agenda - uwindsor.ca · page1%of%1%! notice’of’meeting’ therewill’bea’meetingof’the ’...

of 1

NOTICE OF MEETING

There will be a meeting of the ACADEMIC POLICY COMMITTEE

Thursday, May 7, 2015 10:00am-‐12:00pm 209 Assumption Hall

AGENDA Formal Business 1 Approval of Agenda 2 Minutes of meeting of April 9, 2015 3 Business arising from the minutes Item for Approval 4 Outstanding business

4.1 Granting a Certificate or Diploma to a Posthumously or to a Dr. R. Caron Terminally Ill Student p.2 APC150507-‐4.1

Items for Information 5 Reports/New Business

5.1 2015-‐2016 Operating Budget Ms. S. Aversa 5.2 Comprehensive Student Discipline Report Ms. D. Arbex

p.4 APC150507-‐5.2 p.7 APC150507-‐5.2.1

Item for Approval 5.3 Revisions to Bylaw 23 and Deletion of Policy on Faculty Duties Dr. Rick Caron

and Responsibilities p.37 APC150507-‐5.3 5.4 APC Subcommittee on Final Exams and Term Tests -‐ Dr. Rick Caron

Establishing Subcommittee p.38 APC150507-‐5.4 5.5 APC Subcommittee on Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) -‐ Dr. Rick Caron

Gender Identification -‐ Establishing Subcommittee p.39 APC150507-‐5.5 Additional Business 6 Question period/Other business/Open Discussion 7 Adjournment

APC150507A

Page 1 of 39

of 1

APC150507-‐4.1 University of Windsor

Academic Policy Committee

4.1: Granting a Certificate or Diploma to a Posthumously or to a Terminally Ill Student Item for: Approval MOTION: That the proposed revisions to the Policy on Granting a Degree Posthumously or to a Terminally Ill

Student be approved. Policy on Granting a Degree, Certificate or Diploma Posthumously or to a Terminally Ill Student A degree, certificate or diploma may be granted posthumously or to a terminally ill student, where a student has completed almost all substantive degree, certificate or diploma requirements. Courses where the main requirement is attendance at seminars will not be considered as substantive requirements for the purpose of this policy. Degrees A student in an undergraduate program will have completed all but the last semester of courses (or equivalent) of a program. A student in a thesis or major paper based graduate program will have completed all course work as well as a majority of the thesis or major paper. A student in a course-‐based graduate program will have completed all but two courses. Certificates or Diplomas An undergraduate student in a certificate or diploma program will have completed in full approximately 85% of the course requirements (e.g., 7/8 courses, 8/10 courses, or 10/12 courses). A student in a graduate diploma program will have completed all but two courses. Procedure 1. A request to have a degree, certificate or diploma granted posthumously or to a terminally ill student may be

submitted to the Dean of the Faculty in which the student was registered. The person making the request will be referred to herein as the applicant. In the event that there is more than one requestor, the Dean will determine which requestor will be known as the applicant.

2. Prior to consideration of the granting of a degree, diploma or certificate under this policy, the Dean will determine which, if any, courses merit completion with aegrotat standing.

3. The Dean will consult with the AAU Head and the Registrar and then submit a recommendation to the Provost. 4. The decision to grant the degree, certificate or diploma posthumously or to the terminally ill student will be

made by the Provost and communicated to the Dean of the Faculty. 5. The Dean of the Faculty will inform the applicant of the decision. 6. If the decision is to award the degree, certificate or diploma posthumously, the applicant will be invited to attend

the next appropriate convocation ceremony. If the applicant so chooses, the applicant (or designate) may cross the stage carrying the appropriate hood and any cords of distinction that have been earned. The deceased’s name and degree, certificate or diploma will be read with the statement “awarded posthumously, being accepted by (applicant’s (or designate’s) name)”. Otherwise, the name will not be read. In any event, the name will be published in the convocation program followed by “(posthumously granted)”. If the decision is to award the degree, certificate and diploma to a terminally ill student, arrangements will be made with the applicant.

Rationale: • At its November 2014 meeting, Senate asked APC to consider amendments to the policy on the granting of

degrees posthumously, which would allow for the granting of certificates and diplomas to deceased or terminally ill students.

• This revision allows the university to recognize the efforts of a deceased or terminally ill University of Windsor student prior to completion of a certificate or diploma, provided that the student has completed almost all substantive requirements.

• Minors are not included in the policy, as parchments are not issued upon their completion.

Renee Wintermute� 2015-4-13 9:55 AMDeleted: either 1) Renee Wintermute� 2015-4-13 9:55 AMDeleted: or 2) satisfied all of the requirements for the certificate or diploma program with aegrotat standing awarded, where appropriate for the courses not completed

of 39

of 3


Academic Policy Committee 5.2 Comprehensive Student Discipline Annual Report Item for: Information 1. Executive Summary A. Introduction

• This is the tenth annual Comprehensive Student Discipline Report, prepared by the Academic Integrity Officer (“AIO”) according to Section 6 of the Senate Bylaw 31: Student Affairs and Integrity. The report is to inform the University community about student discipline in the 2013/14 academic year, to compare the results with the data from the previous two years and to help identify trends or new developments. Information contained in this report has been provided by offices across campus that is responsible for student discipline:

• Academic Integrity Office • University Secretariat • Disciplinary Tribunals (Judicial Panel and Discipline Appeal Committee) • [Senate Bylaw 31: Student Affairs and Integrity

(processing of academic/non-‐academic complaints)] • Faculty of Law [Policy Statement on Student Discipline]Information Technology Services [Senate Policy: Unacceptable Use of Computer Resources] • Leddy Library [Senate Bylaw 31] • Campus Recreation and Athletics [Intramural Policies and Procedures] • Student Residences [Senate Bylaw 31: Student Affairs and Integrity, para. 3.8 ]

This report is part of University of Windsor’s efforts to reinforce its commitment to learning and discovery and a place that encourages, values and expects from its member’s high ethical standards and academic integrity. The AIO portion of the report provides information on discipline only. Following are details of the AIO’s current awareness campaign, ongoing projects and educational initiatives: Awareness campaign: Posters, brochures, bookmarks, sticky note pads, pens, distribution of print and online resources Educational initiatives: Providing academic integrity presentations in many program orientations, including: The Centre for Executive and Professional Education, International Students’ Centre, Graduate Studies and large introductory classes B. Goals and Objectives of Reporting Year In line with the University of Windsor’s Strategic Plan we list below the goals and objectives of the Academic Integrity Office for the reporting year

. 1. Provide an exceptional undergraduate experience:

• Continue the implementation of strategies to educate our students, faculty members and staff member about academic integrity (AI) issues and possible violations. o Examples: the “Earn your Degree” tag line, promotional items, such as sticky notes and bookmarks.

• Continue fostering engagement of the University of Windsor Community in activities that promote academic integrity.

of 39

of 3

• Continue working on a systematic approach to support prevention of any activity or conduct that falls below the level of integrity expected by all students. o Orientation sessions were conducted in several first year courses to increase AI awareness.

