This is part two of a five part series on academic integrity committees.

High school students often hear from chagrined teachers, “When you go to college, _____________ won’t fly!”. What fits in that blank? All manner of executive functions (e.g., showing up on time, turning in work in a timely manner, attention to detail, self-sufficiency) fit the bill, as do other academic activities, such as “open note tests”, “extra credit”, and plagiarism.

The last one example is potentially the most serious and far-reaching in terms of consequences for your scholars. In this series of posts, I am going to explore the role and purpose of honor committees in higher education from the perspective of a former K12 teacher and university professor who has served on these committees. You can provide these articles to your scholars for important background information about potential consequences of academic misconduct in higher education.

Part 2 – What goes on in an Honor Committee Meeting?

Honor Code Meetings are held on a regular schedule, and usually last for 60-90 minutes. These meetings occur on a biweekly or monthly basis, depending on the size of the docket. The agenda for these meetings is dictated by the size of the docket. The docket is the running list of cases that need to be evaluated, discussed, and adjudicated by the Honor Code Committee.

Generally meetings follow a structured format. There is usually a committee chair who runs the meetings in an orderly fashion. Some committees evaluate cases in the docket one at a time, while other committees group cases by size, the reporting unit from which they were reported, or other factors. 

Usually, each member of the committee will be provided an information sheet about each case or group of cases. What is included on this report is dependent on how institutions identify possible cases of academic misconduct, such as plagiarism or contract cheating. For example, many institutions use Turnitin services to identify instances of plagiarism, and then the Office of Academic Affairs codifies a process for reporting plagiarism using the Turnitin reports. These reports then are provided to the committee as part of the information each committee member uses to evaluate and adjudicate a case. 

The committee chair shares the most pertinent information about each case while the committee members review the information sheet. Then, the committee discusses the case, its severity, the history of the student(s) reported in the case, the likelihood of repeat instances, and possible sanctions. Each committee has different rules governing the degree of consensus required to arrive at a final decision or sanctions.

The number of cases that the Honor Committee adjudicates in a given week is determined by the complexity and severity of the cases reported. Additionally, the subject area in which the alleged academic misconduct occurred impacts the complexity of the case. For example, in computer science, plagiarism can occur at the syntax level, but also in the  highly subjective and idiomatic formatting of coding. For non-subject matter experts, distinguishing between academic misconduct and disciplinary common practices can be difficult. This is why it is helpful to have a diverse panel of committee members. 

After reviewing the information, committee members make a determination of whether or not academic misconduct has occurred, and what the sanction, if any, should be for each specific case. In future articles I will explore what kinds of sanctions Honor Committees administer.

Thank you for joining the discussion! In the next post I will answer the question, “What is academic misconduct?”  Share your honor code experiences, wonderments, and questions below!