January 17, 2003
Meeting of the General Faculty and the Faculty Council
Friday, January 17th, 2003 at 3:00 p.m.
The Pleasants Family Assembly Room in Wilson Library
Chancellor James Moeser and Professor Sue Estroff, Chair of the Faculty, will preside.
3:00 Call to Order. The Secretary of the Faculty.
DISC 3:00 Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Time.
- Chancellor James Moeser invites questions or comments.
INFO 3:15 Remarks by the Provost.
- Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Robert Shelton.
- Progress Report on the Academic Plan.
- Annual Report of the University Priorities and Budget Advisory Committee.
DISC 3:35 Remarks by the Chair of the Faculty.
- Professor Sue Estroff invites questions or comments.
ACT 3:55 Resolutions Amending the Faculty Code of University Government.
- Second Reading:
- Resolution 2003-1 on the Divisions of the College of Arts and Sciences.
- Resolution 2003-2 on the Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions.
- First Reading:
- Resolution 2003-3 to Establish a Committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure.
ACT 4:00 Resolution 2003-4 Concerning Gender Equity in Faculty Salaries.
- Professor Etta Pisano, Chair of the Status of Women Committee.
ACT 4:15 Resolutions on Honor System Reform.
- Resolution 2003-5 On Faculty Responsibilities in Relation to the Honor Code.
- Resolution 2003-6 Amending the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance.
- Professor Judith Wegner.
ACT 4:25 Report of the Task Force on Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure.
- Resolution 2003-7 Endorsing Certain Recommendations of the Task Force.
- Professors Paul Farel and Barbara Harris, Co-chairs.
INFO 4:40 Annual Report of the Advisory Committee.
- Professor Frederick P. Brooks Jr., Chair.
INFO 4:45 Annual Report of the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council.
- Professor Estroff, Chair.
DISC 4:50 Open Discussion of Topics Raised by Faculty Members.
ACT 5:00 Adjourn.
Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty
ACT = Action
DISC = Discussion
INFO = Information
Present (72): Allison, Ammerman, Bachenheimer, Bane, Barbour, Bollen, Bouldin, Bowen, Cairns, Carter, Chenault, Colindres, Crawford-Brown, Daye, Diette, Elter, Elvers, Files, Fishell, Gerber, Gilland, Gollop, Granger, Henry, Holditch-Davis, Janda, Kagarise, Kelley, Kjervik, Leigh, Lohr, Malizia, McGraw, Meece, Meyer, Miller, Molina, Moran, Morris-Natschke, Nelson, Nonini, Orthner, Owen, Panter, Parikh, Pfaff, Pisano, Pittman, Poole, Reinert, Rippe, Rock, Rong, Rowan, Salmon, Schauer, Shea, Sigurdsson, Simpson, Straughan, Strauss, Tauchen, Toews, Tresolini, Tulloch, Vandermeer, Vick, Wallace, Watson, Weiss, Wilson, Yopp.
Excused absences (16): Adimora, Carelli, Cotton, D’Cruz, Foley, Fowler, Kessler, Langbauer, Metzguer, Nicholas, Porto, Reisner, Retsch-Bogart, Smith, Sueta, Willis.
Unexcused absences (2): McQueen, Sams.
Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Time
Chancellor James Moeser thanked all those who worked on the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance, especially Prof. Marilyn Yarbrough (Law), who chaired the special task force, and Prof. Judith Wegner (Law), chair of the Committee on Student Conduct. The proposed revision makes not only practical recommendations for a more efficient system but emphasizes the importance of the concept of honor. The chancellor said that the primary focus should be the positive value of honor and integrity as an integral part of the culture of excellence at Carolina rather than just the necessary system of sanctions and penalties for violators. The lofty goals of the honor system can be achieved only in a setting in which intellectual honesty and personal integrity are highly valued, other individuals are trusted, respected, and fairly treated, and the responsibility for maintaining and articulating high standards is widely shared.
Chancellor Moeser thanked the co-chairs of the Task Force on Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure, Professors Paul Farel and Barbara Harris, for their leadership. He applauded the work of the task force and was pleased with its report. One important side benefit of its recommendations is that the Advisory Committee can now return to its original charge to be an elected council of advice to the chancellor in a broad range of issues, not just personnel decisions. He welcomed the opportunity to consult the Advisory Committee on a regular basis, as well as the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council, and to focus the discussions entirely on major policy decisions facing the university.