• Continue encouraging the increasing participation of our students in activities or programs related to Academic Integrity. o Example: the Ambassadors of Academic Integrity: undergraduate and graduate students volunteer

helping us to promote integrity at orientations and student events 2. Pursue strengths in research and graduate education:

• Continue working on initiatives targeted at graduate students and graduate faculty to prevent AI violations; such as orientation sessions in several graduate programs focused on research ethics, plagiarism and falsified data.

3. Recruit and retain the best faculty and staff:

• Continue reinforcing the importance of AI to new and current faculty and staff through constant dialog, in class educational activities and development of information materials.

4. Engage and build the Windsor and Essex County community through partnerships:

• Posters and website. 5. Promote international engagement:

• Continue providing education to our international students on AI values and potential key differences between Canada and their home country.

• Continue encouraging their academic engagement and facilitate their transition to the University of Windsor.

o Example: the Ambassadors of Academic Integrity: a good portion of our volunteers are international students

C. Successes

• Reduction of the litigious nature of student discipline process – only three cases required a hearing, meaning 70% less cases then the previous year were processed by Judicial Panels

• Ambassadors of Academic Integrity -‐ the volunteers continue promoting the academic integrity values of: honesty, trust, respect, responsibility, and fairness; they also continue participate in round table discussions by providing ideas, suggestions, feedback; and they also participate in AIO educational and social initiatives in promoting academic integrity to students. Impressive numbers of volunteers – total of sixty students involved; in the previous year we had the total of 11 Ambassadors.

• Host of the Academic Integrity Council of Ontario (AICO)Semi-‐Annual Meeting on May 28, 2014, including topics of discussion such as Culture of Academic Integrity, and the University of Windsor part of the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI) Canadian(regional) consortium

• Workshops on Academic Integrity -‐ *McMaster’s AIO presentation, February 2014 *Brock University AIO presentation, May 2014

D. Challenges • The Academic Integrity Office is challenged by lack of resources which makes difficult to increase the visibility

of the office, or to keep offering the promotional items. • The Academic Integrity Office continues to be challenged by the amount of time for the cases to be processed

and finalized.

of 39

of 3

2. REPORT A. Area’s Goals and Objectives and the University’s Strategic Plan

The University of Windsor must have an environment in which Academic Integrity and honesty is upheld in order to achieve the highest possible standards in teaching, learning and research; without it, the value of our degree is diminished and impacts all those who have earned their degree – past, present and future. Our objective is to maintain the value of the University’s degree by encouraging our faculty, staff and students to uphold academic integrity and apply honesty in all their endeavours.

B. Future Actions/Initiatives

• Continue working to increase our office participation at the University’s events to increase the AIO visibility and the University’s concern and commitment to AI as part of students’ academic experience

• Working with the Associate Deans and University Secretariat on the implementation of the new Academic Integrity system

• Working with CTL to provide support for instructors on the following points:educate instructors on how to encourage academic honesty and prevent academic dishonesty among their students; communicate to instructors and Department Heads when and how to file a complaint with respect to the new academic integrity system

• Continue increasing a direct communication between our office and faculty members and develop a consistent relationship with faculty members

• Strengthen our relationship with all Associate Deans – attend monthly meetings starting Fall 2015 • Communicate with Associate Deans or Department Heads how to ensure departmental policies are

consistent with Senate bylaws and policies that cover academic integrity, student conduct and due process, including recommending appropriate language for those policies.

• Develop partnerships with other offices on campus: Ø AIO and Writing Support Desk to deliver presentations across campus -‐ Academic Integrity and

Citations Workshops; Ø AIO and Student Counselling Centre – work together to support our students with behavioural

issues

of 39

APC150507-5.2.1

University of Windsor

Academic Policy Committee 5.2.1: Tenth Annual Comprehensive Student Discipline Report Item for: Information Forwarded by: Academic Integrity Office See attached.

of 39

2

Comprehensive Student Discipline Report

2013/14

INDEX

PAGE

INTRODUCTION 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

A. REPORT OF THE ACADEMIC INTEGRITY OFFICE 7

SUMMARY OF DATA 8 1. Total investigations 8 2. Results of all the investigations 9 3. Results: academic vs. non-academic complaints 9 4. Type of Offence 10 5. Informal vs. Formal Resolution 10 6. Sanctions 11 7. Gender 11 8. Repeat Offender 11 9. Domestic/International 12 10. Mediation 12

PART 1 – ACADEMIC 13 PART 2 – NON-ACADEMIC 17

B. REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY SECRETARIAT 19

C. REPORT OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE FACULTY OF LAW 19

D. REPORT OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNALS 20

E. REPORT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 22

F. REPORT OF THE LEDDY LIBRARY 22

G. REPORT OF CAMPUS RECREATION AND ATHLETICS 23

H. REPORT OF STUDENT RESIDENCES 25

APPENDIX A 29

of 39

3

INTRODUCTION This is the tenth annual Comprehensive Student Discipline Report, prepared by the Academic Integrity Officer (“AIO”) according to Section 6 of the Senate Bylaw 31: Student Affairs and Integrity. The report is to inform the University community about student discipline in the 2013/14 academic year, to compare the results with the data from the previous two years and to help identify trends or new developments. Information contained in this report has been provided by offices across campus that is responsible for student discipline:

Ø Academic Integrity Office Ø University Secretariat Ø Disciplinary Tribunals (Judicial Panel and Discipline Appeal Committee)

[Senate Bylaw 31: Student Affairs and Integrity (processing of academic/non-academic complaints)]

Ø Faculty of Law [Policy Statement on Student Discipline]

Ø Information Technology Services [Senate Policy U1: Unacceptable Use of Computer Resources]

Ø Leddy Library [Senate Bylaw 31]

Ø Campus Recreation and Athletics [Intramural Policies and Procedures]

Ø Student Residences [Senate Bylaw 31: Student Affairs and Integrity, para. 3.8 ]

This report is part of University of Windsor’s efforts to reinforce its commitment to learning and discovery and a place that encourages, values and expects from its members’ high ethical standards and academic integrity. The AIO portion of the report provides information on discipline only. Following are details of the AIO’s current awareness campaign, ongoing projects and educational initiatives: Awareness campaign: Posters, brochures, bookmarks, sticky note pads, pens, distribution of print and online resources Educational initiatives: Providing academic integrity presentations in many program orientations, including:

The Centre for Executive and Professional Education, International Students’ Centre, Graduate Studies and large introductory classes.

Respectfully submitted, Dr. Danieli S.C. Arbex, LLB, LLM, JSD Acting Academic Integrity Officer Student and International Affairs

of 39

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As expected, the University experienced both increases and decreases in reported integrity violations as compared to the last academic year in some (but not all) areas, as follows: Violations filed with the University Secretariat for onward forwarding to Associate Deans (or the Vice-Provost in the case of non-academic violations):

2013/14: 231 integrity violations 2012/13: 146 integrity violations é 58%

Complaints dismissed by Associate Deans:1

2013/14: 34 complaints filed that were dismissed 2013/14: 16 complaints filed that were dismissed é113%

Complaints forwarded to the AIO by either Associate Deans (academic violations) or others (non-academic violations) for further investigation:

2013/14: 197 (85% of all filed complaints) 2012/13: 130 (89%) of all filed complaints é 52%

With respect to the complaints processed by the Academic Integrity Office: 2

• 194 (or 98%) involved academic misconduct • 3 (or 2%) involved non-academic misconduct • 95% (187 cases) found responsible for the misconduct • 5% (9 cases) found not responsible (on the basis of insufficient evidence - on a balance of probabilities) • 0.5% (1 case) were withdrawn or dismissed by the university • 74% (145 cases) Plagiarism (in assignments) of all referred complaints

Continues to be the most prevalent integrity violation

• 9% (17 cases) Unauthorized collaboration was the second highest violation • 62% Mark reduction represented almost half of all sanctions frequently imposed for integrity violations,

followed by admonition (16%) and censure (14%). Most often admonitions and censures are coupled with a mark reduction.

