June 18, 2004
PROFESSOR RONALD GRONSKY, CO-CHAIR
VICE CHANCELLOR GENARO PADILLA, CO-CHAIR
Executive Steering Committee to Review Campus Regulations
Subject: Report of the Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarism Subcommittee
The Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarism Subcommittee has now completed its review of the Code of Student Conduct as it pertains to academic misconduct. On behalf of its members, I am pleased to present our final report and recommendations for your review and action.
I. Introduction
The Subcommittee members are Professors Steven Botterill, Keith Gilless, Mark Griffith, Susan Schweik, and Paul Vojta; Kathleen Dickson (Student Ombudsperson); Jeff Prince (University Health Services); Karen Warren (Student Affairs); student representatives Dave Madan (ASUC), Jennifer Klinger (ASUC), and Temina Madon (Graduate Assembly); and Alan Kolling (Undergraduate Education) who also served as staff. The Subcommittee met approximately every two weeks during much of the Fall 2003 and Spring 2004 semesters.
As you directed in your charge letter of September 26, 2003, the work of the Subcommittee centered around the following specific responsibilities:
1. Examine existing procedures for adjudicating academic dishonesty and recommend whether they should be eliminated, retained or modified in the course of constructing an educational process to resolve such allegations. This could include a discussion of:
(a) The current definitions used in the section on academic dishonesty, i.e., cheating, plagiarism, furnishing false information, and creating improper academic disadvantage;
(b) The merits of an "Honor Code" system at Berkeley;
(c) The creation of an adjudicative system that is entirely faculty-based or student-run;
(d) The use of a special transcript notation for academic dishonesty and plagiarism; and
(e) The publication of a "penalty scale" for infractions.
2. Discuss how we can generally promote a climate of academic integrity throughout the campus community, particularly among residential student groups;
3. Develop training materials on dealing with academic dishonesty for current and new faculty and GSIs, and develop broad-based faculty support for enforcing standards of academic honesty; and
4. Educate students on the acceptable parameters of the use of technology in the production of research-based work, and discuss effective strategies for identifying and discouraging academically dishonest practices involving the use of technology.
II. Academic Dishonesty Survey
During this time, the Subcommittee also developed a survey on academic dishonesty that was distributed electronically to the college deans, department chairs, members of every Academic Senate committee, and a sample of faculty and GSIs. Respondents included seven deans, twenty-one chairs, one hundred and thirty-four faculty and seventy-five GSIs. A separate survey for students was developed by the Subcommittee and distributed through the ASUC Student Advocate Office. A total of one thousand one hundred and sixty-seven student surveys were received during this process. A copy of the survey instruments and a summary of the survey results are appended to this report in Attachment I.
Some of the key findings from the survey included the following:
• Two-thirds of respondents indicated that their department did not routinely inform them about how to deal with suspected acts of student academic dishonesty. More than half of respondents said that their departments did not require them to report suspected acts of student academic dishonesty to the chair or other department administrator. More than sixty percent of the students felt that they were not routinely informed by the instructor as to their expectations regarding academic dishonesty and collaboration in the classroom.
• More than half of respondents indicated that their department did not require them to report student academic dishonesty to the Student Judicial Affairs Office. Those who responded "no” to this question reported a variety of reasons why, including the "sanctity” of the student-teacher relationship, and the instructors’ right to resolve allegations of student academic dishonesty as they chose. Other reasons included lack of awareness of that office’s resources, and reluctance to resolve the incident beyond the department.
• The most common form of academic dishonesty reported by instructors was plagiarism, despite the fact that this is also the most common violation discussed by the instructor in the classroom. However, the student survey suggested that many students did not fully comprehend what particular practices might involve plagiarism. Only one-third of the students surveyed thought that academic dishonesty and plagiarism was extensive or very extensive on the Berkeley campus.
• When asked what was the one thing the campus could do to help instructors handle suspected cases of student academic dishonesty, the most frequent response from non-student respondents was more funding for GSIs and more training materials. Electronic detection was also mentioned, such as software to detect plagiarism and use of the web. Administrators and faculty also mentioned more consistency in implementing student conduct policies and some favored an honor code. GSIs preferred to turn academic dishonesty cases over to third parties and stated that revisions to course materials might help discourage cheating (such as living groups maintaining files of old exams).
