With each revision, Syracuse University’s academic integrity policy should preserve the opportunity for students to defend their actions in what is often an imperfect system.

The Academic Integrity Policy Review Advisory Committee has been working to update the university’s academic integrity protocol with the goal of having a revised procedure going into effect later this year.

The current policy provides students with the sole option of a formal hearing, according to Academic Integrity Office’s website. But the revised guidelines will aim to eliminate hearings for students who have acknowledged they violated the policy and classify violations at three different levels: a formal letter of reprimand for level 1, academic probation for level 2 and suspension or expulsion for level 3.

And while these sanctions are a new concept created with the intention to ensure the processes are as efficient as possible in regard to time and resources, it is essential that those who shape the policy do not lose sight of the hearings as a necessary outlet for students to voice their defense argument.

The importance of students having this outlet is amplified by the fact that the integrity system throughout SU is not uniform between professors, classes and departments on campus. Though unofficial, some professors on campus may leave assessing the extent of the plagiarism committed and what repercussions it warrants at their own discretion, while others may cite one instance of plagiarism as deserving of risk for expulsion.

When the sanctions come into play, is it imperative that the policy explicitly communicates what actions merit each level of consequence and that there is a clear understanding of this system for both faculty and students. Without this disclosure, what constitutes each degree of offense remains ambiguous and students may risk the loss of having the opportunity for a hearing due to a lack of understanding.

As it stands now, the current integrity policy in place at SU has not been updated since the summer of 2011, and the 2011 version was only a modified version of a policy created back in 2006. And while the advisory committee is moving to maintain a modern approach that is aligned with the ways in which SU students work academically, a routine assessment of the policy should also aim address these lapses in consistency throughout operations from classroom to classroom.

This steady evaluation is integral to the success of the policy, considering Margaret Usdansky, the director of the Academic Integrity Office, said that since 2011, the office’s caseload has increased from roughly 150 reported violations per academic year to about 250.

These updates will centralize university integrity policies and ensure that they are being upheld on university grounds with the most cohesion possible. But, even as revisions are made, the value of students having the opportunity to voice their argument remains should remain intact in all updates made to the policy rather than being lost in the shuffle.

Published on February 9, 2016 at 1:14 am

Contact: opinion@dailyorange.com