• 4.1% (8 cases) were repeat offenders; an increase of 2 cases compared to the previous year. Plagiarism accounted for 7 out of the 8 repeat offender cases.

1 More information is available in Part B of this report. 2 More detailed information is available in Part A of this report.

of 39

5

• 0.52% total percentage of students investigated for misconduct by the AIO (on average per semester) which is an increase over previous year reporting 0.34%.

• 1.40% total percentage of international students investigated for misconduct3 An increase in the reporting period from 0.70% the previous year.

• The offence most frequently engaged in by international students is plagiarism: 68 of the 92 complaints filed.

• 68% of integrity violations involved males • 32% of integrity violations involved females

§ Males engaged in plagiarism in assignments more often than females § Females engaged in plagiarism in a take-home exam more often than males § Males engaged in unauthorized collaboration and exam cheating more often than females.

• 3 non-academic violations were processed. The number of complaints decreased from 8 in the previous year.

• Integrity violations were most often committed by students in years 1 (47%) and 3 (19%) compared to years 2 and 3 the previous year.

• Overall, 3 Judicial Panels processed 70% less cases than the previous year.

• Of the 12 cases adjudicated by Judicial Panels, 3 required hearings and 9 were resolved without a hearing (i.e., requiring only Judicial Panel approval of a settlement agreement).

• There were no requests for mediation.

• There were no appeals compared to 2 appeals heard by the Discipline Appeal Committee the previous year. Judicial Panel and Discipline Appeal Committee precedents are published on the AIO website.

Other student violations reported by offices across campus responsible for student discipline:

• The Faculty of Law had eleven complaints in the 2013/14 academic year.

• No formal complaints emanated from Information Technology Services. Rather its services were engaged to support other departments in misconduct investigations when required.

• The Leddy Library saw a decrease in violations. Violations that were processed included theft, trespassed patrons, and alarms being pulled. When necessary, Campus Police became involved. Currently, laptops and backpacks are the number one most common items stolen from library users.4

• Campus Recreation and Athletics experienced two fewer infractions than in the previous year for a total of 10. Fighting in ice hockey is the most common infraction. Suspended players were ultimately reinstated.5

• Student Residences reports infractions as minor (levels 1 and 2) and major (level 3). In addition to the three levels, they are now reporting “no infractions” which refers to medicals.

o Student Residences received 234 incident reports, however, 100 reports were related to medicals There were 85 level three infractions and 49 levels one and two infractions. This represents an

3 Based on the total number of international students enrolled on average per semester. 4 More details are available in Part F. 5 More details are available in Part G.

of 39

6

increase of 9% in overall incident reports. This is attributable to a number of factors, details of which may be found in Part H of this report.

o 120 cases were heard by the Residence Student Conduct Boards compared to 132 the previous

year.

of 39

7

A. Report of the Academic Integrity Office By Dr. Danieli S.C. Arbex, Academic Integrity Officer

116

141

129

191159

101

186

110

130

197

0

50

100

150

200

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14

Num

ber o

f Com

plaints

Total Investigations -‐ 10 year trend -‐ 2004-‐2014

of 39

8

Definitions 1. Academic Misconduct: Actions that demonstrate a lack of integrity as defined as a lack of adherence to this University’s bylaws and policies and that touch upon instruction, evaluation, curriculum, admission and other matters that affect the academic standing of a student. For purposes of determining subsequent offences, there is no difference between acts of academic and non-academic misconduct.6 For professional programs, all actions that result in a breach of the rules of conduct as set out by the professional bodies and adopted in substance by the relevant professional program as part of its code of conduct in the program shall also be considered acts of academic misconduct.7 2. Non-Academic Misconduct: All other actions that demonstrate a lack of integrity as defined as a lack of adherence to this University’s bylaws and policies and that do not fit under the definition of academic misconduct. These typically include, but are not limited to, Bylaw 31 complaints by Campus Community Police and Residence Life. They may also include complaints of problematic behaviour filed by faculty members, other students, or University groups, clubs, or associations.8 3. Multiple: The AIO defines this as two or more complaints of academic or non-academic misconduct, as the case may be, against one student. Where multiple complaints against a student comprise both types of misconduct, the case is categorized as either academic or non-academic misconduct according to the number and gravity of the complaints under all the circumstances. Notes 1. The AIO report includes all Faculties except the Faculty of Law. Cases in the Faculty of Law are dealt with internally within that Faculty and reported in Part C of this report. 2. All references to the Vice-Provost are to the Vice-Provost, Students Affairs and Dean of Students. 3. Finally, for comparison purposes, in each of the tables in the Summary of Data section that follows (with the exception of the table immediately below), totals for at least the previous two academic years are provided for comparison purposes. The balance of the tables in the other sections that provide more detailed data include only a comparison for the previous academic year.

SUMMARY OF DATA

1. Total investigations

2013/14 2012/13 2011/12 2010/11 2009/10

197 130 110 186 101

6 Bylaw 31: Student Affairs and Integrity, para. 2.1. See also Appendix A of Bylaw 31 for examples of types of misconduct. 7 Ibid., para. 2.1.1. 8 Ibid., para. 2.2.

of 39

9

2. Results of all the investigations

2013/14 (197 cases)

2012/13 (130 cases)

2011/12 (110 cases)

Student responsible 95% (187 cases) 89% (116 cases) 89.1% (98 cases)

Insufficient evidence 5% (9 cases) 7% (9 cases) 9.1% (10 cases)

Withdrawn or dismissed 1% (1 case) 2% (3 cases) 1.8% (2 cases)

Stayed -- 2% (2 cases)* --

* Cases were stayed with a five year expiration date. The cases in the “withdrawn or dismissed” category above only reflect those complaints that were processed through the AIO. Under Bylaw 31, Associate Deans can choose not to forward a complaint to the AIO for a full investigation.9 In those situations, the complaint is considered to be dismissed by the Associate Dean.10

3. Results: academic vs. non-academic complaints

a. Academic (194 cases)

2013/14 (194 cases) 2012/13 (119 cases) 2011/12 (97 cases)

Student responsible 96% (186 cases) 92% (110 cases) 95.9% (93 cases)

Insufficient evidence 3.5% (7 cases) 7% (8 cases) 3.1% (3 cases)

Withdrawn or dismissed 0.5% (1 case) 0% 1.0% (1 case)

Stayed -- 1% (1 case) --

b. Non-academic (3 cases)

2013/14 (3 cases) 2012/13 (11 cases) 2011/12 (13 cases)