Although the surveys were primarily intended to solicit anecdotal information about the scope of and attitudes towards academic dishonesty on campus, rather than serve as a scientific study of the issue, their results helped to frame the Subcommittee’s identification of the key issues facing the campus and, ultimately, the final recommendations presented below.
III. Key Issues in Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarism
In the course of our deliberations, and based on the results of the surveys undertaken during this review process, the Subcommittee identified several key issues relating to academic dishonesty and plagiarism on campus.
First, students often seem to lack a clear appreciation and knowledge of the appropriate standards of what is acceptable and unacceptable conduct in the classroom and in the completion of academic assignments. In many cases, the existence of cultural differences among students was viewed as a contributing factor. There also appears to be a wide discrepancy in the way in which different departments and, as a result, the instructors of record and GSIs, viewed and responded to suspicions raised about student academic dishonesty. In part, this may be attributed to the general deference accorded the individual instructor in resolving all issues derived from the faculty-student relationship.
Students and faculty appeared to be generally unfamiliar with the role and resources of the Student Judicial Affairs Office, the judicial processes outlined in the campus Code of Student Conduct, or their rights and obligations whenever an allegation of academic dishonesty is pursued through formal channels. Many faculty appear concerned about the administrative burden of reporting any suspicions of cheating outside of the department and, in some cases, about the legal ramifications that might result from doing so.
Finally, without exception, the most egregious and prevalent form of academic dishonesty reported by faculty and GSIs is plagiarism, with unauthorized use of sources found on the internet regarded as the primary cause of the problem. Accordingly, many faculty expressed a strong desire for plagiarism detection software or other forms of assistance in tracking down unauthorized sources of written assignments.
IV. Analysis and Recommendations
A. Revised Standards and Definitions of Offenses
The Subcommittee recognized early in its deliberations that standards regarding plagiarism, impermissible collaboration, inappropriate citation, paraphrasing of the work of another, and other forms of academic dishonesty are not generally well-understood or widely accepted by students on campus. As a result, and as directed in its charge, the Subcommittee undertook a major re-evaluation of the current standards and definitions employed in the Code of Student Conduct. We have accordingly modified the definition of several terms for academic misconduct found in the Code.
"Cheating” was redefined to clarify that working with other students on an academic assignment would only be proscribed if it occurred without the instructor’s knowledge and express approval. We have further proposed eliminating the burden currently placed on students to ascertain from the course instructor the degree of collaboration permissible in group assignments, since we believe that the responsibility for doing so is more properly placed on the instructor to clarify his or her expectations in advance of such assignments. ”Plagiarism” was redefined to include improper citation for drafts and informal classroom assignments, as well as copying or paraphrasing of research data, results, codes or algorithms. Finally, we sought to provide clarity in the definition of unacceptable student behavior as it might result in interference with or disruption of classroom instruction, while balancing the rights of freedom of expression in the classroom.
Recommendation One
The Subcommittee recommends that the following language defining academic dishonesty offenses be incorporated into the existing Code of Student Conduct in a section separate from the general listing of proscribed behavior.
1. Cheating.
Cheating is defined as fraud, deceit, or dishonesty in an academic assignment, or using or attempting to use materials, or assisting others in using materials which are prohibited or inappropriate in the context of the academic assignment in question. This includes, but is not limited to:
2. Plagiarism.
Plagiarism is defined as the use of intellectual material produced by another person without acknowledging its source in the submission of formal or informal academic assignments. This includes, but is not limited to:
3. Furnishing false information in the context of an academic assignment.
Furnishing false information in the context of an academic assignment includes, but is not limited to:
4. Creating an improper academic disadvantage to another student or an improper academic advantage to oneself.
Creating an improper academic disadvantage to another student or an improper academic advantage to oneself includes, but is not limited to:
5. Interference with courses of instruction.
Interference with courses of instruction includes, but is not limited to:
6. Theft of, or damage to, intellectual property.
Theft of, or damage to, intellectual property includes but is not limited to:
7. Selling course lecture notes, handouts, readers, or other information provided by an instructor, or using or distributing them for any commercial purpose without the express permission of the instructor.