Chancellor Moeser said that one of the most important issues to be discussed this year is the development of the academic plan. Initially, our goal was to develop a document that would be a general guide to future investments in academic programs. That continues to be an important purpose for the plan, but the worsening State budget situation points to a second purposes, which will be to provide a plan of work that will guide us in making difficult decisions about our future priorities. Over the past several years we have experienced a cumulative reduction in State support of 13%. If this trend continues, we must be prepared. In that light, the academic plan takes on a greater sense of urgency and importance.
Chancellor Moeser commented on pending litigation in the United States Supreme Court challenging the University of Michigan’s admissions policy as impermissibly based on racial considerations. He noted that President Bush has publicly supported the plaintiff’s position in the case, thus going on record in opposition to the policies now in place at Michigan. The chancellor wanted to make it clear that while we use race as a factor in the admissions process at Carolina, it is one of many areas considered in evaluating a candidate. The admissions office focuses on academic preparation and the ability of prospective students to contribute to and benefit from the student body and the campus community. Unlike Michigan, we do not use a point system or formula. We will be monitoring the situation carefully and will comply as appropriate with the Court’s decision. He reported that Dean Gene Nichol and several faculty members of the School of Law are preparing an amicus curiae brief to support our position that achieving a diverse student body is a compelling interest for a public law school and a public university.
At the conclusion of his formal remarks, Chancellor Moeser asked for questions or comment.
Prof. Larry Rowan (Physics & Astronomy) noted the recent study of gender salary equity and said that he would like to see further studies that investigated the relationship between faculty salaries and extent and quality of faculty activity in the three areas of research, teaching, and service. Such a study might also investigate whether there are negative effects on salary stemming from the university’s attitude toward teaching certain subjects. The chancellor said that we are a university that values teaching and service, but the difficulty in implementing Prof. Rowan’s proposal would be categorizing the faculty into research faculty, teaching faculty, or service faculty. Most of our faculty excel in at least two of these areas, if not all three. He did agree that we need to have a rewards structure that rewards our faculty for doing what they do best.
Prof. Sue Estroff, Chair of the Faculty, asked for clarification on the university’s position on the recent FBI request for information on faculty and students who do not hold United States passports. Prof. Richard Pfaff (History) added his concern that records of library borrowings can be subpoenaed. The chancellor replied that he had only incomplete knowledge on this subject and would ask the general counsel to brief him as to what the law is. He indicated that his position would be to protect privacy to the extent allowed by law.
Prof. Thomas Shea (Medicine) noted that Sen. Elizabeth Dole has been making a favorable impression in Washington. He hopes that the university would seek to establish a good working relationship with her. The chancellor replied that he has recently been in contact with Sen. Dole, Sen. John Edwards, and Congressman David Price on current issues before Congress that are of concern to the university.
Prof. Noelle Granger (Cell Biology & Anatomy) asked for comment on the apparent dichotomy between the goals outlined in the academic plan and the fact that funding for them would necessarily lag behind by up to five years. The chancellor said that this point is currently under discussion. While the plan needs to set goals and visions, it also needs to set criteria about who will make critical decisions and what we want to protect if we need to make cuts due to budget reductions.
Prof. Donald Nonini (Anthropology) spoke of his deep concern at the way federal immigration regulations are impacting not only our international students but also some of our visiting scholars. The chancellor replied that we are trying to remain on top of those issues in collaboration with other major national universities with the same concerns.
Remarks by the Provost
Provost Robert Shelton said he would address four topics: teaching assistant compensation, Carolina North, the academic plan, and the University Priorities and Budget Advisory Committee.
The provost reported that the Teaching Assistant Advisory Task Force has issued its final report. The task force was given three assignments: (1) make a comprehensive assessment of the current state of teaching assistant compensation in all units, (2) recommend an appropriate level of compensation, and (3) develop a reasonable means to reach the recommended compensation level. The task force recommends an increase over the next four years in the average teaching assistant salary from the current $11,300 to $14,300. This increase will bring Carolina to the top quartile of our peer institutions in this regard. The Office of Institutional Research will monitor teaching assistant salaries and our standing in comparison to peer institutions and will report findings each year in May. The minimum stipend, now $5,000, will be incremented by $500 annually for four years until it reaches $7,000. It is anticipated that funding will come from campus-based tuition and State appropriations.
