department Chair coerces instructors to raise grades across the board as "the number of failures doesn't look good"
- and of course, a student who blatantly cheats on an assignment, not only copying code from his classmate, but falsifying results, rewarded rather than reprimanded for his offences, while every level of the administration that I alert refuses even to meet with me concerning these events
Revisions to the Code, in particular if limited in scope to procedural changes to Chapter 2, are unlikely to address any of these problems. Rather, more substantial changes are required. The proposal I advocate on my web site not only safeguards students' rights, but also accords a modicum of respect for the professionalism and judgement of the teaching faculty. Moreover, it provide transparency and accountability in decision-making and sets in place safeguards to prevent others from interfering with the process of student assessment. This is in stark contrast to the attitudes of our present administration, which denigrate the professoriate by, for example:
- unilaterally raising grades assigned by the professor, without providing justification for the changes,
- and keeping "secret" the summary statistics of charges of student plagiarism brought before a Faculty Disciplinary Officer
Clearly, addressing such abuses to academic freedom demands far more investment than a single workgroup can feasibly offer. However, attempting to patch, or even rewrite selected sections of a fundamentally broken Code of Student Conduct runs a serious risk. Without this context in mind, the well-intentioned efforts to revise the document are almost guaranteed to remain cosmetic rather than substantive.
February 9, 2009: More stonewalling for our Disciplinary Officer
The Officer responded to my email below with, "Data required for the Academic Integrity sub-committee will be provided by [...], who is chairing the meeting." completely missing the point that I'm not speaking to the Academic Integrity sub-committee and ignoring the fact that I've requested this data from him as far back as November 20, 2008. So much for transparency at McGill.
From: Jeremy Cooperstock [mailto:jer@cim.mcgill.ca]
Sent: February 9, 2009 10:52 AM
To: [Faculty Disciplinary Officer]
Cc: [University Administrator]
Subject: Re: Academic Integrity committeeDear [...],
I'm glad to see (from your email regarding the SURE program) that you're reading and responding to your email these days. Since I'll be meeting with the workgroup tomorrow, could you kindly let me know whether you intend to respond to my previous request(s) for statistical information or whether you remain petrified of communicating directly with me on this issue? Barring a yea or nay by this evening, I'll assume the latter.
Best,
- Jeremy
February 6, 2009: Another attempt at information from our Disciplinary Officer
From: Jeremy Cooperstock [mailto:jer@cim.mcgill.ca]
Sent: February 6, 2009 3:46:49 PM GMT-05:00
To: [Faculty Disciplinary Officer]
Cc: [University Administrator]
Subject: Re: Academic Integrity committeeDear [...]
Further to my previous notes on this subject (beginning November 20, 2008), I'm wondering whether you'd be able to provide me with the information I requested regarding statistics within the Faculty of Engineering. As [University Administrator] has indicated, there is no problem with you doing so, provided that you do not include identification of any specific cases.
As I will be meeting on Tuesday with the workgroup that is discussing possible revisions to the Code of Student Conduct, I would also be most grateful if you could include with these statistics (not only for the most recent year, but also the previous two years) the number of cases involving charges of plagiarism that you addressed at the informal level of an initial meeting with students. For example, in 2006-07, you noted a total of 37 cases that were "formally addressed" but how many cases in total were presented to you in that same period?
I look forward to your response.
Best,
- Jeremy
December 18, 2008: Follow-up efforts to get a clear response
Delivered by hand, right to the desk of our IT administrator. Here's me, holding my breath...
Dear [...],
As it appears that you might not be receiving my email, I'm following up with a hardcopy of my most recent note to you of 11 December 2008. I do look forward to hearing back from you in early January concerning these questions.
In the meantime, allow me to take this opportunity to wish you and your family the very best for the holiday season. [attached copy of email]
date: Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:36 AM
subject: Re: follow-up on privacy of data
Dear [...],
Since a week has elapsed with no further word from you, I'd just like to make sure that you received my last message and am thus taking the precaution of resending it (below). As we know, IT services such as email are sometimes unreliable or insecure, and I'm sure you'd agree that it's best to verify that our lines of communication are working efficiently.
I look forward to receiving your reply to my questions.
Best regards,
December 3, 2008: Not the most informative response
The administrator I had recently contacted about IT policy wasn't the most forthcoming in response. Apart from noting, with regard to revisions to the Code, "I am working on it" there was no substantive response to any of the questions raised in my letter. And keep in mind, we're talking about someone responsible for information technology on campus.
I can't imagine a professor getting away with such evasion of straightforward questions. Shouldn't we expect some accountability?
Here's my follow-up:
Dear [...],
Welcome back from holidays and many thanks for your quick response. I'm happy to have provided you with the reference for the University of Ottawa decision, although I cannot take any credit for providing advice on the scope of revisions to the Code of Conduct for MCF, as there was no such advice in my email. However, I'd be quite willing to meet with you should you wish to discuss these revisions with me. Also, while I appreciate your intention to begin consultation this academic year, I am concerned that the recommendation, made in March 2008 by the Hearing Committee (that such revisions be "undertaken immediately") has not yet resulted in the issue of any draft revisions for public comment.
With regard to the questions I asked in my previous email, as far as I can tell, none of these requires specific interpretation of the wording of the Hearing Committee decision. Rather, they are specific questions to you, in your capacity as [...]. I believe that all of these, apart from 1b and 3b, could be answered with either a quick "yes", "no" or a number. I therefore hope this isn't too much of an imposition on your time and would be grateful if you could provide a response.
For your convenience, I repeat the questions here:
- In the cases of access by the administration to (confidential) user files:
- Were the users informed even afterwards, that such access had taken place?
- If not, why not?
- In how many cases was the user not informed afterwards of such access?
- Since "our IT staff are attuned to the need to avoid invading the privacy of users as much as possible":
- Do you consider it appropriate for a university administrator to threaten a systems admin with disciplinary action for requesting clarification of an order to invade the privacy of a user?
- If not, has the administrator been reprimanded for issuing such threats?
- The hearing committee wrote "The right to privacy is premised on compliance with the Code itself and on compliance with all other McGill policies also when using the MCF. Failure to comply would therefore negate any privileges specified in the Code."
- Do you accept the premise behind this statement that having once inadvertently failed to comply with "all other McGill policies when using the MCF" I should therefore be denied, in perpetuity, any rights to privacy?
- How would you reconcile this statement with the decision of the arbitrator in the University of Ottawa case described in the CAUT bulletin?
- Out of curiosity, have any members of the administration demanded or accessed my computer files (including email) since my grievance hearing in February of this year?
Again, I look forward to your reply to these questions.
November 30, 2008: The Chair doesn't care about his own recommendations?
I was somewhat surprised by the email reply I received from the Chair of the Hearing Committee that heard my grievance last February concerning invasion of privacy. Given the recommendation of his committee "that a revision of the current Code governing the use of the MCF be undertaken immediately", I had, as a courtesy, cc'd him on my message to the McGill administrator responsible for such policy. His note tersely indicated that he did not wish to receive any email on this subject. I responded as follows:
Dear [...]
You are not on my "mailing list" and indeed, the email below was the first time I've addressed communications to you electronically. I had assumed that as the chair of the Hearing Committee that made the recommendation "that a revision of the current Code governing the use of the MCF be undertaken immediately" you would be interested in determining whether such revision has in fact taken place. As I'm evidently mistaken in this regard, you have my apologies.
November 29, 2008: Seeking updates to McGill IT Policy
Dear [...],
It was a pleasure speaking with you at the Canarie USERS' Forum on Thursday; I hope you're presently enjoying your Thanksgiving weekend with family in Toronto.
I recall with interest that one of the comments raised during the open discussion with Canarie related to privacy of data. This reminded me of the question in Senate regarding access to users' files by the administration. "... Were the users informed even afterwards, that such access had taken place? And if not, why not?" In your response to the question, I didn't see a clear statement that addressed this, although in the context of a follow-up question, you noted "... it depends upon the circumstances of the case, and the practices of the unit."