B. Revised Academic Disciplinary Procedures
Pursuant to its charge, the Subcommittee reviewed the existing language in the Code of Student Conduct as it pertained to resolution of academic dishonesty and plagiarism allegations. In doing so, the Subcommittee was mindful of the overall mission of the Steering Committee to create a more educational framework within which allegations of academic dishonesty and plagiarism could be resolved. The deliberations about possible changes in procedure centered around several key issues. There was, for example, general consensus that continued use of the informal process to resolve academic dishonesty allegations, wherever appropriate, should be encouraged. In many cases, such as those involving first-time cheating or simple acts of negligence, the Subcommittee believes that the course instructor should retain the ability to resolve any concerns raised by such student behavior either through the imposition of a punitive grade, through formal referral of the matter to the Student Judicial Affairs Office, or both.
The Subcommittee also believes that procedures for formally resolving academic dishonesty allegations should be written in a manner designed to minimize perceived burdensome reporting requirements, and to reassure faculty members of their continued role in that process. This may be accomplished, for example, by having Student Judicial Affairs consult with the course instructor in advance of formal disposition of the allegation, and by Student Judicial Affairs informing the instructor of the final disposition after a case proceeds to a hearing. Both provisions have now been incorporated into our recommendations.
Pursuant to the November 7, 1987 memorandum from Committee on Courses of Instruction Chair Hans Sluga (Attachment II), under existing Academic Senate policy an instructor may impose a failing grade in cases involving cheating, even those cases in which a student might deny the allegation, subject only to the student’s right to a grade appeal. The Subcommittee believes that existing Code of Student Conduct procedures for resolving disputes regarding academic dishonesty should continue to reflect UC Systemwide policy under which a student who disputes an academic dishonesty allegation has the opportunity to seek review of the matter in a formal administrative hearing. The revised Code language should make clear that, where a student denies responsibility for cheating, "[t]he instructor may not impose a punitive grade until the matter has been formally resolved.” Given the long-standing discrepancy between Academic Senate practice, on the one hand, and campus policy on the other, the Subcommittee also recommends that the guidance contained in the Sluga memorandum be formally remanded to the Academic Senate for reconsideration.
The Subcommittee was informed by the Office of the Registrar that the use of the notation "NR” for No Report, where an allegation of academic dishonesty is still under review at the end of a semester, has been superceded by the use of the notation "I” for "Incomplete” for all such unresolved cases, a fact that our proposed revision now reluctantly reflects. The Subcommittee is concerned both that the "I” notation does not adequately reflect the severity of the pending matter, and the fact that the grade may be manipulated or dropped by a student under existing rules governing removal of "incomplete” grades. As one Subcommittee member noted, failure to remedy the current situation would suggest that students who wish to cheat should do so "early and often.” For that reason, we have added a provision that specifically prohibits a student from seeking to remove a punitive grade without the instructor’s written approval.
Although it extends beyond the scope of the present review, the Subcommittee also believes that the campus should take the initiative to propose the creation of a UC Systemwide grade designation, such as the "XF” grade now in use at other schools, that could be used to reflect imposition of a punitive grade for cheating or other forms of academic dishonesty, and that could not be changed or dropped without the instructor’s written approval.
The Subcommittee also discussed the merits of establishing an "Honor Code" system at Berkeley. Although there is some recent research that indicates that institutions utilizing an Honor Code generally report fewer cases of academic dishonesty than those that did not, the Subcommittee does not believe that an Honor Code system should be implemented at Berkeley at this time.
In response to the suggestion that imposition of arbitrary sanctions in academic dishonesty cases might be avoided if a "penalty scale" linking specific outcomes to specific offenses was adopted, the Subcommittee determined that there were other avenues, including the appeals process, that could be used to challenge uneven application of the rules. This was especially true since the Subcommittee concluded that it would not be possible to design a matrix of sanctions that could properly factor into account all of the complex, mitigating, or aggravating factual circumstances that might arise in any given case.
Finally, in light of concerns about workload and scheduling, the Subcommittee discussed alternatives to deployment of the full five-person Committee on Student Conduct panel contained in the existing Steering Committee proposals for hearings, at least as they would apply to cases involving academic dishonesty allegations. The Subcommittee discussed the creation of an adjudicative body that was, among others, entirely faculty-based or student-run, examining models from other universities such as University of Maryland at College Park. In the end, the Subcommittee agreed to recommend that disciplinary hearings involving academic dishonesty allegations should be conducted before a three-person panel, comprising two faculty and one student member of the Committee on Student Conduct, while retaining the student’s right to have his or her case heard before a single faculty member.
Recommendation Two
The Subcommittee recommends that the following language regarding disciplinary procedures for academic dishonesty allegations should be incorporated into the existing Code.