Student responsible 33% (1 case) 55% (6 cases) 38.5% (5 cases)

Insufficient evidence 67% (2 cases) 9% (1 case) 53.8% (7 cases)

Withdrawn or dismissed -- 27% (3 cases) 7.7% (1 case)

Stayed -- 9% (1 case) --

9 See para. 3.2.1: “After reviewing the documentation and having met with the student, the Associate Dean shall determine whether to forward the matter, including all relevant documentation and evidence, to the Academic Integrity Officer, through the Office of the Senate Secretariat, who shall conduct an investigation.” 10 Details of the complaints in which that occurred are reported by the University Secretariat in Part B of this report.

of 39

10

4. Type of Offence

Alleged plagiarism comprised the majority of complaints referred to the AIO: 74% (145 of 197 complaints). This is an increase from last year in which plagiarism comprised 57% of referred complaints (74 of 130 complaints). In 2013/14 plagiarism was followed by: • Unauthorized collaboration 9% (17 cases) • Exam cheating 5% (9 cases) • Cheating in a clicker exercise 4% (8 cases) • Possession of an unauthorized aid 3% (5 cases) The remaining complaints (7% or 13 cases) covered a range of other offences as detailed later in the report.

5. Informal vs. Formal Resolution The number of cases referred for formal resolution significantly decreased. The number of cases requiring hearings also decreased significantly.

2013/14 2012/13 2011/12

Informal Resolution 93.9% (185 cases) 83% (108 cases) 84.5% (94 cases)

Formal Resolution 6.1% (12 cases) 17% (22 cases)* 15.5% (16 cases)

Percentage of Judicial Panel cases settling before a hearing, including mediated settlements.

75% (9 cases) 55% (12 cases) 41.2% (8 cases)

Percentage of Judicial Panel cases requiring a hearing 25% (3 cases) 46% (10 cases)* 58.8% (8 cases)

* Two cases were stayed with an expiration time of five years.

of 39

11

6. Sanctions Mark reduction continues to be the leading sanction imposed, followed by admonitions and censures. Mark reductions have increased significantly. As will be shown later in the report, censures and admonitions are accompanied by mark reductions. Suspensions have decreased over last year.

2013/14 2012/13 2011/12

Mark reduction 61.9% 37.0% 43.6%

Admonition 15.7% 21.5% 7.3%

Censure 14.2% 21.5% 24.5%

No sanctions due to insufficient evidence or a stay of the complaint 4.6% 8.5% 9.1%

Other 2.5% 9.2% 2.7%

Suspension 0.5% 1.5% 10.0%

Dismissed 0.5% 0.8% 0.9%

7. Gender Males continue to commit more offences than females. 2013/14 2012/13 2011/12 Males 67.5% (133 cases)

� 99.2% academic (132 cases) � 0.8% non-academic (1 case)

72.3% (94 cases) � 91.5% academic (86 cases) � 8.5% non-academic (8 cases)

61.8% (68 cases) 85.3% academic (58 cases) 14.7% non-academic (10 cases)

Females 32.5% (64 cases) � 96.9% academic (62 cases) � 3.1% non-academic (2 cases)

27.7% (36 cases) � 91.7% academic (33 cases) � 8.3% non-academic (3 cases)

38.2% (42 cases) 92.9% academic (39 cases) 7.1% non-academic (3 cases)

With respect to the most prevalent offences reported in 2013/14, both males and females engaged in plagiarism most often. Plagiarism Unauthorized Collaboration

Males 73.1% 41.2%

Females 26.9% 58.8%

8. Repeat Offender Of the 197 investigations conducted, 4.1% of them involved known repeat offenders. This represents a 33.3% decrease from the previous year. Plagiarism was the most prevalent offence.

of 39

12

9. Domestic/International For ease of comparison, the figures in parentheses are for 2012/13.

Note: These data must be presented by semester since enrollment varies from semester to semester.

Domestic Int'l Total Domestic Int'l Total Domestic Int'l Domestic Int'l Total

No. Full-time & Part-time students enrolled - excluding Law students 13,337 2,395 15,732 12,674 2,432 15,106 5,067 1,745 10,359 2,191 12,550

(11,084) (1,845) (12,929)

23 23 46 51 47 98 31 22 53 * 35 31 66

(30) (13) (43)% of complaints received against students that were resolved in this semester

0.17% 0.96% 0.29% 0.40% 1.93% 0.65% 0.61% 1.26% 0.34% 1.40% 0.52%

(0.27%) (0.70%) (0.34%)

Average Per Semester2013/14

* While this figure seems high for a semester in which we have fewer students, be reminded that many of these complaints carried over from the Winter semester. All figures refer to the semester in which the complaints were resolved, not when the alleged offences occurred or when the complaints were filed.

Total

6,812

0.78%

I/S 2014

No. of complaints received against students that were resolved in this semester

Fall 2013 Winter 2014

10. Mediation There were no requests for mediation.

of 39

13

DETAILED REPORT

PART 1 – ACADEMIC 1. Summary by Offence and Sanction Imposed – Academic

Sanctions were expanded in the new Bylaw. Thus, in the cases reported in the next table more than one sanction was sometimes applied. Under the previous Bylaw 31 professors evaluated the work (often by assigning a zero to the compromised evaluation), whereas under the new bylaw they are to assign an “Incomplete” and in appropriate cases the grade is later adjusted as a disciplinary sanction once the complaint is processed. Thus, for academic offences where a student is found responsible for the misconduct, a grade penalty is often imposed with respect to the academic evaluation in question, in addition to an admonition, censure, suspension, as the case may be. Less often, an admonition, censure, or suspension might also be supplemented with a letter of apology, other educational sanctions, or even less frequently, the opportunity to repeat the work for assessment. The possible varieties of outcomes makes presenting this data in an easy-to-digest table format somewhat challenging. Therefore, readers are asked to refer to the footnotes for more details. For sanction definitions, please refer to Appendix A of this report.

of 39

14

Type of Offence (Academic)

Adm

oniti

on

Mar

k Re

duct

ion

Repe

at W

ork

for

Asse

ssm

ent

Cens

ure

Zero

in C

ours

e

Susp

ensi

on

Lette

r of A

polo

gy

Insu

ffici

ent E

vide

nce

Stay

ed

Dism

isse

d

Tota

ls

(201

3/14

)

Tota

ls

(201

2/13

)

Plagiarism1 19 107 3 11 2 2 1 145 74

Plagiarism in take-home exam 3 3 3

Unauthorized collaboration 10 5 2 17 7

Academic forgery or fraud 3 1 4 3

Cheating in a clicker exercise 6 2 8 2

Exam cheating 1 7 1 9 18

Possession of an unauthorized aidduring an examination 4 1 5 8

Exam/test tampering and resubmitting

1 1 0

Violating examination/test rules 0 2

Impersonation 1 1 1

Selling tests, exams, lab reports 1 1 0

Multiple 0 1

Totals (2013/14 30 122 3 28 0 1 2 7 0 1 194

Totals (2012/13) 27 48 0 26 1 2 6 8 1 0 119

1 Of these 145 cases: • 4 w ere group plagiarism • 4 w ere plagiarism - copying from another student • 1 w as plagiarism in a PhD dissertation proposal • 136 w ere from plagiarism in an assignment, paper, essay or report

of 39

15

2. Summary by Nature of Disposition – Academic

Type of Offence Informal Disposition

Formal Disposition:

Hearing Before

Judicial Panel*

Formal Disposition: Settlement Approved by

Judicial Panel*Mediated

SettlementTotals

(2013/14)Totals

(2012/13)

Plagiarism 137 3 5 145 74

Plagiarism in take-home exam 3 3 3

Unauthorized collaboration 17 17 7

Academic forgery or fraud 3 1 4 3

Cheating in a clicker exercise 7 1 8 2

Exam cheating 7 2 9 18

Possession of an unauthorized aidduring an examination

5 5 8


1 1 0

Violating examination/test rules 0 0 2

Impersonation 1 1 1

Selling tests, exams, lab reports 1 1 0

Multiple 0 0 1

Totals (2013/14 182 3 9 0 194

Totals (2012/13) 103 6 10 0 119

* Occasionally a Judicial Panel w ill not approve a settlement as presented, but may make changes to it. Those cases, although infrequent, are also included in this column. Note: Of the three cases heard before a Judicial Panel, one case was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

of 39

16

3. Summary by Gender and Repeat Offender – Academic

Type of Offence Male FemaleFirst

OffenderRepeat

OffenderTotals

(2013/14)Totals

(2012/13)

Plagiarism 106 39 138 7 145 74

Plagiarism in take-home exam 1 2 3 0 3 3

Unauthorized collaboration 7 10 17 0 17 7

Academic forgery or fraud 2 2 4 0 4 3

Cheating in a clicker exercise 8 0 7 1 8 2

Exam cheating 4 5 9 0 9 18

Possession of an unauthorized aidduring an examination

3 2 5 0 5 8


1 0 1 0 1 0

Violating examination/test rules 0 0 0 0 0 2

Impersonation 0 1 1 0 1 1

Selling tests, exams, lab reports 0 1 1 0 1 0

Multiple 0 0 0 0 0 1

Totals (2013/14) 132 62 186 8 194

Totals (2012/13) 86 33 114 5 119

of 39

17

PART 2 – NON-ACADEMIC 1. Summary by Offence and Sanction Imposed – Non-academic

For sanction definitions, please refer to Appendix A of this report.

Type of Offence

Adm

oniti

on

Lette

r of A

polo

gy

Cens

ure

Com

mun

ity S

ervi

ce

Susp

ensi

on

Stay

ed

Insu

ffici

ent

Evid

ence

With

draw

n

Dism

isse

d

Tota

ls

(201

3/14

)

Tota

ls

(201

2/13

)

Possession and/or use of narcotics 0 1

Furnishing false information 0 1

Theft 0 1

Inappropriate and/or threatening behaviour to person(s) on campus 1 1 1 7

Breach of the constitution of theUofW Engineering Student Society

2 2 0

Multiple offences 0 1

Totals (2013/14) 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3

Totals (2012/13) 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 11

1 In addition to an Admonition, the student w rote a letter of apology to the Professor

of 39

18

2. Summary by Nature of Disposition – Non-academic

Type of OffenceInformal

Disposition

Formal Disposition:

Hearing Before Judicial Panel

Formal Disposition: Settlement Approved by Judicial Panel

MediatedSettlement

Totals (2013/14)

Totals (2012/13)

Possession and/or use of narcotics 0 1


Theft 0 1

Inappropriate and/or threatening behaviour to person(s) on campus 1 1 7

Breach of the constitution of theUofW Engineering Student Society 2 2 0


Totals (2013/14) 3 0 0 0 3

Totals (2012/13) 5 4 2 0 11

3. Summary by Gender of Offender/Alleged Offender – Non-academic

Type of Offence Male FemaleFirst

OffenderRepeat

OffenderTotals

(2013/14)Totals

(2012/13)

Possession and use of narcotics 0 1


Theft 0 1

Inappropriate and/or threatening behaviour to person(s) on campus 1 1 1 7

Breach of the constitution of theUofW Engineering Student Society 1 1 2 2 0


Totals (2013/14) 1 2 3 0 3

Totals (2012/13) 8 3 10 1 11

of 39

19

B. Report of the University Secretariat Bylaw 31 permits dismissal of a complaint by an Associate Dean before the complaint reaches the AIO. The following table reflects the complaints for which that occurred. The reasons for dismissal may vary and are not indicated but typically complaints are dismissed if the Associate Dean concludes there is insufficient evidence. This table also indicates the number of international vs. domestic students against whom these complaints were filed in keeping with Senate's request for this information. The data indicate that 41% of the complaints dismissed by Associate Deans were filed against international students and the remaining 59% against domestic students.

Offence Totals2013/14

Domestic Students

International Students

Plagiarism 28 16 12

Exam cheating/talking and collaboratingwith another student during an examination

3 2 1

Cheating/unauthorized collaboration on quiz/assignment

3 2 1

Totals 2013/14 34 20 14

C. Report of the Discipline Committee of the Faculty of Law Law School Policy Statement on Student Discipline By Professor Reem Bahdi, Associate Dean, Faculty of Law 1. Four allegations of plagiarism; three students advised of expectations and complaints withdrawn. One complaint was dismissed due to insufficient evidence. 2. Two cases of conduct unbecoming a Windsor Law student; students accepted responsibility; formal caution placed on files and signed a behavioural contract. 3. Three cases of conduct unbecoming a Windsor Law student; mediation between complainants and students resulted in withdrawal of complaints in return for acceptance of responsibility and apology from students. 4. Two cases of alleged colluding with another student; students accepted responsibility; settled informally.

of 39

20

D. Report of the Disciplinary Tribunals Judicial Panel and Discipline Appeal Committee By Dr. Danieli S.C. Arbex, Academic Integrity Officer Judicial Panel Members

Panels Chair Faculty Member Student Member1 Dr. Christopher Waters Dr. Scott Martyn Mr. Rob Crawford2 Dr. Christopher Waters Dr. Scott Martyn Ms. Erin Plumb3 Professor Jeffrey Berryman Dr. Christine Thrasher Mr. Rayyan Manwar4 Professor Jeffrey Berryman Dr. Christine Thrasher Mr. Zheng Wu

Overview and Comparison to Previous Years 2013/14 2012/13 2011/12

JUDICIAL PANEL

Total academic cases adjudicated 12 16 14

Total non-academic cases adjudicated 0 6 0

Total cases adjudicated 12 22 14

Increase/decrease over previous year -45.45% 57.14% 8.0%

Total section para. 3.7 hearings (Emergency Suspension Review)

0 0 0

Motions 0 3 2

DISCIPLINE APPEAL COMMITTEE

Appeals 0 2 2

Motions relating to those appeals 0 0 1

of 39

21

Part I – ACADEMIC Overview of How Cases Resolved

Settlements(responsibility and

sanction)

Hearing as to sanction only (student accepted

responsibility)

Hearing as to responsibility and

sanctionInsufficient Evidence

Total Academic Cases Resolved

11 1 12 Case Details

No. Allegation(s)Panel No. hearing the case

Complainant Outcome of Hearing (H) or Settlement (S)