On a related note, I see from the most recent CAUT bulletin (Vol 55, No 9, November 2008) that an arbitrator upheld the position of the academic union of the University of Ottawa (APUO) that "the university did not have the right to demand or access documents held by their members. It added that emails sent and received using the university's email system 'are not documents for which the university has custody or control.'" This decision would appear to be in contradiction with the "accepted practice in [McGill] University of routinely accessing files without the owner's permission".
Given that one of the outcomes from my grievance hearing last March was a strong suggestion from the hearing committee "that a revision of the current Code governing the use of the MCF be undertaken immediately" I'm wondering whether you have now formulated appropriate policy in this area. Specifically, I'd like to ask whether you can now provide unambiguous responses to the following questions, without qualifying these in such a manner as to open the door to varying individual interpretation:
- In the cases of access by the administration to (confidential) user files:
- Were the users informed even afterwards, that such access had taken place?
- If not, why not?
- In how many cases was the user not informed afterwards of such access?
- Since "our IT staff are attuned to the need to avoid invading the privacy of users as much as possible":
- Do you consider it appropriate for a university administrator to threaten a systems admin with disciplinary action for requesting clarification of an order to invade the privacy of a user?
- If not, has the administrator been reprimanded for issuing such threats?
- The hearing committee wrote "The right to privacy is premised on compliance with the Code itself and on compliance with all other McGill policies also when using the MCF. Failure to comply would therefore negate any privileges specified in the Code."
- Do you accept the premise behind this statement that having once inadvertently failed to comply with "all other McGill policies when using the MCF" I should therefore be denied, in perpetuity, any rights to privacy?
- How would you reconcile this statement with the decision of the arbitrator in the University of Ottawa case described in the CAUT bulletin?
- Out of curiosity, have any members of the administration demanded or accessed my computer files (including email) since my grievance hearing in February of this year?
I look forward to hearing from you on these points.
November 28, 2008: Updating the statistics... is McGill's record improving?
I've been looking into the recent trends at McGill related to issues of academic integrity and the numbers are somewhat discouraging. More discouraging is the continued silence of the Faculty of Engineering administrator in response to my continued requests for updated statistics, although given past history of waiting three months for a (non-)reply from this same administrator, this is hardly surprising.
The following table provides the number of academic discipline cases, per year, addressed by the university as a whole and the Faculty of Engineering, specifically, between 2004 and 2007. Data is expected to be made available next week for the 2007-08 year.
| 04-05 | 05-06 | 06-07 | 07-08 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| University-wide | 152 | 132 | 220 | TBA |
| Faculty of Engineering | 19 | 29 | 37 | TBA |
<tongue-in-cheek> As might be inferred from these numbers, there is a positive correlation between McGill's initiative of distributing copies of Lipson's Doing Honest Work in College to new students in most faculties for the past three years and the number of students who commit academic offences. </tongue-in-cheek>
Seriously, how many students read more than the cover of this book? I'm sure this is an excellent resource in many disciplines, but it's hard to imagine how distribution of the book is going to achieve the assumed goal of reducing plagiarism. As I've been advocating for some time, the far more effective approach to reducing instances of academic misconduct would be to provide students with a concise (one-page), readable document that simply defines such offenses (according to real-world standards, not the McGill "plagiarism only with intent" loophole) and its consequences... that is, assuming these still exist.
November 20, 2008: Requesting updated statistics
Dear [Faculty of Engineering Administrator],
Could you please send me updated information on the statistics within Engineering since your presentation to our department of last year? Specifically, slide #8 provided data for 2004/05, 2005/06, and 2006/07 with regard to the number of disciplinary cases initiated and the number for which action ensued; might you be so kind as to provide the corresponding figures for 2007/08?
Best regards,
- Jeremy
November 18, 2008: 9 votes in favour, 5 opposed, 5 abstentions and 2 spoiled ballots (one being mine)
Those are the numbers from today's departmental meeting, in which a vote by secret ballot was held with regard to the motion compelling me to apologize for "having called into question our [Senior Departmental Administrator]'s integrity." It's worth noting that our department numbers 46 assistant, associate, and full professors (at least according to our web page) and the 21 attendees at today's meeting included four members of the administration, plus the presenter of the motion himself. I won't dwell on the question of quorum (even though I asked whether we had quorum) as nobody seemed certain what our Faculty by-laws were and the Senior Departmental Administrator has not yet provided me with the by-laws, despite my requesting these several days earlier.
At any rate, a few observations of interest.
First, the presenter of the motion, in describing how "everybody is afraid of [me]" (apparently because I appeared on CBC radio!) compared me to Valery Fabrikant, an individual who resorted to the sword rather than the pen in pursuing his own battle for academic justice. In Usenet circles, one of the corollaries of Godwin's Law is that whoever mentions the Nazis during debate has automatically lost the argument. In academic circles, in particular, close to home in Montreal, analogies to Fabrikant are nearly as odious. My colleague's attempted comparison is reflective of the merits of his entire attack.
Second, there is the premise, apparently held by the "yes" voters, and articulated implicitly by one of my colleagues, that when a faculty member is aware of numerous injustices, and no matter how serious they are, it is impermissible to question the integrity of a senior or call on him to resign his post as such language is "offensive". In a totalitarian regime, this is certainly the case. In a free society, let alone a university, this assertion is laughable. See here, here, here, here, and here for examples from other institutions. Only within my department, it seems, does such language constitute an egregious crime demanding rebuke.
Before the vote was called, I read the statement below. Given the discussion that ensued, I might as well have read it in Ancient Greek. As far as the colleague who presented the motion was concerned (and the eight additional departmental members who voted in favour), the horror of my questioning our [Senior Departmental Administrator]'s integrity and asking him to step down last year, are apparently far more important concerns to our department than the myriad issues I describe below.
Here's the text:
For several reasons, I would have preferred simply to ignore this ridiculous motion, as the outcome of the vote is, in any case, meaningless. A coerced apology, which I will not offer under any circumstances, would serve only to legitimize the corruption within our department, faculty, and university.
Moreover, I question the underlying motivation of [Presenter of Motion] in having brought forward his motion at the very departmental meeting in which we were discussing my motion concerning matters of academic integrity. If [Presenter of Motion] was so concerned with my supposedly "highly offensive language" of 25 September 2007, why did he wait a full year before launching into his ad hominem attack against me, based on his own imagination rather than substantiated facts? Could it be that his outrage was only aroused when it served his attempt to discredit my efforts, and intended, in his words, only to "humiliate and be hurtful"? In his earlier attack on my "motivations" for the proposal on restoring academic integrity, he claims that I wrote, in my Untied.com website, "that it would take a written apology and the resignation of the airline's top administrators" for me to close the site.
The problem with this claim, like so many others made against me by [Presenter of Motion], is that it is demonstrably false. The results of a Google search on these keywords turns up nothing from my website, as shown in the handout you received from [...] prior to this meeting. It is ironic that [Presenter of Motion] chooses to accuse me of using defamatory language when he is clearly guilty of this himself.
At any rate, as the motion has been put forward, and you are now being asked to vote on whether Professor Cooperstock has been a naughty boy by calling into question the integrity of our [Senior Departmental Administrator], I believe that a review of the background that led to my call last year, and some reflections on its aftermath, is warranted.
In 2007, I presented to [Faculty Administrator] two successive cases of blatant plagiarism, involving the same two students in my class on Artificial Intelligence. At the request of [Faculty Administrator], I invested well over a dozen hours providing supporting documentation and analyzing the code of all students in the class. It also bears comment that one of the students' assignment code could not run yet he produced bogus output graphs, copied from the second student. The students were initially given grades of 'K' at the specific request of [Faculty Administrator]. Following the end of the course, I was harassed by one of the two students involved, who, even with no penalty assessed, was unhappy with the mark he received on his plagiarized assignment. Evidently, he had done the math, and realized that his final grade, even without penalties for plagiarism, came to 43.4%. The student proceeded to threaten that he would sue me, the department and the university so that his "rights are maintained". In one of his 12 emails messages, sent between April 28 and May 26, he indicated that he had been exonerated. [Faculty Administrator] at first denied this.