Academic Misconduct Allegations
(A) Generally
When an instructor of record becomes aware of possible academic misconduct, he or she may discuss and resolve the allegation with the student directly, report the allegation(s) to the Student Judicial Affairs Office for formal adjudication, or do both.
(B) Faculty Resolution of Allegations
The instructor may at any time discuss and attempt to resolve a suspicion of academic misconduct directly with the student.
(i) Admission of Responsibility
If the student admits responsibility, the instructor of record may impose a punitive grade for the assignment in question or, if the violation is sufficiently serious, for the course as a whole, and may require the student to undertake additional academic work. A punitive grade for a course may not be removed without the written approval of the instructor. The instructor may also report a student’s admission of responsibility for academic misconduct to the Student Judicial Affairs Office. When such a report is made, the admission may be used by the Student Judicial Affairs Office to bring formal charges if the student has a prior discipline record, provided that the instructor has been consulted about such action. The admission may also be used against the student in future disciplinary proceedings, if the student is found to have engaged in additional misconduct.
(ii) Denial of Responsibility
If the student denies responsibility, or declines to respond, the instructor may elect not to pursue the matter further or he or she may refer the allegation(s) to the Student Judicial Affairs Office for formal adjudication. The instructor may not impose a punitive grade until the matter has been formally resolved. In case the matter is not resolved by the end of the semester, a course grade of "I" ("Incomplete”) shall be noted on the grade sheet pending final resolution of the allegation.
(C) Formal Adjudication by Student Judicial Affairs
After the matter has been referred for formal adjudication, the Student Judicial Affairs Office shall consult with the instructor about a proposed resolution before final disposition of the allegation(s). In all cases, the Student Judicial Affairs Office shall inform the instructor of the final disposition after the matter has been resolved.
Composition of Hearing Body in Academic Dishonesty cases
When an allegation of academic misconduct is formally pursued by the Student Judicial Affairs Office, the disciplinary procedures outlined elsewhere in this Code shall be followed with the following exception.
All hearings will be held before a three-person panel drawn from the members of the Committee on Student Conduct. Two of the members shall be faculty, and one shall be a student. A charged student may voluntarily waive the quorum requirement and agree to have his or her case heard by a single faculty member. In all cases proceeding to hearing, the Student Judicial Affairs Office shall inform the members of the hearing body of the final disposition of the case.
Recommendation Three
The Subcommittee recommends that the use of the notation "NR” for No Report, where an allegation of academic dishonesty is still under review at the end of a semester, should be reinstated in place of the notation "I” for "Incomplete” for all such unresolved cases. As noted earlier, the Subcommittee is concerned both that the "I” notation does not adequately reflect the severity of the pending matter, and the fact that the grade may be manipulated or dropped by a student under existing rules governing removal of "incomplete” grades. The Subcommittee further recommends that the campus should take the initiative to propose the creation of a UC Systemwide grade designation, such as the "XF” grade now in use at other schools, that could be used to reflect imposition of a punitive grade for cheating or other forms of academic dishonesty, and that could not be changed or dropped without the written approval of the instructor of record.
C. Promoting a Climate of Academic Integrity Among Students
One of the biggest challenges the campus faces in coping with student academic dishonesty and plagiarism is the absence of a widely recognized environment that promotes academic integrity among students. The Subcommittee discussed several major broad-based initiatives that could be adopted to reverse this unfortunate perception. The Subcommittee believes that ongoing efforts should be undertaken (and in some cases, enhanced) to inform or remind incoming and continuing students about the standards of academic integrity that the campus has established. Furthermore, the Subcommittee believes that these efforts should extend beyond the routine information sessions conducted during CalSO’s summer programs or the informational tabling occasionally found in the residence halls.
Recommendation Four
The campus should undertake a number of initiatives to raise student awareness about campus academic integrity standards. These initiatives could include the following:
• Official campus posters denouncing academic dishonesty and other forms of cheating should be produced. The posters could include the Code of Student Conduct provisions defining academic misconduct, as well as a listing of resources available to students who are experiencing difficulty coping with academic or other forms of stress.