Provost Shelton said that Vice Chancellor Tony Waldrop has appointed four advisory groups to assist in planning for the development of Carolina North. The groups will address external relations, infrastructure, university uses, and new business development. The advisory groups are working with a broad cross-section of faculty, staff, and administrators, and with liaison committees appointed by the Town of Chapel Hill.
The provost welcomed faculty input into the proposed academic plan and emphasized that there will be multiple opportunities to do so. He anticipates bringing the plan to the Board of Trustees on March 26.
The provost said that the University Priorities and Budget Advisory Committee has been very useful in these times of financial retrenchment.
Prof. Emil Malizia (City & Regional Planning) said that he did not understand the logic of the recommendations of the Teaching Assistant Advisory Task Force if our ultimate goal is to attract the best and brightest graduate students using fixed resources. Raising the average compensation will actually reduce the number of graduate students we can recruit if additional funding does not materialize. Provost Shelton said that the task force’s recommendations are predicated upon our ability to raise additional funds.
Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks
Prof. Sue Estroff said that we need to a have a thoughtful conversation about balancing the needs and values of the university’s core educational mission with those of UNC Hospitals, which functions in many ways like a very large business operation. UNC Hospitals has a different vocabulary, a different sense of urgency, and a different set of needs than the rest of the campus. She wanted to underscore that faculty members in the School of Medicine take great pride in our health care system and that the School of Medicine is the foundation of our clinical care system, but it is important the perceived needs of “customers” of the hospital not be allowed to overwhelm the needs of the faculty. She called for a sense of proportions and priorities.
On the matter of salary equity, Prof. Estroff said that she was disturbed by comments at the last Council meeting implying that some faculty are fearful of discussing compensation with either their direct supervisors or their deans. She said that this is intolerable. She called for ideas as to how to address the problem.
Prof. Ron Strauss (Dentistry) observed that individuals whose salaries are under review as a result of the gender equity study need to be informed of that fact. It is not acceptable that this be a topic of private discussion by administrators alone without the faculty member being involved in any way. Prof. Estroff asked whether the Council agreed that a faculty member whose dossier is being reviewed as a result of the gender equity study should know that the review is taking place and should have an opportunity to review material that will be used to determine if the salary is appropriate. There appeared to be general assent to that proposal.
Prof. Camilla Tulloch (Dentistry) expressed frustration and distress about the disruptions being caused by construction in the area of the campus near the Dental School. She said she did not think that the university has adequately addressed the human side of planning and development.
Resolutions Amending the Faculty Code of University Government
A resolution amending the Faculty Code of University Government entitled “On Divisions of the College of Arts and Sciences,” having passed its first reading onDec. 6, 2002, was placed before the General Faculty for passage on second reading. The resolution was adopted unanimously and will be enrolled as Resolution 2003-1.
A resolution amending the Faculty Code of University Government entitled “On the Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions,” having passed its first reading onDec. 6, 2002, was placed before the General Faculty for passage on second reading. The resolution was adopted unanimously and will be enrolled as Resolution 2003-2.
A resolution entitled “To Establish a Committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure,” having been reported favorably to the General Faculty by the Committee on University Government, was placed before the General Faculty for passage on first reading. Prof. Estroff asked Prof. Joseph Ferrell, secretary of the faculty, to explain the resolution and to preside during its consideration.
Prof. Ferrell explained the rationale of the structure proposed for the APT Committee. He said that roughly one-third of the faculty hold appointments in the College of Arts and Sciences, one-third in the Medical School, and one-third in all the remaining appointing units combined. Hence, the recommended apportionment of the committee tracks faculty strength in these three major constituencies and therefore the workload. Members of the Advisory Committee, the Faculty Hearings Committee, and the Faculty Grievance Committee would not be eligible to serve on the committee because of potential conflicts of interest. The APT Committee is to be advisory to the provost, rather than the chancellor, because the practical locus of final action of faculty personnel matters is at that level of administration. The committee’s charge is broadly worded to encourage the provost to consult the committee on any important issue affecting faculty appointments, not just decisions with respect to specific individuals. The resolution removes from the charge of the Advisory Committee responsibility for advising the chancellor on specific faculty personnel decisions and adds charges to advise the chancellor on amendments to the tenure regulations, departmental statements of criteria for appointments, promotions, and tenure, and proposed corrective action in response to recommendations of the Faculty Hearings Committee or the Faculty Grievance Committee.