1 Plagiarism in a mid-term exam 1 FAHSS Dismissed due to insuff icient evidence (H)

2

Plagiarism in a group term paper

2 Business Mark reductionCensure (1 year) (S)

3

Plagiarism in a group term paper

3 Business Mark reductionEducational sanction: w orkshops (The Writing Process and Referencing and Plagiarism - S.T.E.P.S. program)Censure (1 year) (S)

4

Plagiarism in an assignment

2 FAHSS Mark reductionCensure (until graduations) (S)

5 Submitting a fraudulent TOEFL score seeking admission to the University of Windsor and that the TOEFL score w as obtained by engaging another person to impersonate oneself at TOEFL

3 Registrar's Office

Suspension (until student satisf ies University's English Language Proficiency requirements)Censure (until graduation)Student's StoryEducational sanction: take Ethics course

6 Plagiarism in three essays(second offence)

2 Engineering Censure (2 years)Mark reductions (S)Note: The Judicial Panel amended the minutes of settlement to increase the censure from 12 months to 2 years

7 Plagiarism on essay assignment(second offence)

FAHSS Censure (1 year)A failing grade for the courseEducational sanction: 10 hours of w orkshops at Writing Support Desk (S)Note: the Judicial Panel amended the minutes of settlement to change from a mark reduction of zero on the assignment to a failing grade for the course. This w as the student's second offence.

8 Cheating on a mid-term exam 2 FAHSS Grade of zero on the midtermLetter of apology to the ProfessorCensure (until graduation) S

9 Cheating on a mid-term exam 2 FAHSS Grade of zero on the midtermLetter of apology to the ProfessorCensure (until graduation) S

10 Cheating on a clicker quiz 4 Engineering Censure (until graduation)Zero in the course (S)

11 Plagiarism in a paper 4 Science Censure (until graduation)Zero in the course (S)

12 Plagiarism in an assignment 2 FAHSS Censure (1 year)A failing grade for the courseEducational sanction: to attend 6 w orkshops provided by the Writing Support Desk (S)

of 39

22

Part II – NON-ACADEMIC Case Details

Nothing to report as there were no cases that followed the formal process.

E. Report of Information Technology Services

University of Windsor Acceptable Use Policy By Mr. Steven Banyai, Assistant Director, IT Services All work done by Information Technology Services was to assist departments conducting investigations.

F. Report of the Leddy Library Library Behaviour Code By Ms. Karen Pillon, Head, Access Services Department The Library Behaviour Code is made available to students, both in print and online. Library staff members refer to the Code when needed to address behaviour problems in the library. Most violations of the Library Behaviour Code this year included theft, and various alarms going off in the building (computer, fire, panic). These violations were dealt with informally on a case-by-case basis. When theft was involved, Campus Police were called to rectify issues and assist staff. Those cases were resolved through Campus Police. This year we saw a decrease in total violations. However stolen goods, especially laptops and backpacks continue to be the number one most common items stolen from library users especially during periods of high traffic namely exams in the winter and spring terms. This year, staff reported a total of 2 laptops stolen. This is a decrease from last year, when the total was 9. Another set of common violations involved students setting off exit alarms when they passed through the exit doors of the library with materials that had not been checked out. This occurs primarily out of forgetfulness but when a student is found to have taken books without checking them out, an exit report is made and a note is placed in the student’s record.

of 39

23

G. Report of Campus Recreation and Athletics ■ Intramural Policies and Procedures ■ Varsity Athletics Handbook By Ms. Sandra Ondracka, Campus Recreation Coordinator

Below is a list of all suspensions that occurred in 2013/14 in intramural sports. Suspensions are the standard penalties in Campus Recreation intramurals for individuals, and may run from suspension from a game to indefinite suspension. Campus Recreation and Athletics runs very minimal intramural programming during the summer, such that all infractions occurred during the Fall and Winter semesters.

Total number of infractions and suspensions: 10 (9 individual infractions; 1 team infraction)

Comparing 2013/14 to the previous year

2013/14 2012/13 Percentage Change From Previous Year

Individual Infractions 9 10 -10% Team Infractions 1 1 0% Total Infractions 10 11 -9%

Summary by Infraction and Sport

Infraction Floor Hockey (Fall)

Flag Football

(Fall)

Ice Hockey (Winter)

Men’s Basketball

(Winter)

Co-ed Basketball

(Winter)

Soccer Outdoor/Indoor

(Full Year)

Totals 13/14

Verbal abuse 1 1 Intent to injure 1 1 Unsportsmanlike conduct by individual

1 1 2

Unsportsmanlike conduct (indiv.) and jostling with referee

0

Unsportsmanlike conduct by team

1 1

Fighting 5 5 Totals for 2013/14 2 0 7 1 0 0 10 Totals for 2012/13 1 1 6 3 0 0 11

of 39

24

Summary by Infraction and Length of Suspension (Individual Offences)

Infraction One game Two games

Remainder of season

One semester

One year Indefinite (not

eligible to return)

Totals 2013/14

Totals 2012/13

Verbal abuse 1 1 3 Intent to injure 1 1 1

Unsportsmanlike conduct by individual

1 1 2 1

Unsportsmanlike conduct (indiv.) and jostling with referee

0 0

Fighting 5 5 5

Totals for 2013/14 2 1 1 5 9 NA Totals for 2012/13 1 2 2 5 0 0 NA 10 * ● Of the above suspensions all 9 individual suspensions have now been reinstated back into Intramurals. The one season long suspension individuals were from Ice Hockey and they were placed on probation before being reinstated to play. ● The one team that was guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct was placed on probation for the season and then reinstated. The team was from Ice Hockey and they are on probation for this entire season.

of 39

25

H. Report of Student Residences Residence Contract: Residence Understandings & Agreements Senate Bylaw 31, para. 3.8. By Sandra Davis, Residence Life Team Lead, Residence Services Total number of students in residence: 2013/2014 1186 2012/2013 1258

A copy of the Residence Student Handbook is provided to each student living in residence and contains all residence policies and procedures, including the Residence Student Conduct system and process. It is also made available on our website and promoted within the Residence communities. Students are encouraged to read the Handbook and are made aware of some of the common rules at their first floor meeting in September. All student-conduct Incident Reports are forwarded for follow up to the Residence Life Coordinators (RLC’s) of each residence building via an internal software program. Level 1 & most Level 2 infractions are handled by the RLC’S and the majority of Level 3 infractions are sent to our Residence Student Conduct Board for review, a peer driven process to determines sanctions. 1. Incident Reports Submitted for Review Resident Assistants are required to submit an Incident Report whenever Campus Community Police and/or the UWindsor Emergency Response Team, etc., are contacted. In addition, facility-related incidents, including fire alarms are often documented in an Incident Report. Incidents are then determined to be a minor or major (now Level 1, 2, 3) infraction, by the RLC, depending on the complexity. The chart below summarizes the number of Incident Reports submitted for conduct follow up. More than one student may be involved in each incident report. Building 2013/2014 2012/2013 Alumni 25 37 Cartier 45 50 Clark 20 10 Electa 11 10 Laurier 49 49 Macdonald 84 58 Total 234 214

Differences in numbers of incident reports submitted from year to year depend on several factors:

• In the summer of 2014, a review of the Residence discipline system and process was conducted in consultation with the Academic Integrity Officer, the Dean of Students and the Department Head of Residence Services in an effort to streamline the process and create consistent sanctioning guidelines.