• Individual brochures should be distributed to all new students, including incoming freshmen, transfer and international students, explaining through use of examples what plagiarism and, conversely, proper citation of references and footnotes, entails, as well as the standards for acceptable collaboration on group assignments. These brochures could also encourage students to report cheaters and thereby provide a sense of empowerment to those students who feel cheated against because of other students’ acts of dishonesty. An example of one such brochure, patterned after the Academic Dishonesty brochure developed by the Student Judicial Affairs Office, is appended as Attachment III.
• A Cal Mail message from the Chancellor or other appropriate campus administrator should be sent just before Finals Week, reminding students of the many student services and academic resources available to them, the established academic integrity standards, and the potential consequences of engaging in acts of dishonesty, including a campus discipline record retained for at least five years and the possible loss of employment and graduate school admission opportunities.
• The Graduate Division should widely publicize its guidelines and policies for satisfactory completion and documentation of theses and doctoral dissertations. Some consideration should be given to developing a 300-level Ethics course, covering aspects of academic integrity at the graduate study level, including topics such as intellectual property, for all graduate programs. The GSI Teaching and Resource Center’s online course on professional ethics and standards pertaining to teaching, which will be launched this fall and will be required of all new GSIs, could serve as a model for such a course.
D. Promoting Faculty Participation in the Process
Our survey results suggested that the deans, department chairs, and faculty largely support the creation of uniform conduct standards and policy, and believe that steps taken to promote students’ understanding of what academic dishonesty is, how it occurs, and how to prevent it should be consistent and highly visible across all departments on campus. Some survey respondents also noted that, when consistency of actions taken against cheating are coupled with serious consequences for the cheater, not only are strong deterrents put into effect but definitive boundaries are then established for students.
Recommendation Five
The Subcommittee discussed a number of department initiatives that could be undertaken to promote academic integrity on campus. We recommend adoption of the following:
• Chairs should periodically discuss at faculty meetings the department rules, policies or expectations about the handling of academic dishonesty allegations. This would serve to reinforce consistent expectations and practices among faculty and allow adequate information to be shared with GSIs who normally have the most direct interface with students alleged to have engaged in academic dishonesty.
• Each department should designate an administrative officer to assume primary responsibility for overseeing and monitoring resolution of academic dishonesty cases. This officer could also serve as a liaison with the staff in the Student Judicial Affairs office, for those cases referred to the latter office for formal disposition.
• Informational brochures should be developed for new and current faculty and GSIs detailing, among others, the Code language and provision regarding academic dishonesty offenses and the procedures for formal resolution, including the burden of proof; tips for preventing cheating in the classroom; suggested classroom techniques for promoting an environment to support academic integrity; suggestions for dealing with allegations of cheating when they arise; and potential legal liability issues. An example of one such brochure, patterned after the Instructors’ Guide For Addressing Student Academic Dishonesty brochure developed by the Student Judicial Affairs Office, is appended as Attachment IV.
The Graduate Division’s GSI Teaching and Resource Center has devoted one module of its online course on professional ethics and standards in teaching to instructing GSIs on how to promote academic integrity, how to assist students in understanding what constitutes academic dishonesty, and what a GSI should do if he or she suspects a student has committed an infraction. Graduate Council policy stipulates that all new GSIs must successfully pass this course by the end of the third week of classes in the first semester that he or she is appointed to serve as a GSI. Successful completion of the course will be tracked by the Graduate Division, and appointments will not be renewed if the requirement has not been fulfilled. Similarly, written materials have been incorporated for the past several years into the GSI Teaching and Resource Center’s conference reader. This reader will reach all new GSIs as of the 2004-2005 academic year, when the conference becomes mandatory for new GSIs. The topic of academic honesty/dishonesty is addressed in all of the three-hour workshops that GSIs attend at the conference. In addition, a one-hour concurrent session on this topic will added to the GSI conference this fall. The GSI Teaching and Resource Center has also devoted a segment of its Web site on how GSIs and faculty mentors of GSIs can foster a teaching and learning environment that promotes academic integrity in undergraduate education.
• The instructor for each course should at the beginning of each semester make clear to the students his or her expectations regarding the course, including those pertaining to completion of course assignments and collaboration on written assignments. Normally this information should be presented orally to the students during the first class meeting, and should also be contained in the course syllabus. Suggestions for wording that might be employed in a course syllabus are included in Attachment V, subject to appropriate modification depending on the discipline. The materials made available to GSIs through the GSI Teaching and Resource Center (online course, Web site section, and conference resource reader), will strongly encourage GSIs to include this statement in the information sheet they distribute in section and to discuss what constitutes academic dishonesty at the beginning of the semester with their students.