When I brought up this matter in our department meeting on 23 May 2007, the consensus was that I should contact [Senior Faculty Administrator] and discuss my concerns with him. I wrote the [Senior Faculty Administrator] that same day, and, having received no response, resent my message a week later. I was then contacted by the Ombudsman, who indicated that he was calling at the request of the [Senior Faculty Administrator]. The Ombudsman wanted me to meet with the students to see if there was some way I could raise their grades. Two weeks later, the [Senior Faculty Administrator] replied, "Academic integrity is a very important issue and I strongly support sending a clear message to students that there is zero tolerance to academic integrity offences."
On 7 June 2007, I was summoned by [Senior Departmental Administrator] to an urgent meeting to discuss the student's grades. The student wanted to have one of the plagiarized assignments re-read by another faculty member, and I was asked to provide samples of other students' assignments. The student was also appealing his final examination grade, so this was being re-read as well. Both re-reads were to be conducted by [Faculty Administrator]. During this meeting, I expressed my paranoid (at least, they seemed paranoid at the time) concerns to [Senior Departmental Administrator]. I was afraid that the Faculty was trying to find some way to graduate this student quickly so that everyone can later claim, "Oh, we wanted to deal with this in a serious manner but of course, now it's too late."
[Senior Departmental Administrator] reassured me as follows: "You will be intimately involved in every step of the process with respect to a grade change from the 'K' to something else. I give you my word on this. Furthermore, your opinion will be solicited as to what that 'K' will become." [Senior Departmental Administrator] also indicated that as [Senior Departmental Administrator], he "looks after his faculty and makes sure they are treated fairly." In turn, I agreed not to escalate further until the re-read process had worked its way through the system.
On 25 June 2007, I received a note from [Faculty Administrator] that suggested he was about to change the student grades. I reminded him (with cc to [Senior Departmental Administrator]) of the assurances of our [Senior Departmental Administrator] and asked him to keep me intimately involved in every step of the process with respect to any grade change. In the meantime, the [Senior Faculty Administrator] was still not responding to my requests for a meeting.
Two days later, I discovered that the student had been given a grade of 'D'. So much for my paranoia. Recall, without penalties for plagiarism, the student's grade had been calculated as 43.4%. I haven't been teaching as long as many of you here, but in my experience of five years teaching courses in Toronto and 11 years at McGill, I have never heard of a student's grade changing by more than a couple of percentage points following a re-read. So what happened?
[Faculty Administrator] explained that he had raised the final examination grade by 5 marks (from 14/40 to 19/40) and awarded an extra half mark to the plagiarized assignment. To date, of course, he has refused to elaborate, or even indicate which questions on the final examination he deemed had been unfairly graded. However, he noted that he used his own grading standards, rather than the standards I had adopted for the entire class. If this is acceptable practice, then every student should appeal my grading, in the hopes that [Faculty Administrator] is asked to conduct the re-read.
In addition, [Faculty Administrator] removed a late submission penalty I had applied to the plagiarized assignment, despite his own assurance that he would do so only if he deemed the student had no way of contacting me before the due date to inform me of his medical excuse. This excuse was a doctor's note that read: "Vu à mon bureau aujourd'hui. Il dit avoir manqué ses cours mardi 13 février en raison d'un gastro-enterite maintenant rétablie." (He said he missed his courses Tuesday...)
Collectively, these measures allowed the student to reach the 50% threshold and pass... and graduate immediately.
What did [Senior Departmental Administrator] have to say to me about his promises at the time? Not a word. In fact, when I learned what happened, I attempted to contact both him and [Faculty Administrator]. Both were "out of town". My efforts, in parallel, to meet with the [Senior Faculty Administrator], the (acting) [University Administrator], and the [University Administrator], were all rebuffed. Nobody wanted to touch this. I then turned to the [University Administrator] and asked for her advice. She first suggested I discuss this with [University Administrator], who of course, had already refused. She then suggested that she would contact [Senior Faculty Administrator]. I agreed to give her an opportunity to do so, and indicated that I would defer in escalating if the [Senior Faculty Administrator] gave me his immediate assurance that "the student's grade will be placed back on hold and the matter of plagiarism investigated more thoroughly by individuals competent at assessing computer software." Needless to say, there was no response from the [Senior Faculty Administrator]'s office.
The next week, after I contacted a reporter about these incidents, I was immediately summoned by the [Senior Faculty Administrator] for a disciplinary hearing. I later discovered that I had forgotten to remove the students' names from one of the documents I provided the reporter and this mistake, of course, offered a pretext for the [Senior Faculty Administrator] to retaliate. As is evident from the treatment of our [Senior Departmental Administrator]'s predecessor, our [Senior Faculty Administrator] does not take kindly to faculty who dare stand up to him.
Where was [Senior Departmental Administrator] through all of this, ensuring that his faculty are treated fairly?
In September, I learned that the [Senior Faculty Administrator] had ordered the CIM systems administrator to retrieve copies of my correspondence with another reporter from our computer archives and turn these over to him, all in total secrecy. When the systems administrator requested clarification for the order, he was threatened with disciplinary action if he did not comply immediately.
Where was [Senior Departmental Administrator] through all of this, ensuring that his faculty are treated fairly?
In advance of the departmental meeting of 25 September 2007, I circulated a handout with some of this chronology, posing numerous questions related to Academic Integrity, an item I had placed on the agenda for that meeting. Two nights before the meeting, [Senior Departmental Administrator] asked me to meet with him. When I responded that my schedule was, unfortunately, full, he exercised his "prerogative as [Senior Departmental Administrator]" to remove the discussion of academic integrity from the agenda.
So what to do? I had a Department [Senior Departmental Administrator] who made promises and broke them without a word of notice. I had a Department [Senior Departmental Administrator] who "looks after his faculty" but stood by while I was threatened and disciplined for speaking out. I had a Department [Senior Departmental Administrator] who stood by while my computer files were investigated without notice. And worst of all, I had a [Senior Departmental Administrator] who was now attempting to silence discussion of academic integrity in a department meeting, for fear that I would be critical of the university's (and perhaps his own) mishandling of this important issue.
A university is supposed to be a bastion of free speech, a place where ideas are openly exchanged and debated, and where the leadership is accountable for its decisions (and orders). Suppression of free speech and debate is antithetical to the historical role of universities. A respectable institution such as McGill should be the last place where such abuses are tolerated. Similarly, we have seen much criticism in recent years of secret orders and secret investigations conducted by various branches of the US government. Both are seen as an assault on basic civil liberties. Why are we tolerating these actions within our own university?
In his 2003 book, Why Societies Need Dissent, Prof. Cass Sunstein, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, discusses the importance of welcoming dissent and promoting openness. Quoting from his book summary,
"Sunstein demonstrates that corporations, legislatures, even presidents are likely to blunder if they do not cultivate a culture of candor and disclosure. He shows that unjustified extremism, including violence and terrorism, often results from failure to tolerate dissenting views. The tragedy is that blunders and cruelties could be avoided if people spoke out. He notes that institutions that fail to do so often lead to extremism, including violence."
And quoting from reviews of his book:
Sunstein shows "that a free society not only forbids censorship but also provides public spaces for dissenters to expose widely held myths and pervasive injustices...
"Dissenters are often portrayed as selfish and disloyal, but Sunstein shows that those who reject pressures imposed by others perform valuable social functions, often at their own expense. This is true for dissenters in boardrooms, churches, unions, and academia."
I should note that the "dissenting" views I've been expressing are not uniquely mine. Other members of the university community, both past and present, including Professor [...], a former Associate Dean of Engineering himself, have taken the time to express their support for my efforts. Most, of course, have preferred to remain anonymous, given the climate on campus, in which our administration threatens those who express themselves in opposition to the current regime.