• There has been significant turn-over in the Residence Life Co-ordinator positions (who administer the residence discipline system, for the most part). Though there is a process for reporting, the change in staff and different approaches and responses to infractions may have resulted in inconsistencies in reporting.

• A change in room configurations (moving from double rooms to single rooms) may result in fewer students in some residence communities.

• While consistency in reporting infractions throughout the residence system is the goal, this is a challenge when working with over forty Residence Assistants, many of whom are new to the system.

of 39

26

• Student staff members are consistently challenged to provide residents with a plethora of opportunities to get involved; thus greater focus was directed to social programming. The benefits were two-fold: fewer major conduct issues and a more enriching residence experience.

2. Infractions The chart below summarizes the number of incidents by level recorded on Incident Reports for each residence hall. There may be more than one infraction indicated on each incident report. Medicals are also noted on Incident Reports and are captured under “no infraction”. If clarification is required, the Residence Life Co-ordinator determines whether the conduct constitutes a major infraction, minor infraction, or no infraction (now Level 1, 2, 3). Incidents deemed not actionable as an infraction are not reflected in the chart below. In those cases Residence Life Coordinators may meet with the students involved one-on-one to raise awareness about their behaviour and provide them with educational opportunities that are expected to lead to positive behavioural changes. 2013/2014 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 No Infraction Totals Alumni 5 3 7 10 25 Cartier 6 12 6 21 45 Clark 4 2 4 10 20 Electa 1 0 4 6 11 Laurier 3 6 23 17 49 Macdonald 2 5 41 36 84 TOTAL: 21 28 85 100 234 2012/2013 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Totals Alumni 3 4 27 34 Cartier 30 6 18 54 Clark 0 3 0 3 Electa 0 0 1 1 Laurier 30 8 23 61 Macdonald 4 16 14 34 TOTAL: 67 37 83 187 Examples of Minor Infractions (now Level 1 or 2): Violations of policies relating to:

§ Advertising/posters § Building § Damages § Housekeeping § Decorations § Guests § Keys/swipe cards § Noise § Technology

Examples of Major Infractions (now Level 3): Violations of policies relating to:

§ Compliance with authorities § Drugs/narcotics/criminal acts § Fire safety § Smoking § Harassment § Unacceptable behaviour

of 39

27

3. Sanctions The chart below summarizes the sanctions imposed by both Residence Life Coordinators and the Residence Student Conduct Board but does not include the number of students involved in each sanction as there may be multiple students involved in any one incident report submitted.

Sanction Type Sanction 2013/2014 2012/2013* Behavioural Behavioural Contract

19

Alcohol Probation Guest Probation Disciplinary Probation Total 46 Contractual Suspension

3

Termination Loss of Eligibility Total 4 Educational Admonition

16

Apology Educational/Awareness Community Service Referral Alcohol Education Session Drug Education Session Total 52 Punitive Banned/Trespassed

3

Loss of Privileges Relocation Total 3 Restitutive Behavioural Bond

46

Fine Restitution Total 64 No Sanction 83 114 Sanction type not indicated

120 132

*Our Software did not separate sanctions under each heading in the reporting system 4. Cases Resolved through the Residence Student Conduct Board Two Residence Student Conduct Boards, comprised of residence students are led by a student employee serving as Student Conduct Board Coordinator. The Boards have original and appellate jurisdiction. Students charged with a major infraction (Level 3) or repeat minor (Level 1 or 2) infractions are sent to the Board where they are given the opportunity to speak to their infractions. Members of the Residence Life Staff are also given the opportunity to present before the board. The decisions of the Board are binding. However, students and/or Residence Services have the right to appeal any major decision made by the Residence Student Conduct Board provided they meet the appeal criteria detailed in the Residence Student Handbook. The following chart details the number of cases heard by the Residence Student Conduct Boards. The difference in totals can be attributed to our data collection. Each case can have multiple students involved in that incident – previously we reported on the number of cases heard by the Board, however, this year’s submissions shows the number of students that went before the Conduct Board.

of 39

28

Building 2013/2014 2012/2013 Alumni 0 Cartier 6 Clark 0 Electa 1 Laurier 20 Macdonald 27 TOTAL 36 54 Number of Appeals Requested 2 0* Number of Appeals Granted 2 0* *=no electronic data was recorded In rare situations cases are heard by an Administrative Panel comprised of a member of the Residence Life Management Team and/or another representative of the University community (i.e., Student Development & Support) and a representative from Residence student government. Typically these cases are sensitive in nature and must be heard in a timely manner.

** End of Report **

of 39

29

Appendix A Sanctions are defined as follows in Bylaw 31: Admonition: A notice to the student, orally or in writing, that s/he has violated a rule of conduct and that continuation or repetition of the conduct found wrongful, within a specified period of time stated in the warning, may be cause for more severe disciplinary action. Letter of Apology: A requirement that the student submit a formal (verbal or written) apology. Mark Reduction: A reduction of the mark or assigning a mark of zero for the work submitted, based on an evaluation of the academic merit of the work and taking into account the criteria for, and nature of, the assignment and, taking into account the extent of the work which is the result of the misconduct. This may result in a reduction of the final grade in the course. Repeat Work for Assessment: A requirement that the student redo the assignment or re-sit the test/examination for full or partial credit. Censure: A written reprimand for violation of a specified regulation, including the possibility of more severe disciplinary sanction in the event of conviction for the violation of any University regulation within a period of time stated in the letter of reprimand. No Credit – Discipline: Where the academic misconduct so taints the student’s academic performance in the course, the notation of No Credit - Discipline (NCD) shall appear on the student’s transcript. Recommendation to Deny Registration: A recommendation to the Registrar that the student be denied permission to register, or that the student’s registration in a course or program be cancelled. Denial of Registration: A decision of the Registrar to deny the student permission to register, or to cancel the student’s registration in a course or program. Community Service: Community service work within the campus or wider community as set forth in the notice of community service for a definite period of time. Consultation and arrangements with the intended agency, with which the student may be serving his/her community service work, must be made by the Judicial Affairs, Hearings & Office Clerk prior to the issuance of a final order. The list of appropriate community service work settings shall be approved by the Senate Steering Committee. Restitution: Reimbursement for damage or misappropriation of property. Reimbursement may take the form of appropriate service to repair or otherwise compensate for damages. Disciplinary Probation: Exclusion from participation in privileges or extracurricular University activities as set forth in the notice of disciplinary probation for a specified period of time. Suspension: Exclusion from classes and other privileges or activities as set forth in the notice of suspension for a specified period of time. Exclusion from Campus Facilities: Exclusion from facilities as set forth in the notice of exclusion from specific campus facilities for a specified period of time. Exclusion from Campus: Denial of access to the campus for an indefinite period for non-academic misconduct. The conditions for removing this ban, if any, shall be included in the exclusion order. Expulsion: Termination of student status for an indefinite period. The conditions of readmission, if any is

