A Jury of Their Peers: Turning Academic Dishonesty into Classroom Learning

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jlse.12020
• Author: Peter Prescott,Hilary Buttrick,Deborah Skinner
• Date: 01 June 2014
• Published date: 01 June 2014

Journal of Legal Studies Education

Volume 31, Issue 2, 179–206, Summer 2014

A Jury of Their Peers: Turning

Academic Dishonesty into Classroom

Learning

Peter Prescott,∗Hilary Buttrick,∗∗ and Deborah Skinner∗∗∗

I. Introduction

The professor distributes the tests; the room is quiet. The students are work-

ing hard. Then, a slight movement draws the professor’s attention to a stu-

dent on the far side of the room who appears to be copying an answer from

his neighbor’s exam. Blissfully unaware of the professor’s glare, the offend-

ing “copier” continues to cheat while the professor attempts to determine

whether the “copied” is also involved. Either way, the professor must decide

how to respond. As a pit begins to grow in her stomach, the professor feels

enraged, violated, and appalled. How could this happen to her?

For most professors, dealing with academic integrity issues ranks along-

side grading and committee work as one of the most unpopular faculty re-

sponsibilities. Confronting the perpetrator can be unpleasant. It can also

create significant intangible costs for the accusing professor, not the least of

which are stress-induced sleepless nights and a damaged reputation among

the students when the ever-present social-media grapevine spreads the tale

of how an “overzealous” professor penalized a “poor” student for a “minor”

infraction. To make matters worse, confronting the perpetrator is always

time consuming because the accusing professor must strictly comply with the

extensive due process requirements contained in the institution’s academic

integrity policy.1Not surprisingly, some professors choose to ignore integrity

∗Assistant Professor of Business Law, Butler University.

∗∗Assistant Professor of Business Law, Butler University.

∗∗∗

Associate Professor of Marketing, Butler University.

1Proving this point by way of example, the author who dealt with the academic integrity violation

that resulted in the learning exercise discussed in Part III spent approximately eight hours on

C2014 The Authors

Journal of Legal Studies Education C2014 Academy of Legal Studies in Business

179

180 Vol. 31 / The Journal of Legal Studies Education

violations to avoid an administrative, and literal, headache.2After all, time

spent properly preparing and processing a complaint is time not spent on

higher-value activities like research or teaching honest (i.e., more deserving)

students.

This article discusses how business law professors are uniquely posi-

tioned to transform a frustrating academic integrity issue into a positive

learning experience that benefits those more deserving students. Business

law professors are charged with developing future managers who are adept

at making ethical decisions and complying with the laws that affect their

businesses.3That development process includes helping business students

(1) understand the importance of detecting ethical and legal problems, (2)

the violation (excluding time spent on the learning exercise). The relevant procedural steps

that consumed the bulk of the author’s time are listed below:

rGathering and reviewing relevant evidence;

rReviewing written Academic Integrity Policy in the Student Handbook;

rDiscussing situation with several colleagues to check sanity regarding violation’s existence

and appropriateness of possible sanctions;

rHolding a conference with the student(s) (mandatory at institution);

rReviewing all materials and deciding on sanctions;

rMeeting with university administrators to review violation and sanctions (optional);

rPreparing detailed letter(s) to the student(s) involved stating the sanctions and laying out

the facts that support the sanctions (mandatory at institution); and

rDistributing copies of letter(s) to numerous administrators (mandatory at institution).

If the student(s) had appealed the author’s decision, the sanctions imposed, or both, the author

would have spent many hours preparing for, and participating in, several layers of appellate

proceedings. While the procedures for dealing with academic integrity issues at the authors’

institution are extensive, the authors believe that they are fairly representative of those in place

at other institutions. Because this event was the author’s first encounter with the procedures

contained in the Academic Integrity Policy at this institution, one might assume that it required

more time than normal. However, the violation was rather minor in this case. Therefore, the

authors believe that six to eight hours is a fair estimate of the time typically dedicated to this

process.

2Donald L. McCabe, Cheating Among College and University Students: A North American Per-

spective,1Int’l J. for Educ. Integrity, at 9 (2005), http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/

index.php/IJEI/article/view/14/9 (reporting that 41 percent of faculty members say they have

ignored possible academic integrity violations, largely because they know of situations where

“obviously guilty” students escaped punishment after reviewing administrators held that there

was insufficient proof).

3See AACSB Int’l—The Ass’n to Advance Collegiate Sch. of Bus., Eligibility Proce-

dures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation 30–31 (2013), available

at http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business/standards/2013/2013-business-standards.pdf

(imposing Standard Nine, which requires business schools to incorporate appropriate curricu-

lum content that includes content emphasizing “ethical understanding and reasoning” and

regulatory/legal concepts pertinent to “organizations in a global society”).