Finally, on 2007 November 26, [Senior Departmental Administrator] explained his actions, or rather, lack of action, as follows: "On July 3 when I returned to the office, I was instructed by the senior administration of the University to have no further interaction with respect to the particular case."
This excuse rings hollow, coming from someone in a position of authority himself. Moreover, the defence "I was just following orders" is deeply disturbing, considering its historical implications.
When I asked our [Senior Departmental Administrator], at the following day's department meeting, who issued these orders, his response was "No comment."
When I asked him why this "instruction" prevented him from letting me know that he was unable to play any role in the case, he told me I'd have to ask the "senior administration" about this.
When I asked him who in the "senior administration" I should ask, he responded, "I'll get back to you."
And indeed he did. Nine months later, on 8 September 2008, [Senior Departmental Administrator] sent me a memo (that was included in the handout prior to this meeting), in which he wrote, "I write today to inform you that I have no additional comment on this matter."
Unfortunately, this abdication of responsibility and professional ethics seems to have encouraged others to act in a similar manner. In May of this year, I was asked by our department to turn over "All electronic copies of Assignment #2 and the students' individual grades" to facilitate a re-read request of that assignment.
The relevant regulations of the Faculty of Engineering clearly state:
"Any request to have term work re-evaluated must be made directly to the instructor concerned."
As no student had contacted me to request a re-evaluation of term work that semester, I questioned why I wasn't first being given an opportunity to verify the TA's grading myself. In response, I was quoted an article from the Green Book and told again to turn over the assignments. Beginning 26 May 2008, I repeatedly sought an explanation for this deviation from Faculty policy, from the appropriate administrator of our department. I also asked which other professors in our department had been subject to this different policy. The departmental administrator continued to respond, "I will not answer your questions", instead deferring the matter to [Faculty Administrator], who remained silent from 9 June 2008 until 26 August 2008. Remember, I was asking about policy and practice of our department. Finally, [Faculty Administrator] responded, "I am unable to provide the information you are seeking."
On 29 August 2008, I again asked the departmental administrator which other professors in our department have been required to provide all copies of a particular assignment, graded only by their respective TAs, to an unknown reviewer, without having been given an opportunity to regrade the work themselves, and without even knowing the reason for the student's request that initiated the process.
Finally, the answer arrived: "This is the first time."
When I asked who formulated these departmental policies that were in direct contradiction with those of the faculty, I was told, "I don't know who formulated these policies... but they were standard practice when I took over (in my position)."
Let me get this straight: "This is the first time" such a deviation from Faculty policies have been applied... but "this was standard practice." Could someone explain to me why this is not a logical contradiction?
We are a professional faculty, and we include an ethics course as part of our curricula. But why should we expect our students to absorb the ethical values we profess when our own administration fails to uphold these itself? How are we to expect our students to view plagiarism as wrong when our own faculty pass off invented quotations as a colleague's statements? When our administration repeatedly demonstrates to students that it will bend over backwards to assist them in coercing professors to raise their grades, even in clear defiance of our own regulations, and even in cases of blatant plagiarism, are the consequences we're seeing at all surprising?
Last year, in the context of the [Senior Departmental Administrator]'s attempt to silence discussion of academic integrity, I read a statement decrying the erosion of our institution's values and the mockery of our policy on academic integrity, a policy that has since been removed from the ECE web pages. At the end of this statement, I raised attention to the promises given by our Department [Senior Departmental Administrator] and his failure to fulfill them.
[Presenter of Motion] claims that this was "clearly intended to harm [Senior Departmental Administrator]'s reputation."
Read my words carefully. "If you value academic integrity and if you wish to convince us of your personal integrity, I call on you to step down as [Senior Departmental Administrator]..."
As I noted in my response to [Presenter of Motion]'s claim (again, distributed prior to this Department Meeting),
"I was giving our [Senior Departmental Administrator] an opportunity to demonstrate his integrity by resigning his position in protest of the 'orders from central administration', which, ostensibly, compelled him to break his promises and permit a gross violation of academic integrity."
The Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec stipulates, in Article 4.02.03 of its Code of Ethics,
4.02.03. An engineer shall not abuse a colleague's good faith, be guilty of breach of trust or be disloyal towards him or willfully damage his reputation. Without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the engineer shall not, in particular:
...
(b) take advantage of his capacity of employer or executive to limit in any way the professional independence of an engineer employed by him or under his responsibility...
Regardless of whether you believe, as does [Presenter of Motion], that I have willfully damaged [Senior Departmental Administrator]'s reputation and should therefore apologize, I would ask you to consider whether [Senior Departmental Administrator] abused my good faith, or committed a breach of trust, in violation of his obligations as a Professional Engineer.
In [Senior Departmental Administrator]'s memo of 26 November 2007, he wrote, regarding one of his assurances,
"That I try and look after faculty and make sure they are treated fairly -- this I do within the framework of University policies and regulations -- and in return I expect to also be treated in a fair and respectful manner."
[Senior Departmental Administrator], considering how you've looked after me, as a faculty member, I believe that the treatment I've shown you has been more than fair. As for "respectful", if you want my respect, then earn it. Earn it by standing up and fighting for what's right.
November 11, 2008: When common sense gives way to administration-think
Here's an expression I'm unlikely to hear from a McGill administrator anytime soon: "We trust you to exercise reasonable judgement."
Case in point: I received a panicked email and phone call from a student's mother this morning. The student had been stranded in Paris as a result of a missed flight connection, and the mother was trying to get an update. I was all set to respond, when I recalled the dire warnings made last year by a senior member of the administration about the need to respect student confidentiality. From a completely paranoid perspective, might my reply to an innocent request like this land me in further hot water?
More as a tongue-in-cheek comment on the lengths to which the administration had extolled the importance of confidentiality, I sent the following to a senior member of the administration:
From: jer@cim.mcgill.ca
Date: November 11, 2008 8:42:22 AM GMT-05:00
To: [Senior University Administrator]Dear [Senior Administrator],
Since I don't want to be fired over a breach of McGill's regulations concerning student confidentiality, could you kindly transmit the following note to my student's mother, who is somewhat in panic over the whereabouts of [...]?
I fully expected a sensible response along the lines of "Cooperstock, stop being a twit... of course you should notify the student's mother." As my wife shouted at me when I told her the story, "you're absolutely crazy! Who could be so stupid as to think that you shouldn't respond immediately to the student's mother?"
Ummm... welcome to McGill.
An hour later, and a reply from the Senior Administrator arrived, in which he wrote, "I don't feel I can intervene, nor is it my position to do so." Instead, he passed the buck to other administrators to "coordinate, get the background, and follow up as appropriate."
A few minutes later, another note, this time from one step down the chain, indicating that the administration would "follow up". Then silence... another hour and a half elapses and the fearless leaders of our university are still deliberating. The joke had gone too far. The poor mother deserved some news, so I sent another note:
From: jer@cim.mcgill.ca
Date: November 11, 2008 11:30:42 AM GMT-05:00
To: [University Administrator]
Cc: [Faculty of Engineering Administrator], [Unknown Administrator], [University Administrator]Dear [University Administrator],
If by "follow up", you mean that you are contacting [the student's] mother, could you kindly let me know when you will be responding and cc me? If not, would you mind if I simply responded [...] with your telephone number, as she has called my office several times this morning and I dare not pick up the telephone for fear that I'll be hauled before another disciplinary committee.
Thanks,
- Jeremy
More time needed for the folks in James Admin to deliberate about this one. Must be careful! Another hour and a half later, and the administrator authorized me to provide a telephone number to the student's mother.
Next, another administrator asked me for the name and number of the hotel where I had booked the student. This was getting ridiculous. I checked with the airline and confirmed that the student was en route back to Montreal.