of 39

30

permitted, shall be stated in the order of expulsion. Rescinding Degree: Rescinding the student’s degree. [requires approval by the President of the University (or delegate), based on a recommendation from a Judicial Panel or a Discipline Appeal Committee.] Such other penalties as may be appropriate in the circumstances, including but not limited to deferral of the implementation of a sanction subject to conditions specified, as determined by the Judicial Panel, the Discipline Appeal Committee, or as may be agreed in the mediation conference. The additional categories included in the chart above are explained here: Insufficient Evidence. In cases where there is insufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof required (balance of probabilities), no sanction is imposed on a student. Withdrawn. In cases where a complaint against a student is referred to a Judicial Panel, if it becomes evident before or at the hearing that the University is unlikely to meet its burden of proof, or if there are other reasons in the AIO’s professional opinion for not proceeding, the complaint may be withdrawn. Dismissed. This refers to (1) cases where a formal hearing was held and the Judicial Panel dismissed the charge, usually on the ground that the University did not meet its burden of proof in terms of evidence required to support the allegation, or (2) cases processed informally where it was discovered during the investigation that the student was not responsible for or there was insufficient evidence of, any wrongdoing (applying a balance of probabilities standard).

of 39

APC150507-‐5.2.2 University of Windsor

Academic Policy Committee 5.2.2 Comprehensive Student Discipline Annual Report– Questions for Academic Integrity Officer from

Leader Reader Item for: Information Questions regarding the report from Dr. Mitra Mirhassani

1. I’m concerned that for the past four years report is almost the same. Does this mean that this is a template and all reports should be the same year after year? Shouldn’t a new report consider the reasoning behind some of the changes? The report is mainly statistics, and there is no study behind the changes in numbers (going up or down). I think that a comprehensive annual report should include insights into the changes regarding the new policies and bylaws that are developed in the University of Windsor.

2. Is there any mechanism by which the impact of new changes can be measured? This can help assess the effectiveness of new policies.

3. The numbers in this report are based on only formal complaints; but I believe that the actual numbers are much higher. Some faculty generally do not report due to slow and cumbersome process. Has there been any indirect survey of students (anonymous) on campus-‐wide cheating?

4. In the tables on page 15, is using unauthorized textbooks considered as well? Almost all students ignore this message and do not value copyright issues when it comes to purchasing their own textbook.

5. Why is there no exam rule violation case? I find it hard to believe. In all exams, cellphones are found with the students, which is a clear case of “illegal exam aid”. This takes me to the process of filing complains becoming too much of hassle, and causes faculty to ignore filing and reporting these cases. Generally, the cases need so much evidence, or get dismissed, that these are not treated as real cheating.

6. Looking at annual report 9, it was mentioned that the support for writing is going to be available for all students to assist in their report and technical writings. Is there any update on that, and how it may have affected current reported numbers?

7. Do we know the averages of students that are caught?

8. In general, my concerns are about the format and presentation of data. Providing only tables and reporting on data may not be as effective in developing new strategies and policies to help the general population of students. I understand that there are a lot of activities being undertaken to educate and prevent cheating. I am interested in seeing how some of these initiatives are linked to these numbers.

9. What is the benefit of this report for an interested reader? Has there been any effort in linking this information to campus activities? I think that there are activities going on which may or may not have any effect on the reported numbers.

of 39

of 1


Academic Policy Committee 5.3: Revisions to Bylaw 23 and Deletion of Policy on Faculty Duties and Responsibilities Item for: Approval Forwarded by: SGC Bylaw Review Committee MOTION: That the revisions to Bylaw 23 be approved and that the Policy on Faculty Duties and Responsibilities

be deleted. Proposed Revisions: Bylaw 23 -‐ Criteria for Renewal, Tenure and Promotion 1. Preamble

The academic profession is the only group recognized by society to have the primary purpose of discovering and disseminating knowledge and understanding. In order to pursue this purpose, members of the academic profession must be ensured conditions, as much as possible, which permit the free pursuit of truth and this involves freedom to discuss and to criticize. Academic freedom is a fundamental prerequisite for the academic profession. Academic freedom is intended as a safeguard against all those who would challenge the legitimate autonomy of the University, or who would seek to utilize its resources exclusively for the propagation of their own ideologies. However, academic freedom that promises the common good by ensuring the search for truth and its exposition must not be abused. Therefore, the proper exercise of academic freedom is contingent upon the recognition and adequate discharge of duties and responsibilities. Tenure, a continuing full-‐time appointment with the University, is one of the basic means of protecting and encouraging the exercise of academic freedom.

Rationale: • At the April 10, 2015 Senate meeting, there was general consent that the policy on Faculty Duties and

Responsibilities should be deleted, given that the provisions are covered in Bylaw 51, Bylaws 22/23 and the Collective Agreement, subject to the preservation of the statement on academic freedom elsewhere in Senate bylaws or policies. It seems logical and appropriate to merge the statement from the policy with the preamble in Bylaw 23.

• The proposed revisions are being proposed by the Bylaw Review Committee and forwarded to the Senate Governance Committee for approval.

of 39

of 1


Academic Policy Committee 5.4: APC Subcommittee on Final Exams and Mid Term Tests Item for: Approval MOTION: That the APC Subcommittee membership on Final Exams and Mid Term Tests be approved. Membership: Dr. Rick Caron Dr. Lorna deWitt Dr. Erika Kustra Dr. Scott Martyn Ms. Shaista Akbar (Student Representative) Mandate: At the Senate meeting on April 10, 2015, members noted that the stress on students with an afternoon, evening and morning exam, mirrors the stress of having three exams in one calendar. The general consensus of Senate was for APC to revisit the policy Multiple Final Examinations in One Calendar Day with a view to addressing accommodation for students who have three consecutive final exam slots within 24 hours. APC was also asked to consider developing a definition for mid-‐term exams. Note: Subcommittees will work independently on their assigned mandate, set up regular meetings (as per their availability) and provide a full report with possible recommendations to APC. The Chair will call the first meeting. The Subcommittees will fill the vacant positions from the areas identified below.

of 39

of 1


Academic Policy Committee 5.5: APC Subcommittee on Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET) – Gender Identification Item for: Approval MOTION: That the APC Subcommittee membership on Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET) – Gender

Identification be approved. Membership: Dr. Rick Caron Dr. Erika Kustra Mr. Amilcar Nogueira (Student Representative) Mandate: To review Section C of the Policy on Evaluations of Teaching and determine if there is a more inclusive way of asking students to provide their gender. The requirements to disclose gender on the Student Evaluations of Teaching scores only identify “Male” or “Female” as choices. This is discriminatory as it is not inclusive of all experiences and choices.

SECTION C: C. Statements about yourself: This information will be used to identify student demographics and their effect on the questionnaire results. Please answer all questions honestly and to the best of your knowledge. Ask the facilitator for assistance, if needed. […] 5. You are: Female Male

Note: Subcommittees will work independently on their assigned mandate, set up regular meetings (as per their availability) and provide a full report with possible recommendations to APC. The Chair will call the first meeting. The Subcommittees will fill the vacant positions from the areas identified below.

of 39

agenda - uwindsor.ca · page1%of%1%! notice’of’meeting’ therewill’bea’meetingof’the ’...

Documents