Prof. Diane Kjervik (Nursing) asked how the APT Committee will relate to the Health Sciences Advisory Committee. Prof. Ferrell replied that the resolution now before the General Faculty does not affect review of faculty personnel decisions at the department, school, or divisional level. The Task Force on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure has made recommendations that do affect lower-level reviews, but those recommendations are not embodied in the resolution now under discussion.
Prof. Strauss expressed concern at the appointment of the APT Committee. He noted that only four members are apportioned to represent 11 of the 12 professional schools. He hoped that a way could be found to insure at least periodic representation of each school without necessarily enlarging the committee’s membership. Prof. Ferrell replied that the Committee on University Government had discussed this issue extensively and felt that the recommended apportionment was both fair and practical. The professional schools other than Medicine range in faculty strength from 29 (Information & Library Science) to 203 (Public Health). At present, the Advisory Committee has nine members and is not apportioned at all. The Nominating Committee, however, attempts to develop a slate of candidates each year that will enable the electorate to keep the membership relatively well-balanced. The Committee on University Government assumes that the Nominating Committee will continue to be attentive to the need for diversity in the future.
Prof. Paul Farel (Cell & Molecular Physiology) spoke to the proposal to assign to the Advisory Committee rather than the new APT Committee responsibility for in-depth review of departmental statements of criteria for
appointments and promotions. He said that an argument could be made that the APT Committee is best suited for that task since the criteria are best understood in the context of individual cases. On the other hand, during his service on the Advisory Committee, the committee had not been able to effectively address departmental criteria due to the press of other business.
Prof. Fred Brooks (Computer Science) agreed that the APT Committee is unlikely to have the time to review departmental criteria. He agreed that individual cases often raise policy questions. Perhaps good lines of communication between the two committees might be the answer, he said.
Prof. Estroff observed that review and evaluation of departmental criteria should be done in consultation with both committees. She also expressed her concern that the inaugural membership of the APT should appropriately represent the diversity of the faculty. As for the apportionment among professional schools, she pointed out that the number of dossiers originating from the School of Medicine is so large that it is important to have members who are familiar with the wide range of disciplines and academic cultures found there.
Prof. Ferrell offered his view that the smaller professional schools could actually be better served by the new apportionment than by the existing arrangement for electing the Advisory Committee.
Prof. Brooks moved to amend the resolution to make the chair of the APT Committee an ex officio member of the Advisory Committee. The amendment was adopted.
Prof. Richard Pfaff (History) observed that resolution and reports currently under consideration by the Council and General Faculty are likely to result in the establishment of several new standing committees, which means we will be looking for members to serve on them. He hoped that these would not be all the same people; we should be trying to find younger and newer members of the faculty to serve on them.
Prof. Pfaff moved to amend the resolution to make members of the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council ineligible for service on the APT Committee. He said that the rationale of his amendment is that ECFC is advisory to the provost, as is also the APT Committee. The amendment was adopted.
Prof. Estroff returned to the issue raised by Prof. Strauss. She said that in discussing this proposal with the co-chairs of the APT Task Force, she has envisioned a review process in which primary and secondary readers, and perhaps a third reader, are assigned to each appointment or promotion dossier. The readers would produce a summary report and, if they felt the need, would consult with someone familiar with the candidate’s area of work. The readers would also have access to the chair of the school’s review committee. She thought we need to be planning a very different review process than what has been customary here.
Prof. Bruce Cairns (Surgery), speaking as a junior tenure-track faculty member, asked for comment on what is the driving force behind the proposal for a new APT Committee and revising review procedures. Is it simply a matter of the extent of the work to be done, or is something about the review process broken and in need of fixing?