From: jer@cim.mcgill.ca
Date: November 11, 2008 2:18:28 PM GMT-05:00
To: [University Administrator]
Cc: [Faculty of Engineering Administrator], [University Administrator]Dear [University Administrator],
You can inform [...] that [the student] boarded the Air Transat flight back to Montreal... and should already be back in town. On that note, it is worthy of comment that the airline had no problem sharing this information with me, whereas "privacy restrictions" prevented me from communicating the same information to my student's mother. This is a depressing indictment of how far our university has gone to the point of "protecting" our students as a substitute for exercising common sense and basic intelligence.
Best regards,
- Jeremy
To the administrator's credit, I was thanked for my criticism. (This is a first.) The administrator noted that "The boundaries of 'need to know' are something we are actively working on for just the reasons you noted."
This is encouraging, but there seem to be a great many issues that the administration is "working on" and very few actually being completed. For example, a revision of the current Code governing the use of the McGill Computing Facilities is supposedly underway, there's some discussion regarding revisions to plagiarism policy (big surprise?), and there's even a draft McGill Web Policy (v 0.7) on the CIO's website, begun in 2002 and currently dated February 2003. If it's taken six years to get to this draft*, how long should we expect to wait before our administration clarifies the conditions under which we can notify a family member where their child has gone?
* As pointed out some time ago by another professor, item 4.3 of this draft states:
4.3 The content, including links, of all pages must comply with all University charters, codes, regulations and policies and respect intellectual property rights.
In theory, this means that McGill holds us responsible for the entire Internet.
November 7, 2008: Response to the debate challenge
I received the following on November 7, in response to my challenge to a debate. The delay of one week from the "31 October 2008" header line is a testament either to the "efficiency" of campus mail, or to the time required for the university lawyers to vet any correspondence between the administration and me. If the latter, someone should take the time to proofread, as the sloppy typos in the final paragraph are frightfully embarrassing for a senior representative of the university. My follow-up below.
31 October 2008
Dear Professor Cooperstock,
I acknowledge receipt of your invitation to engage you in a debate on the matter of academic integrity. However, I can see no useful purpose in engaging in such an enterprise. I believe that there is no disagreement between us as to the great importance of academic integrity -- it is, and should be, central to every academic enterprise and academic institution.
Where we do disagree is as to the processes and procedures necessary to ensure the maintenance and promotion of academic integrity at McGill -- issues on which reasonable persons may agree to disagree.
It is my view that debate on the processes and procedures for the protection of academic integrity can be most profitably engage [sic] in, in [sic] a collegial manner, in the traditional and proper fora for such debates at McGill, namely the department, faculty and Senate.
Sincerely,
[Senior Administrator of McGill University].
November 9, 2008
Dear [Senior Administrator of McGill University],
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my letter of October 7. I am relieved to learn that we agree on the importance of academic integrity, although how you view this in relation to other university priorities remains unclear. With respect to whether we disagree on "processes and procedures", this can only be known through discussion and debate. What troubles me is that we appear to disagree on the urgency of addressing the serious failings of our current system, and perhaps, if you believe, as Deputy Provost Mendelson argued on CBC, whether we even have a problem.
Since the question of academic integrity at McGill is now in the public consciousness, I believe it is imperative to our reputation to publicly debate both the relevant policies and their implementation. Such debate should take place in the open, rather than through surreptitious eavesdropping on professors' correspondence or behind the closed doors of the James Administration building.
With regard to your suggestion of "the traditional and proper fora for such debates at McGill", I note that debate at the level of my department has been repeatedly suppressed (ostensibly at the orders of "central administration"), no discussion has been entertained by my [Senior Faculty Administrator], and I am not a Senator. Thus, the fora you mention for engaging in such debate have been effectively closed to me.
Academic debate has a long-standing history that goes beyond the confines of department, faculty, and Senate, even at McGill. Surely a topic so important to our mission as a university deserves to be debated at every opportunity when questions as to its failures are raised. For these reasons, I invited you to engage in a public debate on McGill's policies and practice regarding academic integrity. I repeat that invitation now.
Sincerely,
Jeremy R. Cooperstock
Associate Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
November 6, 2008: Meeting with a member of the "committee"
I was paid a visit by a member (a former departmental chairman) of the committee that was struck last year with the supposed purpose of "canvassing all Faculty departments for feedback on how to improve the handling of academic offenses". When I had first been contacted about meeting, I made a point in my reply of noting my skepticism about the value of this committee, and suggested "that we meet simply as individual professors with concerns about implementation of policy in our Faculty and university." Despite his reluctance to depart from the stated intent of his visit, I found the discussion quite interesting and useful on two fronts.
One was the claim, based on his own knowledge of how cases of student plagiarism have been handled in the past, that my own experience in this area was a "data outlier" (or exception to the rule). I challenged this assumption on the basis of the numerous notes I've received from other faculty, TAs, and students that suggest otherwise. He bristled somewhat at the mention of anonymous feedback, but I reminded him of the attitude of our senior administration that would frighten anyone who considered expressing themselves in opposition to our current "leadership" without anonymity. More importantly, I asked how he could be sure that the cases of plagiarism that he brought forward were dealt with satisfactorily. His response was most illuminating: "Well, I simply checked their grades on-line and saw that they were given a zero on the assignment." I pointed out that as faculty members, we're supposedly not allowed to do this: the outcome of the disciplinary process is kept secret from the professor. This was news to him -- and remember, we're talking about a former department chair!
The other interesting point was his assumption, going into our meeting, that I had been motivated to start this website and adopt a particular tone against the administration because I was "frustrated and angry" with the way I had been treated. I realize that this is a common misperception and I endeavoured to correct his understanding. In brief, I'm not frustrated and angry; there are many sources of potential frustration and grief at McGill (one of my favourite being Travel Accounting) and if we allowed these annoyances to make a lasting impression on our psyches, we'd all be in real trouble.
I am, however, truly disappointed. I am disappointed in the mishandling of so blatant a case of plagiarism, with all of the consequences that this entails, the abhorrent abuse of power exercised by a Senior Faculty administrator in violating a faculty member's privacy and threatening a systems manager with disciplinary action, and the pathetic follow-up response of the administration when confronted with evidence of these problems. I also realized, after well over a year of attempting to raise awareness of these issues and discuss them internally, that doing so in a "polite, collegial manner" was leading nowhere. As stated so eloquently by an advisor to the Senior University Administrator last year, "... it may help if you were to agree to hear [Cooperstock] out with respect to his concerns. It might quieten [sic] him down for a while." The bottom line is that until I raised public awareness to these issues by sending out a press release, the administration was doing everything it could to prevent a serious discussion from taking place. Now, the issue is in the student newspapers, the McGill Senate, and the halls of our departments. Sometimes, it takes a bit of lively rhetoric to get a discussion started. I'm glad I did.
November 2, 2008: Senate minutes deconstructed
The Senate Minutes are now on-line so I provide some analysis here. Following the preamble and question posed by the student representative...
The Principal invited the [Administrator] to respond. [Administrator] responded as follows:
I should preface my commentary by noting that based on the contents, it is unlikely the [Administrator] wrote the response herself, and quite possible that she was simply handed the text to read. Any scorn for the refusal to address substantively the issues at the heart of the student representative's question should probably be reserved for others.
I would first like to thank Senator [...] for raising this important issue. Before addressing her questions, however, I would like to comment on the preamble. Allegations in the media are not evidence of any erosion of McGill's standards or of the University's commitment to academic integrity. Although single instances or complaints can alert us to potential problems that may need to be addressed in some way, allegations do not constitute proof.
Quite right, but documented examples of obvious plagiarism that are exonerated, coupled with testimony from other faculty members and teaching assistants who have met with similar issues at our university constitute serious evidence of such erosion that should not be dismissed so nonchalantly. It would be refreshing, for once, to see an administrator come clean rather than continue to parrot Deputy Provost's party line of "No, I don't think we have a problem". Of course, that would never fly in a carefully scripted response, vetted, no doubt, by the top brass.
Thus, any possible changes in policy or practice must be based on full discussion, with due regard for the facts and for the range of perspectives and opinions.
