Suggestions for the Student Code of Conduct
Student Affairs Committee
October 2007
 

I.                     General issues (in no particular order)

a.       It is currently difficult to find specific information in the Code. 

                                                               i.      One way to organize the document would be to have
 several broad categories such as:

1.       Academic integrity

2.       A drug-free campus

3.       Accuracy in records

4.       Campus order

5.       Compliance with state laws

                                                             ii.      Have an appendix for statutes, instead of including
them in the body of the text.  This would make reading
a little easier.  In a web version, the statutes could
be included as a link.

                                                            iii.      Some of the details in the Code of Conduct are
redundant to state laws.  Could much of the
redundant wording be removed (for instance on theft,
or destruction of property) and a paragraph substituted stating that the laws apply to campus?

                                                            iv.     Similarly, while the code is redundant to some state
laws, others are absent, such as rape, sex crimes and
hate crimes. 

                                                              v.     Section numbers should be included (I.A.i, etc) to make
referring to sections simpler and organization more
sensible.

b.      The code is entirely punitive

                                                               i.      Each category should be prefaced with a statement including the importance of the behavior (for example,
a few sentences on why academic honesty is important
to a college).  Smith College has an example at http://www.smith.edu/hr/conduct.php.

                                                             ii.      The code should be prefaced by a student written
Honor Code (currently in the works).

c.       On-line behavior is not specifically addressed

                                                               i.      It would be better (i.e. more concise) to have a
short paragraph explaining that the online environment
is considered “campus property” rather than trying
to include language in every section about web
behavior.

                                                             ii.      Email, personal websites and personal communication
is also governed by on campus rules, not just web
course delivery, yes?

d.       The code is not organizationally consistent

                                                               i.      Each section should be organized in the same way,
for example: a title, a few sentences explaining the
goals or need or shared value for the category,
followed by the rules and then consequences.

                                                             ii.      It should be repeated in every section where
relevant that the Judicial Affairs Officer should
be informed of code infractions.

II.                   A few specifics

a.       There are a few comments and concerns regarding
plagiarism, cheating, fabrication and collusion

                                                               i.      Students who plagiarize (or cheat, farbricate,
collude, etc) can currently withdraw from a
course and avoid a failing grade

1.       Can students be prevented from withdrawing
by requiring an advisors signature or approval
from a “withdrawal committee”?

2.       Is it legal to prevent a student from withdrawing?

                                                             ii.      A report from the Faculty Affairs committee by Brian Christenson on the plagiarism issue includes:

1.       “The Faculty Affairs Committee recommends
that the current language in the Student
Code of Conduct remain with the addition
of, “In the event that a student is found
guilty of plagiarism as defined by the Student
Code of Conduct, and disciplinary action has
been taken by the faculty, the student’s
infraction will be reported to the Judicial
Affairs Officer, and documented.”

2.       “The Faculty Affairs Committee recommends
that a standard plagiarism and academic
honesty educational component be required
by all new students within one semester of
their first academic term.”

3.       And here is a little more detail about the
educational component from Brian: Basically,
we are recommending a change in the
Student Handbook policy, and are looking
at the online course that the library that
has already created to be completed by
students within their first semester of
attendance at LCSC.  The course would be
non-credit, and a short, ten minute exam
occurs online at the end.  Here is the direct
link to the course: http://www.lcsc.edu/library/ILI/Module_2A/Welcome.htm

                                                            iii.      Faculty would like wording on plagiarism, cheating,
fabrication and collusion (and dishonesty/misconduct)
that can be directly copied from the Code into a
syllabus, so that expectations of honesty and resulting consequences are clear to all parties.  This should
include the benefits and goals of honesty, as well
as definitions of plagiarism and consequences.

b.      “Disruptive behavior in the classroom”.

                                                               i.      Please note that this is a concern brought to the
committee by our ASLCSC representative.

                                                             ii.      Currently, this reads: “Disruption of the classroom
is prohibited. Each faculty member controls the
direction of education in the classroom setting.
That educational atmosphere is the heart and
purpose of higher education. Students have the
obligation to respect the educational rights of
others as they seek to maximize their learning.
Faculty have the right to utilize whatever methods
they deem appropriate to ensure the quality of the
educational atmosphere. This includes but is not
limited to requesting an investigation of disruptive
classroom behavior under the Student Code of
Conduct”.

                                                            iii.      While this empowers faculty to remove students
from the classroom, it does not specifically state
that infractions should be reported to the Judicial
Affairs Officer so that repeat offenders can be
recognized.  This is of particular concern in classes
involving machinery and laboratories.

                                                            iv.      Can instructors be trained to recognize different
types of disruptive behaviors (i.e stemming from
drug use or psychiatric disorders) to better
manage them?

III.                  Other notes…

a.       Can we name the “judicial affairs office” something else? 
As the model article from last year pointed out, it is very
different from  “judicial”.

b.      When does the lawyer see the document?  Is it possible
to have some independent council review the document
with respect to student rights?  A criminal defense attorneys
might be able to comment on the implications of an in-house
created code, especially with respect to the disciplinary
structure and due process.

 

 Return to the Faculty Senate Home Page