The committee reviewed the existing Chancellor's Office opinions on this matter, as well as past senate publications. It was determined that the likelihood of the Chancellor's Office changing its opinion on this issue is small. The committee determined that it would be preferable to partner with the Chancellor's Office to create a systemwide handbook on academic dishonesty and brought forward 7.01 S15 (System Handbook on Guidelines and Effective Practices for Dealing with Student Academic Dishonesty) and 14.01 S15 (Allowing Faculty to Submit the “Report Delayed” (RD) Symbol for Instances of Student Academic Dishonesty), both of which were adopted by the body.
Whereas, Academic Senate Resolution 14.02 F05 (Student Cheating) sought clarification on Chancellor’s Office legal opinion L 95-31 “limit[ing] the ability of local faculty to fail a student for a single incident of academic dishonesty, and pending the result of clarification, to seek an appropriate Title 5 change,” and Academic Senate Resolution 14.01 S08 called for the Senate to “convene a group to review and where appropriate draft language to revise Title 5 grading regulations to allow for the failure of students for egregious acts of academic dishonesty”;
Whereas, The Senate Rostrum article “Academic Dishonesty and the Faculty’s Right to Assign a Grade: A Test of the Academic Senate’s Authority,” published in 2010, concluded that “at the current time, the Academic Senate finds itself unable to carry out the will of the body in resolutions 14.02 F05 and 14.01 F08” regarding Resolution 14.01 S08 due to previous legal opinions and students’ rights to due process;
Whereas, The same Senate Rostrum article states that “the body can bring the issue back again when it looks like the environment is more conducive to effecting such a change,” and with a new chancellor and a new president of the Board of Governors now in place, the environment may now be more conducive to pursuing appropriate regulatory change regarding the important issues of academic dishonesty and faculty’s right to assign appropriate penalties”; and
Whereas, Faculty have continued to express interest in revising Title 5 grading regulations, and some colleges have established diminished sanctions for student dishonesty based on the Chancellor’s Office legal opinion on those regulations;
Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges reinitiate its effort to review and, where appropriate, draft language to revise Title 5 regulations to allow for the failure of students for egregious acts of academic dishonesty while also protecting all students’ rights to due process.
MSC