It would be wonderful to engage in such full discussion, rather than being brushed off, lied to, patronized, or stonewalled when I've tried to bring forward my perspectives and opinions. My most recent call to engage in a serious debate on these points has also been ignored. How can we engage in such full discussion when the administration refuses to participate?
Although there is some latitude in how individual Disciplinary Officers at McGill implement the University-wide policy on academic integrity, all must and do follow the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures.
If so, then we have a real problem with the Code rather than its implementation. A complete policy overhaul, such as the one I've been proposing is needed.
Consistency across Disciplinary Officers is facilitated by regular discussions concerning common standards, both with respect to interpretations of the Code and with respect to the application of appropriate sanctions.
This would be news to the top administrator of the university, who, to his credit, told me last year that no such discussions take place and acknowledged that this is a shortcoming that should be addressed.
The Code must balance several needs: protecting the value of the University's degrees; protecting students' rights to due process and to confidentiality; using the process to educate about academic integrity; and dealing with cases as expeditiously as possible.
And how does the Code (and its application) fare on these counts? For example, does it really protect our degrees?
The Senator's first question concerned possible plans to review the Code and its application. The Code was initially adopted by Senate on May 13, 1981; it has been amended 18 times by Senate since then, eight times since 2000;
In the world of computer software, when a piece of code needs to be patched a dozen times or more, it's generally time to start over. Similarly, with respect to our current "Code", this number of revisions might suggest that it's time to stop applying band-aids and instead, start again from scratch with a new policy.
and it has been discussed on numerous other occasions that did not lead to any amendments. Thus, periodic review of the content, implementation, and relevance of the Code has indeed provided opportunities for incremental improvements and transformative changes. Such reviews will undoubtedly continue.
"Transformative changes" sounds very impressive, but we deserve meaningful discourse befitting a university, not US election campaign slogans.
Indeed, several elements of the Code and its implementation are currently being explored, and the process may very well lead to further amendments by Senate. Over the past year, I have been discussing particular problem areas with Disciplinary Officers, members of the Committee on Student Discipline, the Directors of Student Advocacy, student advisers, the Provost and Deputy Provost, and others. The Senator's question about the definition of 'intent to deceive' highlights one such area - the need to 'demystify' the disciplinary process for the community as a whole. I hope to propose several ways of doing so in the coming months.
I now turn to the issue of 'intent to deceive' and how it is proven. The Senator's written preamble already quoted Article 15(a) of the Code, which states:
No student shall, with intent to deceive, represent the work of another person as his or her own in any academic writing, essay, thesis, research report, project or assignment submitted in a course or program of study or represent as his or her own an entire essay or work of another, whether the material so represented constitutes a part or the entirety of the work submitted.The phrase 'intent to deceive' must be taken literally, given that it is not defined explicitly in the Code, but it is addressed in Article 15(b), immediately after its introduction in 15(a):
Upon demonstration that the student has represented and submitted another person's work as his or her own, it shall be presumed that the student intended to deceive; the student shall bear the burden of rebutting this presumption by evidence satisfying the person or body hearing the case that no such intent existed, notwithstanding Article 22 of the Charter of Student Rights.Thus, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, the onus of proof, with respect to intent to deceive falls on students who have represented other individuals' work as their own.
And we've seen how that works in practice. The professor (me) had to spend dozens of hours documenting the obvious instances of plagiarism, only to have the charges quickly swept aside after an initial meeting, held privately between the [Faculty Administrator] and the students. Even after a second case of plagiarism by the same two students was brought to the [Faculty Administrator]'s attention, the matter went nowhere.
Let me outline how this typically plays out in practical terms. An instructor finds that a student has submitted material from another source without referencing the source. If the instructor believes that a sanction should be imposed for plagiarism, the instructor is obliged by the Code to report the incident to the Disciplinary Officer in the student's faculty - that is, the instructor cannot impose sanctions for academic offences. The Disciplinary Officer will typically interview the student, as specified by the Code, confront him or her with the evidence of the matching text, and ask for an explanation. Based on a variety of factors, including possible convincing representation by the student that there was no intent to deceive, the Disciplinary Officer decides if the student has plagiarized as defined by the Code and, if that is the decision, imposes any penalties deemed appropriate.
For more information about academic integrity or the Code, please consult www.mcgill.ca/integrity.
And for a better understanding of how things really work at McGill, please consult www.degradingmcgill.ca.
The Principal thanked [Administrator] for her response, and opened the floor to supplemental questions.
[Senator] wanted to know if the professor involved is told what the results of the process are, and why the decisions are made? [Administrator] responded that, under the current interpretation of the Code, they are not. She said that article 91 (d) states that "the files shall be kept in strictest confidence, and shall be communicated only to the student concerned and to other persons within the University having legitimate interest or duty to take communication of them," and that over the past several years, this has been interpreted to mean the student, the disciplinary officer, and the Dean of Students. This interpretation has, however, been subject to intense discussion, and is one of the points that she will be looking at over the coming year.
[Senator] asked what other problem areas in the Code the [Administrator] and her groups had looked at. [Administrator] answered that one area was disclosure of evidence prior to disciplinary interviews. She said that she was trying to get an overview of all areas that create friction within the Code, and has been gathering information to get a sense of what people would like to see as a code, and ways to make it more transparent.
[Senator] inquired what kinds of consultation had been conducted in the past during the review processes, and would be in the future. She wondered if, in particular, the Committee on Student Affairs had looked at the role of faculty within the Code. [Administrator] responded that all potential constituencies would be consulted, including the Committee on Student Affairs, disciplinary officers, members of the student advocacy program, and the Committee on Student Discipline. Discussions were started last year with some of these constituencies, but she would want to go beyond that.
[Senator] asked, if the process was going to be reviewed, whether there would be any chance for a professor to appeal a decision, if they know what that decision is. [Administrator] responded that everything was open for discussion, and that this was a suggestion that had been made.
[Senator] encouraged the [Administrator] to review the issue of confidentiality, as there is the potential for a student to remain under suspicion whether or not they were exonerated, if a professor is not told of the outcome of a decision. [Administrator] agreed with this point.
These are all hopeful starts to further discussion. Rest assured that I'll continue to be pushing this in every way possible.
October 21, 2008: Back to Blogging
I've been away for the past two weeks, so didn't have opportunities to update this site until now. Today's update is a fisking of my upset colleague's rant statement read in the September 23 departmental meeting.
October 15, 2008: Question in Senate
In the October 15 meeting of McGill Senate, the student representative from the Faculty of Engineering posed the following, beautifully worded question (original here as a PDF):
PREAMBLE:
McGill University prides itself on being a global leader in post-secondary education. Our degrees are highly respected worldwide due to our reputation for academic excellence.
In light of the recent publicity related to the Academic Integrity Policy and its application at McGill University, it seems that the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures and its day-to-day implementation have not consistently maintained international leadership standards.
As stated in the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures; Chapter 3, III Academic Offences :
"The integrity of University academic life and of the degrees the University confers is dependent upon the honesty and soundness of the teacher- student learning relationship and, as well, that of the evaluation process. Conduct by any member of the University community that adversely affects this relationship or this process must, therefore, be considered a serious offence."There have been several examples in the media of interference with the evaluation process and the breakdown of the student-teacher relationship at McGill University and other well known academic institutions around the world.In order for the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures to be applied properly, the concepts therein must be clearly defined. The following statement on plagiarism appears in McGill University's Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures; Chapter 3,article 15(a):
"No student shall, with intent to deceive, represent the work of another person as his or her own in any academic writing, essay, thesis, research report, project or assignment submitted in a course or program of study or represent as his or her own an entire essay or work of another, whether the material so represented constitutes a part or the entirety of the work submitted."QUESTION:
1. Being that McGill is a global leader, are there plans to review the current policy and its application within the McGill community?
2. In McGill's current policy it states that there must be intent to deceive. How does McGill define intent and how is intent to deceive proven when an individual's academic integrity comes into question?