Exec. Assoc. Provost Bernadette Gray-Little said that it is her impression that most of the people who have served on the Advisory Committee feel that they needed to spend more time on reviewing individual dossiers and on the larger issue of faculty personnel policies. At the same time, they have been elected to a committee whose historic function is to advise the chancellor on a wide range of important issues facing the university. Many faculty members who have been elected to the committee in the past thought the general advisory role would be their primary work, rather than personnel review. She thought the proposal addresses all of these threads.
The discussion having concluded, Prof. Ferrell put the resolution to a vote. It was approved by a wide margin. The resolution having passed its first reading, it remains on the calendar for second reading at the next meeting of the General Faculty.
Resolution Concerning Gender Equity in Faculty Salaries
A resolution entitled “Concerning Gender Equity in Faculty Salaries,” having been reported favorably by the Committee on the Status of Women, was placed before the Faculty Council for action.
Prof. Etta Pisano (Radiology), chair of the Committee on the Status of Women, said that the committee had held five open meetings with faculty members during November and December organized by Prof. Kjervik, head of the Carolina Women’s Center. A proposal was then developed and distributed to the women’s groups who had asked to be involved in its development. The proposal has the endorsement of the Association of Professional Women in the School of Medicine, the Carolina Women’s Center, and the Association of Women Faculty and Professionals. Prof. Pisano modified the resolution as presented to add at the end of Section 1, “Faculty whose salaries are under review will be so informed.” She said this amendment was in response to Prof. Strauss’ remarks earlier in the meeting.
Prof. Ferrell noted that some of our appointing units have relatively few faculty positions. He asked whether a small unit which found it difficult to establish a separate elected committee to carry out the functions specified in the resolution could be permitted flexibility to accomplish the same result some other way.
Prof. Pisano said that she understood the point and thought that the resolution as drafted allowed the provost sufficient flexibility to do that.
Prof. Jan Yopp (Journalism & Mass Communication) asked if a school’s elected faculty salary committee could be designated its gender equity committee as well. Prof. Pisano replied that that would be permissible. Prof. Pisano added that the principal reason for insisting on an elected committee is to ensure that faculty members know who is on the committee and have input into who is chosen to serve on it.
Referring to Section 4 of the resolution, Prof. Yopp asked how much of the specified information is already being reported to the provost. Prof. Estroff said that almost all of it is readily available and will not require much work to assemble.
Prof. Kenneth Bollen (Biology) expressed concern that the resolution addresses only salaries that are inappropriately low. Discussion ensued on various ways of rewording the resolution to address Prof. Bollen’s comments. When it became clear that consensus on an appropriate amendment was proving elusive, Prof. Wesley Wallace (Emergency Medicine) moved to postpone further consideration of the resolution until the Feb. 7 Council meeting. The motion to postpone was adopted by a vote of 43-18. Prof. Pisano said that she would revise the resolution in the light of the discussion.
Resolutions on Honor System Reform
A resolution entitled “On Faculty Responsibilities in Relation to the Honor Code,” having been reported favorably by the Committee on Student Conduct, was placed before the Faculty Council for action.
A resolution entitled “Comprehensively Amending the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance,” having been reported favorably by the Committee on Student Conduct, was also placed before the Council for action.
Prof. Wegner, chair of the Committee on Student Conduct, spoke to both resolutions. She said that the statement of faculty responsibilities in relation to the Honor Code has long been included as an appendix to the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance. The resolution improvements or clarifies the statement in several particulars:
- Re-use of examinations is recognized as appropriate when warranted as part of an assessment system that relies on recurring use of a pool of pre-tested and validated multiple-choice questions administered with appropriate safeguards;
- Faculty members are explicitly empowered to recommend an appropriate sanction or disposition from those available if the student is found guilty; and
- Faculty members are enjoined to refrain from taking unilateral punitive action rather than reporting suspect conduct.
As to the resolution endorsing the revision of the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance, Prof. Wegner pointed out a change that makes it clear that a graduate student who is assigned a failing grade as the result of academic misconduct is not automatically dropped from his or her program; that judgment is left to the school or department.
