An academic integrity committee proposed three additions to the academic integrity policy at a public forum Wednesday afternoon that few attended. The forum discussed issues relating to faculty and graduate students, yet no graduate students attended.

Despite that it was scheduled to accommodate members of the University Senate, which will consider the recommendations on March 21, only four senators attended the Vice Chancellor and Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity forum.

The 10 others in the audience included committee members and representatives of several colleges’ academic integrity offices. Vice Chancellor and Provost Eric Spina walked out of the room twice, and used his cell phone often during the presentation and discussion that followed.

The most vulnerable people on SU’s campus are graduate students and junior faculty, said Elletta Callahan, chair of the committee and professor at the Martin J. Whitman School of Management. The committee found at least one instance of a faculty member asking to publish graduate students’ work under their names, according to their October 2006 report.

Callahan denied comment on the events, saying they were revealed to her in confidence.

Wearing a black baseball cap with ‘integrity matters’ printed on the front, Callahan presented the committee’s responses to investigations of SU’s academic integrity procedures. The findings included concern over research issues, ethical and legal concerns and treatment of junior faculty and graduate students.

Most controversial was the committee’s second recommendations, which called for an external and transparent process to investigate existing procedures for integrity complaints about faculty members.

Faculty and administrators find the proposals controversial because they call for investigation into their actions, said David Potter, committee member and associate dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.

But over the past several years, investigations into grievances against faculty and staff have been flawed because of conflicts of interest, he said.

‘I like to run my own ship, too,’ Potter said. ‘But it’s a healthy thing that the university, independent of my authority and responsibility, may look in on what I do.’

Callahan said she believes in transparency for the sake of transparency, especially when processes are supervised by the recipient of the report.

‘The greatest cure for our problems, such as this one, is daylight, and the greatest danger is darkness,’ Potter said.

The third recommendation proposed an independent, neutral, impartial and confidential ‘ombudsman’ to receive and investigate concerns.

An ombudsman – which can be held by a man or a woman – is a position used at other universities and some businesses to receive confidential complaints and report them to the highest authority, Callahan said.

‘We certainly don’t perceive ourselves as bureaucracy builders,’ Callahan said. But there is a gap in the outlets for raising concerns, she said.

Though the ombudsman would likely report directly to the chancellor, Callahan said. Investigations could only be informal and would not extend beyond what is possible without notifying the accused.

In a formal investigation, there should be nothing denying the accused to face his or her accuser, Potter said.

‘On this campus, there is no independent, neutral, impartial, confidential process for evaluating concerns,’ Callahan said.

An informal process can’t necessarily solve the problems, she said. But it is an effective measure for tracking trends.

Karen Hiiemae, a representative of the College of Engineering and Computer Sciences, asked if an ombudsman would protect whistleblowers.

Wednesday was the seventh such public forum the academic integrity committee has hosted. Hiiemae attended each, Callahan said.

Fear and mistrust between graduate student assistants and full professors are major concerns, said Bruce Hamm, academic integrity representative for University College.

While it is true that the majority of witnesses don’t report misconducts, whistle-blowing is increased by the belief that there will be a response, rather than fear of retaliation, Callahan said. An ombudsman will increase the integrity of the community because he or she will be safe and accessible to everybody.

The committee’s first recommendation called for SU to adopt a statement emphasizing its commitment to integrity.

The proposed statement, which was presented at the forum, was intended to communicate that integrity is a core value of the university, that academic integrity is part of the job responsibilities of every member of the community and that each member of the community will hold the others accountable.

‘Our work is about changing the culture at this institution,’ Callahan said.

Published on February 28, 2007 at 12:00 pm