Questions posed in senate meetings must first be vetted one week in advance by a Senate Steering Committee, giving the administration sufficient time to prepare a carefully scripted response. However, follow-up questions are open and need not be submitted in advance, so that is where the serious discussion takes place. I'll post these and the responses as soon as the minutes are made available.
One of my colleagues has followed up by email to a member of the upper administration in order to find out what committee is responsible for formulating policy at the level discussed above. Our hope is that we can present the proposal for a new system to them and instigate change from within the university. The public scrutiny from outside might just help push this along.
October 7, 2008: A Challenge to the Top
Errata: (Oct. 21) A colleague explained how he managed to find his copy of the threatening memo in his email (it was not, in fact, sent by the signatory); following his suggestions, I did track down the message and now note that I indeed had received a copy as well. My apologies for the unwarranted suggestion that my name was removed from the distribution list for this single memorandum.
My letter formalizing the challenge to a debate:
Dear [Senior Administrator of McGill University],
A colleague forwarded me a copy of your October 1 memo, ostensibly distributed to "all staff and faculty members of the Faculty of Engineering", relating to anonymous letters concerning the [Senior Faculty Administrator] of Engineering. For some reason, I was not a recipient, neither by hardcopy, nor electronically, although I am a member of the Faculty.
For the record, I am neither the author of any such anonymous letters, nor am I aware of the identity of the author, nor have I even seen the contents of these letters. Regardless, I was taken aback by the threatening tone of your memo, which struck me as incongruous with your stated pride in "protecting the community's ability to question the manner in which the institution or an administrator may handle certain issues". Moreover, your reference to bringing forward concerns without fear of retaliation is somewhat at odds with my own experience in such matters.
I was, nevertheless, inspired by your remark that "We can only promote positive change and progress if we continue to maintain open and civil debate and communications." As you may be aware, I am very much interested in positive change and progress regarding academic integrity. While I was most grateful for the time you allotted me out of your busy schedule to discuss the issue in September 2007, I'm afraid that this did not result in positive change, nor in any meaningful communications, possibly because you agreed to the meeting only in order to "quieten [sic] him down for a while".
In light of your recent reference to the "well-tested institutional fora for debate" at McGill, I would therefore like to take this opportunity to invite you to debate me publicly on our institution's policies and practice regarding academic integrity. I believe that this topic is of central importance to our reputation as a world-leading academic institute and its discussion has, unfortunately, been largely suppressed to date.
I look forward to hearing from you regarding your availability for such a debate. I will be happy to make all necessary arrangements.
Sincerely,
Jeremy R. Cooperstock
Associate Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
October 3, 2008: Anonymous letters and the university's response
Errata: (Oct. 21) A colleague explained how he managed to find his copy of the threatening memo in his email (it was not, in fact, sent by the signatory); following his suggestions, I did track down the message and now note that I indeed had received a copy as well. My apologies for the unwarranted suggestion that my name was removed from the distribution list for this single memorandum.
A colleague forwarded me a copy of a memo from the top administrative officer of McGill University, ostensibly distributed to "all staff and faculty members of the Faculty of Engineering". For some reason, I was not a recipient, neither by hardcopy nor electronically. I will not speculate as to whether this was an unintentional oversight or a deliberate message, but given recent experience, there is very little that would surprise me.
The memo, reprinted below, deals with anonymous letters concerning the Senior Faculty Administrator in the Faculty of Engineering. I state at the outset that I am neither the author of any such letters, nor am I aware of the identity of the author, nor have I even seen the contents of these letters. Anyone who is familiar with my case will know that my own charges have been specific and substantiated and that -- while I offer anonymity to those who send me comments -- I am hardly shy about using my name to speak out concerning the abuses of our university's administration, regardless of the condemnation this elicits from certain members of my own department.
Based on the tone of the memo and past experience, I expect that my computer files have (or will be), again, accessed in secrecy by the administration, seeking to determine if I am the "culprit". While I disavow the use of anonymous communication to make unfounded accusations, I can fully appreciate the motivation for a member of the university community to write his or her comments anonymously, and to distrust the provisions of McGill's Policy on Safe Disclosure. I would go one step further and ask why our university, which goes to such great lengths to provide anonymity in certain instances (course evaluations, re-assessment of term work, and even considers it a breach of regulations for a professor to acknowledge to an outside party the name of a student in one's class), yet at the same time, makes insidious threats against a (presumably non-student) member of the university who wishes to avail him or herself of that same right? Perhaps it's time for the administration to hold up a mirror and examine itself.
Since the top administrative officer, in his memo, notes our "well-tested institutional fora for debate, at all levels", I'd like to use this opportunity to challenge him to a public debate on our institution's policies and practice regarding academic integrity. I believe that this topic is of great importance to our reputation as a world-leading academic institute and its discussion has, unfortunately, been largely suppressed to date.
1 October 2008
Dear Colleagues in the Faculty of Engineering,
I write concerning one or more anonymous letters that you may have received since January of this year concerning [Senior Faculty Administrator]. These letters demand something be done about his administration, yet, the writer creeps around in the shadows of anonymity. I urge you to follow McGill's civilised tradition and ignore these anonymous letters, and their unfounded content, if you do receive them.
We at McGill pride ourselves in protecting the community's ability to question the manner in which the institution or an administrator may handle certain issues. This freedom is based on open, frank, and measured exchanges of ideas in a collegial manner. The circulation of anonymous communications threats that freedom. Concerns should be raised respectfully, using the usual and well-tested institutional fora for debate, at all levels -- departmental, faculty or university side. McGill has fostered a collegial community of scholars and other University staff -- a tradition that the administration views as essential to preserve. We can only promote positive change and progress if we continue to maintain open and civil debate and communications. In addition, the University has also implemeneted a Policy on Safe Disclosure through which members of the community can, without fear of retaliation, bring forward concerns. McGill's mechanisms allow for the airing of issues through processes that ensure that the parties have the right to confront each other and the facts openly and in accordance with University policies, and our well established practices, customs and traditions.
Very unfortunately, it appears that not everybody sees fit to function within these accepted principles, policies and practices. Rather, they prefer to contravene them and to hide behind the curtain of anonymity in making and publicising to the University community vague, serious, and unsubstantiated charges against a member of McGill's academic administration. Because I feel strongly that these letters represent an unacceptable violation of our norms of collegiality, as well as an infringement of the principles of due process and natural justice, I wish to assure you that once the author of these cowardly letters is identified, all appropriate actions that are consistent with McGill University policies and Canadian and Quebec laws will be taken.
Sincerely,
[Senior Administrator of McGill University]
September 23, 2008: A less than enthusiastic response from my department
Today's departmental meeting was somewhat surreal. We were first bogged down in procedural issues, following which, I read out the recent letter from an instructor in the Faculty of Science, who witnessed a highly similar series of events in her faculty. I then introduced a motion that the department support my proposed changes to university policy with regard to dealing with cases of plagiarism. The discussion got off to a rocky start, and was derailed for approximately ten minutes while one of our members read out a four-page speech questioning my motives for the proposed changes, my approach to the problem, and my "abusive and defamatory language" against members of the university administration, in particular with respect to my call last year for our Senior Departmental Administrator to step down. He later rehashed much of the same text at the close of the meeting, this time moving for the department to compel me to apologize.
Since I don't want to get similarly sidetracked, this is probably not the appropriate time to respond to each of the accusations in detail, although I will be more than happy to do so in the near future. For now, I'll just make a note to my colleague regarding terminology: in order for communication to be considered defamatory, the statement(s) made must be untrue, or in Quebec, "solely to hurt the person's reputation." The documentation on this site can speak for itself, but I would be happy to debate this further in a forum of your choice.