Prof. Kjervik noted that the task force had recommended changing the burden of proof before the Honor Court to “clear and convincing evidence,” whereas the Instrument now being presented for endorsement retains “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Prof. Wegner explained that the Committee on Student Conduct felt that the difficulties that have been experienced with “reasonable doubt” have stemmed not from the concept but form erroneous understandings as to what it means. The committee has addressed that by including an elaborated definition of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Chancellor Moeser pointed out that he had raised the question of whether a student who had been convicted of a major violation of the Honor Code could be eligible for graduating with distinction. Prof. Wegner replied that the Instrument as revised permits as a sanction withholding special recognition or distinction, including awards, prizes, or any other type of special recognition. Chancellor Moeser asked that the minutes reflect his interpretation that a student conviction of an Honor Code violation would be ineligible to graduate with distinction. Prof. Ferrell noted that degrees are conferred by the chancellor on recommendation of the faculty and stated his opinion that as chief academic officer of the institution, the chancellor has authority to make such a ruling.
Prof. Douglas Elvers (Business) expressed pleasure at seeing that the revision sets a goal of 30 days for resolving cases. He has heard of cases that took 18 months to be resolved. He asked to what extent an accused student could delay proceedings. Prof. Wegner pointed out that the revision does provide for expedited proceedings for first offenses when the student does not contest the charge.
Discussion having concluded the resolutions were put to a vote and adopted without dissent. Having been adopted, the resolution entitled “On Faculty Responsibilities in Relation to the Honor Code” will be enrolled as Resolution 2003-5. The resolution entitled “Amending the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance” will be enrolled as Resolution 2003-6.
Report of the Task Force on Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure
The hour having grown late, the report of the Task Force on Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure was postponed until the next regular meeting of the Council onFeb. 7, 2003.
The annual reports of the Advisory Committee and the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council were also postponed until the next regular meeting of the Council onFebruary 7, 2003.
Its business having been completed or rescheduled, the Council adjourned at5:15 p.m.
Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty
Resolutions Adopted January 17, 2003
Resolution 2003-5. On Faculty Responsibilities in Relation to the Honor Code.
Whereas, faculty members and students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill share a commitment to the pursuit of truth, and the dissemination of knowledge to succeeding generations of citizens devoted to the high ideals of personal honor and respect for the rights of others; and
Whereas, these goals can only be achieved in a setting in which intellectual honesty and personal integrity are highly valued; others are trusted, respected, and fairly treated; and the responsibility for articulating and maintaining high standards is widely shared; and
Whereas the University can effectively set and maintain high standards for academic integrity only through the individual and collective commitment of its faculty to this end; and
Whereas the Faculty Council, on behalf of the faculty, wishes to provide renewed guidance to colleagues on how best to achieve this important objective; now therefore
The Faculty Council resolves:
Academic work is a joint enterprise involving faculty and students. Both have a fundamental investment in the enterprise and both must share responsibility for ensuring its integrity. Therefore, the specific actions enumerated below are declared to be those which are included in, but do not exhaust the responsibility of the faculty in relation to the Honor Code.
Awareness. To assure that community-wide expectations regarding academic integrity are understood and communicated, and that students are held accountable for conforming their conduct to such expectations, faculty members, teaching assistants and other instructional personnel should become familiar with the University Honor System (embodied in the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance and related documents) and other sources of information about instructional practices that foster a strong commitment to academic integrity. Deans, department chairs, advisors, and others responsible for academic units and support services related to the University’s academic mission should aid instructional personnel in achieving this objective.
Good Instructional Practices in Providing Guidance. To assist students in complying with their responsibilities relating to academic integrity, faculty members, teaching assistants, and other instructional personnel should use adopt good instructional practices that set and communicate clear ground rules for academic work conducted under their supervision (for example by stating expectations as part of course syllabi, identifying materials that may or may not be used in completing assignments, and indicating the extent of collaboration that is or is not permitted).
Good Instructional Practices in Administering Examinations. To reduce the temptation to engage in academic dishonesty and the opportunities to do so, faculty members, teaching assistants, and other instructional personnel should adopt good instructional practices included but not limited to the following
- Require students to sign the honor pledge as a condition of submitting academic assignments.
- Take steps to prevent unauthorized access to examinations during development, duplication, and administration.
- Avoid re-using prior examinations in whole or part where possible unless placed on reserve or otherwise made available to all students.
- Take all reasonable steps consistent with physical classroom conditions to reduce the risk of cheating during the administration of examinations.
