Curious as to why this is being removed. I believe it was initially put in there to avoid students being paired with faculty that could have a say in future grades, etc.Reference

The AISC members discussed this at the end of the Policy’s first year. In some cases, it was difficult to require that this this counseling come from outside the school. In some programs, for example, it might be computer code that had been plagiarized, and preventing discussion with anyone from the relevant school was problematic. Other programs such as Architecture and Fashion also have their own contexts for such discussion. This change with still permit assignment outside of the home school where that wouldn’t be problematic, but it was also felt that, counseling within a school, when best to be assigned in that way, could be viewed as part of a student’s professional development in that no problem in a future workplace or career relationship is likely to be outsourced for resolution. Again, this deletion is intended to permit particular pairings when the nature of the infraction might require that.Reference

Perhaps reword “Based on our value of academic integrity” . . . instead something something like “To help protect academic integrity,” or “Because we value academic integrity” or “Because these issues are crucial in our community”,” or . . . maybe just delete and start sentence with “Pratt has an Academic Integrity Standing Committee (AISC)”Reference

“These works include, but are not limited to exams, quizzes,”

Add a comma after “to” as below:

“These works include, but are not limited to, exams, quizzes . . .”Reference

Thank you for your work on this matter. As a Chair dealing with a few recent cases I must say that this is a good and respectful process. That said, we should always be prepared for those outliers!

Re: “The supplying or receiving of completed work including papers, projects, outlines, artworks, designs, prototypes, models, or research for submission by any person other than the author.”
Clearer and reads better if commas are added after “work” and after “research”

Re “The supplying or receiving of partial or complete answers, or suggestions for answers; or the supplying or receiving of assistance in interpretation of questions on any examination from any source not explicitly authorized.” Replace the semicolon with a comma, and to insert a comma after “questions” — (I understand the semicolon is meant to organize that long citation but I don’t think a semicolon works after “questions” and something there is needed.)Reference

Very important for followup! When “flagging” (i.e., reporting) a student for an Academic Integrity issue under Starfish, it tells me— as the issuing faculty member— that I am “confidentially alerting the Registrar and Academic Integrity Chair”,
with the disclaimer that a student can request the full text of my “flag” under FERPA.Reference

Note that in section IV. Penalties under A, that language also needs to be removed. Right now, it still has the earlier exclusion of AISC member from the student’s school.Reference

“When the infraction is judged to be so serious that the maximum penalty available to the faculty member (failure of the course) is deemed to be insufficient.”

It’s unclear who would make that judgement. but maybe it’s better to leave that open. (Faculty or chair, I suppose, would make that judgement.)Reference

“An Academic Integrity Hearing Board consists of three members from the Academic Integrity Standing Committee (AISC) and one member is selected to serve as chair.”
Does that make 4 members?
Suggest either “An Academic Integrity Hearing Board consists of three members from the Academic Integrity Standing Committee (AISC) of whom one member is selected to serve as chair.” OR
“An Academic Integrity Hearing Board consists of three members from the Academic Integrity Standing Committee (AISC) plus a fourth member selected to serve as chair.”Reference

Again, above the term used was “Appeals Board” but starting with header B the term has become “Appeal Board” — go with one or the other.

And unclear
“The chairperson, a voting member appointed by the board, will ensure that proper procedures are followed.” Too many boards! Does this mean “The chairperson of the Appeal(s) Board, a voting member appointed by [the AISC? . the Hearing Board? (Not “by the Appeal(s) Board” itself if appointed rather than elected I assume . .Reference

“If the respondent refuses or fails to attend a hearing, does not attempt to schedule a videoconference, or file a request for continuance for good cause

I think it should be explained here in plain language what is meant by the legal term “continuance for good cause” — I’m not sure myself. An accused student might need to know this.

And, I think it should be “files” a request for continuance for good cause, not “file,” if I’m reading it correctly.Reference

This is I believe the first time the term “complainant” has been used . . .or the first time I noticed. Overall — it feels like this policy starts out in plain language and states there will be no legal proceedings but the goal will be fairness. But as I keep reading, the policy and procedures start to sound very much like legal proceedings, in which the accused’s rights are limited. The tone changed around the time there was a reference to “filing a request for continuance for good cause.” I suggest legal language be avoided.Reference

Again, reference to “complainant.” Meaning, I assume, teacher or chair, in most cases? If that term is to be used, maybe define it in apposition the first time it’s used.

And then in next section, 11. Adjudication– “The range of sanctions that may be given by the Academic Integrity Hearing Board includes as listed in IV below.” — I think “included” not “includes”

And then further down– C. Appeal Board — make sure whether it’s Appeals Board or Appeal Board. And I believe the term was capitalized previously, but under C it’s all lower case.

In general . . . the first part of this policy refers to the accused person as “student.” Then once it goes to the board, we hear about “respondent.” Is this change in language both intentional and necessary? Would an accused student be able to understand that “respondent” is student? I suggest going through this to see whether it could remain in plain language. Eliminate or explain legal terms as much as possible.Reference

The “student’s home school” in this instance refers to Pratt School of Information, and not the entire University, correct? It is likely that the student will seek a member within Pratt, if this is allowable. One alternative to this line is: “All first time offenders must meet with a member from within the Pratt community and outside the School of Information.”Reference

Im curious, has there been any tracking or research as to which students are committing plagiarism? who are they ? who will be most impacted by this process? Are students also getting an opportunity to review these guidelines? It would be great to get a sense from students about what they think about the proposed process.

Also, what about for students for whom English is not their primary language or who are coming from a different cultural context ?Reference