Although my colleague's speech had almost nothing to do with the issue at hand -- our university's handling of matters of academic integrity -- and was clearly intended to discredit my initiative, I nevertheless commend him for speaking his mind, as there have been too many opportunities in the past two years in which any meaningful discussion of academic integrity issues at McGill was silenced "on orders of the central administration." We are, after all, still a university, where the open exchange of ideas is sacred and efforts to silence debate should be condemned in the strongest possible language. And yes, if that means being outspoken in our criticism, and in turn, disliked by colleagues, so be it. I will not apologize for pointing out the truth.
There were some legitimate points made regarding problematic aspects of my motion, e.g.,
"that the department requests its representatives to vote in favour of a motion, to be introduced in Senate, to institute the changes to university policy contained in [my] proposal."
Two of our members are on Senate, but they are actually representatives of the Faculty of Engineering, not the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Furthermore, a motion isn't simply introduced in Senate; as I noted yesterday in this blog, the procedure is far more complicated. And since the proposal is still only a draft, subject to revision, it would be premature to endorse the text as if final. I was aware of these subtleties beforehand and expected that the detailed wording could evolve as discussion progressed. My intent in making the motion was to start that discussion, in the hopes of obtaining similar consensus from the professoriate in my department as we've seen from the student body, to advocate for a major change in the way McGill deals with these fundamental issues of academic integrity.
One of the suggestions in response was to seek, instead, a "compromise solution" and to work through the existing committee that was struck in 2007, in the aftermath of my initial communication with the media concerning this case. I'm afraid this suggestion misses the point entirely: what is needed to restore credibility is a dramatic shift in the way the university operates, not an incremental change. The problem, at present, is that the administration remains in charge. The (advisory) committee mentioned above was constituted by the same Senior Faculty Administrator who in 2007, ignored my multiple requests to meet to discuss these issues, eventually, reprimanded me for speaking out after I discovered that I had been lied to as to the outcome of the students' grades, and later, secretly investigated me by ordering a systems administrator to turn over copies of my private computer files. Is this a committee (and Senior Faculty Administrator) I could trust, and if so, would a proposal to limit the power of the administration be likely to advance through its members?
Another colleague, who wrote me an intelligent, well argued, and thoughtful response following the meeting, objected to the "intemperate language in the Background section" of the proposal but indicated that he would be in favour of such a proposal if "presented as a simple request to the university, with some positive suggestions for change." I am grateful for this feedback and appreciate the constructive intentions of its author; although I stand by the remarks made in that section, I agree that the main proposal text should be separated from the background, which I've now done.
One point made by the same colleague with which I disagree entirely, however, is that the final element of my motion:
"that until such time as these changes are formalized in university policy, the department of Electrical and Computer Engineering rejects the present role of the university administration in matters of plagiarism and the determination of student grades"
would be detrimental in providing an immediate grounds for appeal by any student found guilty of plagiarism. My disagreement is predicated not on the question of grounds for appeal, but on fairness. I would rather see the university be motivated to institute corrective policy rapidly, by finding all students escaping punishment for plagiarism, than have the current situation persist. To summarize this current situation, it is one in which (a) only certain students caught plagiarizing escape punishment (or worse, are rewarded), whether through family connections, threats, clever lies, etc., and (b) professors remain out of the loop on such a fundamental aspect of their responsibilities as evaluating student learning and ensuring academic integrity in their courses.
September 22, 2008: The Engineering Undergraduate Students are on board
Following my earlier presentation to the undergraduate student society (ECSESS) in my department on September 10, I was invited tonight to speak on the topic of academic integrity to the Engineering Undergraduate Society of McGill. Those who haven't attended a student-run council meeting would be, as was I, in awe at their intelligent debate and highly professional management of the meeting. To put it mildly, they put to shame the administrators who have run every departmental and faculty meeting I've attended.
Although I was probably on the borderline of coherence when I spoke, having just come out of a near-sleepless weekend and a series of paper deadlines, I had the fortune to be joined by a former EUS president, who spoke articulately about her own experiences and those of her colleagues during her days at McGill. It appears that, at least in my case, the message made up for the frazzled messenger, and while there were a number of excellent questions raised, the students joined my effort.
First, a motion was put forward that the EUS urge their senate representative to start the process of bringing my proposal to Senate. The vote passed... unanimously. Bringing a proposal to Senate is a complicated procedure, as first, permission to ask a question must be obtained from the Senate Steering Committee. Assuming it gets that far, the administration will no doubt have a carefully prepared response for the next Senate meeting, designed to bury the initiative. However, there's an opportunity for follow-up questions, and judging by what I've seen of the best of our student body these past few weeks, I'm beginning to see this as a fight the administration can't win. After the questions, and presumably at the following meeting of Senate, a motion can be entered into the agenda. That's when things get interesting.
Second, a motion was put forward that the EUS organize a petition among the undergraduate student body, calling for the university to endorse my proposal for reform. The intent here is to make enough of a noise, and make it clear to all that not only the professoriate, but also the student body of McGill, is no longer buying the pathetic "We don't have a problem" non-responses of our administration in attempting to divert attention from their lapses of ethics in dealing with academic misconduct. Hopefully, this will attract some further media attention, as a bright light cast on the secretive antics of our higher-ups is exactly what is needed to start the process of cleaning house.
My sincere gratitude to the EUS members who are championing this initiative. You are an outstanding group of students who would make anyone proud of our university.
September 10, 2008: The Electrical and Computer Engineering Students are on board
Last night, I was invited to present my proposal to the undergraduate student society (ECSESS) in my department. Although a conversation with its president and VP-academic the previous day were highly encouraging, I had no idea how the larger group would respond to my initiative. Would they see this as a rant by a tough-grading professor or would they understand the big picture issues and the importance of transparency, fairness, and keeping the professor in the loop? This question was critically important, since without student support, the initiative would be dead in the water.
To my great relief, the students were highly supportive. They asked intelligent questions about the proposal, they pointed out issues that needed to be addressed, and most importantly, they understood the necessity of restoring fairness to a system that has been hijacked and corrupted by the university administration, to the detriment of the McGill University degrees and the quality of our graduates. The presence of a former McGill Engineering student, who joined at my request and shared her experiences with the present system, was enormously helpful in reinforcing the point from a student perspective, especially for those who haven't yet witnessed first-hand how dire the situation has become.
The meeting was without question the high point so far of my efforts to reform our practices at the university. It reminded me that despite a minority who abuse the system to obtain grades they have not earned, the majority of students at McGill are intelligent, hard-working, honest individuals who deserve not to see their accomplishments degraded by the unethical actions of our administration.
We're moving this ahead. Thank you, members of ECSESS.
September 9, 2008: A proposal for change
Academic integrity at McGill University has been eroded by the ill-conceived policies on this subject and their implementation at the hands of an administration increasingly out of control. My personal experiences suggest a corrupt hierarchy of officials, arrogating for themselves all authority and responsibility for interaction with the student body. When it comes to the unfortunate instances of plagiarism, under the present system, the often onerous time demands of making a charge and providing the requested documentation simply encourages many professors to look the other way. Coupled with the lack of transparency in which the system then operates, the lack of feedback provided to the professor at the end of the process, and the numerous instances where professors nevertheless learned of outcomes in which there were no consequences to the student, it is hardly surprising that these web pages have generated a strong level of support among other members of the McGill community.
In the ideal, our present administration needs to be replaced, starting from the level of associate chairs and extending to the top of the university. Simply put, in a well-governed institution, each level of the leadership must take responsibility for the actions of those below. When the response to failures of these lower levels is a refusal to discuss the issue, an unconvincing denial of the problem, an attempt to silence debate, and an effort simply to quieten [sic] down the complaints it's time for these administrators to pack their bags. Sadly, despite widespread dissatisfaction with current "leadership", this goal is with little doubt unrealistic in the short term.
Therefore, as a starting measure, I provide here a proposal to revamp current practice and attitudes toward the issues of academic integrity. This is an effort to modify the McGill culture for the better, rather than encourage more (threats of) litigation. Although this proposal may seem to add additional layers of bureaucracy to an already bloated system, I can't see an easy solution to this problem short of the ideal solution, above, which would quite possibly obviate the need for new policy.