- Maintain proper security during the administration of examinations including as appropriate overseeing distribution and collection of examinations and proctoring the examination session.
Oversight. To reinforce expectations that students conduct themselves in keeping with high standards of academic integrity, and to bolster the integrity of the fact-finding and sanctioning process, faculty members, teaching assistants, and other instructional personnel should
- Report to the appropriate student attorney general any instance in which the instructor has reasonable basis to conclude that a student under the faculty member’s supervision has engaged in academic dishonesty or substantially assisted another to do so in connection with academically related work. Such reports should include a brief description of the suspected academic dishonesty including surrounding facts and circumstances, and possible recommendations as to the appropriate sanction or disposition from among those available.
- In the instructor’s discretion, notify the student of the instructor’s intention to report the suspected academic dishonesty and permit the student to provide relevant further information if the student chooses to do so.
- Recognize that private action as a sanction for academic cheating, including the assignment of a failing grade in the course, is inconsistent with faculty policy and shall not be used in lieu of or in addition to a report of the incident.
- Cooperate with representatives of the student judicial system (including the appropriate student attorney general, defense counsel, honor court personnel, and the judicial program officer) in conducting necessary investigation, providing testimony or other evidence, recommending appropriate sanctions, or otherwise bringing the matter to prompt conclusion.
Involvement. To bring to bear requisite faculty judgment regarding the nature and importance of academic integrity, and to nourish a strong campus-wide understanding and commitment to associated intellectual and personal values, faculty members, teaching assistants, and other instructional personnel should
- Explore issues of integrity in connection with instructional activities where relevant and appropriate;
- Encourage their academic units to take matters of academic integrity seriously, become informed regarding related problems and advisable means of preventing problems from arising, and provide requisite training and support to instructional personnel;
- Participate upon request as part of educational initiatives, faculty advisory panels, and University Hearing Boards designed to create, nurture, and enforce high standards of academic integrity within the University community.
Resolution 2003-6. Comprehensively Amending the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance.
WHEREAS at its January 10, 2003 meeting the Faculty Council received the recommendation of the Committee on Student Conduct, dated December 31, 2002, to adopt a comprehensive revision of the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance; and
WHEREAS the Faculty Council believes that successful pursuit of the University’s mission depends on the shared commitment of faculty members, students and staff to the pursuit of truth and the dissemination of knowledge to succeeding generations of citizens who will be devoted to the high ideals of personal honor and respect for the rights of others; and
WHEREAS these goals can only be achieved in a setting in which intellectual honesty and personal integrity are highly valued; other individuals are trusted, respected, and fairly treated; and the responsibility for articulating and maintaining high standards is widely shared; and
WHEREAS the campus Honor System, as embodied in the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance, is the long-standing means by which members of the University community express their desire to hold themselves and others accountable for pursuing these goals on a daily basis; and
WHEREAS important improvements in the Honor System can be achieved through periodic comprehensive revision of the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance; and
WHEREAS the Chancellor’s Task Force on the Student Judicial System offered important recommendations for such improvements; and
WHEREAS the Committee on Student Conduct has reviewed these and other ways in which the Honor System might be improved and has submitted a comprehensive revision of the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance to achieve related significant goals; now therefore
The Faculty Council resolves:
Section 1. The amendments to the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance submitted by the Committee on Student Conduct by its action ofDecember 31, 2002are approved and the Student Congress and the Chancellor are urged to approve this comprehensive revision as soon as possible.
Sec. 2. The Council asks the Chancellor, the Provost, the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, deans, department chairs, unit heads, faculty members, students, staff, and all other members of the University community to embrace a broad goal of making Carolina’s program for fostering student commitment to honor and integrity the most effective and widely respected in the country through strengthened and coordinated efforts of students, faculty, and staff in the contexts of both academic and student affairs.
Sec. 3. The Council urges the Chancellor, Provost, and Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, working with the Committee on Student Conduct and other campus leaders, to develop, implement, and report upon an action plan that will
- create an intellectual culture that places honor and integrity at the center of all aspects of the University enterprise and involves all members of the University community in an active partnership for wide-ranging reflection and discussion of related themes;
- empower faculty and students to understand and implement the Honor System at UNC in an exemplary fashion; and
- provide infrastructure needed to achieve these goals.