• The campus should develop resources that could be deployed at new faculty training and orientation to raise awareness of the academic dishonesty issues that might arise, and the procedures that might be followed in resolving suspicions. Presenters at such orientation sessions could be drawn from distinguished members of the faculty, such as recent DTA winners. Consideration should also be given to providing similar training to advising, student services, and academic center staff who interact with students on a daily basis.
E. Use of Anti-plagiarism Software on Campus
The Subcommittee reviewed the campus discussions that had already occurred regarding possible adoption of anti-plagiarism software, and discussed some of the policy questions regarding such use that remain unanswered. The background regarding the campus’s involvement with anti-plagiarism software may be summarized as follows. During the 2000-2001 academic year, a company now known as Turnitin.com sought to enter into a contract for the deployment of its plagiarism detection software on a campuswide basis. At the time, the company, which was founded by a former Berkeley graduate student, had already entered into contracts with several faculty members (known to the former student) allowing use of the software on a complimentary or reduced basis.
The campus administration declined to execute an agreement with Turnitin.com for several reasons. At the time, the company took the position that any student papers submitted for analysis became the property of the company, as part of the general database of collegiate student papers against which future papers would checked for possible plagiarism. This raised both intellectual property and copyright issues, as well as privacy issues relating to student records. There was also some concern that the company had used testimonials from one or more of the aforementioned faculty members in its literature to suggest that the campus had in fact entered into a campuswide agreement to use the software. As a result, the campus sent a cease-and-desist letter requesting that the company not engage in such misrepresentation. Finally, the administration decided against executing a contract at the time because the issue of the deployment of anti-plagiarism software in the classroom had not been fully reviewed by the Academic Senate.
The nature of the technology proffered by Turnitin.com and similar companies has in many ways defined the scope of the discussions surrounding its possible deployment. We understand the system to work in the following manner. When students send their papers into the company, the anti-plagiarism software simply conducts an "appraisal” of the work, i.e. it assigns to each paper a number suggesting the degree of probability of possible plagiarism within the work. Thus, the software does not determine with any degree of certainty whether or not plagiarism has occurred. It is left entirely up to the instructor’s discretion to determine where to draw the line with the degrees of probability assigned to the papers, and which papers, if any, to investigate. Most people familiar with anti-plagiarism software agree that it is best used in combination with other techniques to detect plagiarism, and should not be solely relied upon. Thus, one of the major benefits provided by the service lies in the deterrent effect which the advertised use of such software might have on students who would otherwise contemplate plagiarism.
Those who question the value of such software do so for two additional reasons. First, one may achieve similar plagiarism detection results by employing a standard internet search engine such as "google.com.” (It is worth however noting that it is not necessary to determine the actual source of a plagiarized work before an instructor may broach his or her suspicions about plagiarism with a student. It is entirely appropriate for an instructor in such circumstances to simply invite the student in for a meeting to discuss the submitted work, or to require the submission of drafts and a list of the resources utilized in drafting the written assignment.) Second, some faculty remain concerned that the use of such anti-plagiarism software alters the fundamental relationship between the instructor and student into one of basic mistrust, sending the message that the use of such software is necessary because most students cannot be relied upon to do original work.
Given the budgetary situation of most of the academic units for which the software would be useful, it is unrealistic to expect that many of these units would redirect S&E dollars to finance its use. It would furthermore be questionable educational policy to make instructor access to the software dependent upon the current financial condition of their unit, or the priorities of their current Chair. If the campus wants to pursue the use of such software, the committee recommends that the administration enter into a single contract for access, financed out of central funds, and that the number of "hits" (defined as a single appraisal of one assignment by the software) allocated to departments be based upon faculty expressions of interest in using the software. If the campus chooses to adopt the use of the software, there is certainly the possibility for unintended consequences, e.g., classroom-shopping by students wishing to reduce their chances of having their papers subjected to such software screening. Opportunities for such classroom-shopping would seem to be inevitable since the decision to use or not use the software would clearly be a matter of instructor prerogative. The possibility of conflicts regarding copyright issues is also troubling, since the way the software works would seem to require surrender of any student rights in the submitted work as a precondition for taking any course in which the instructor might elect to use the software. Such surrender would be unavoidable for courses required for a student's major.
Recommendation Six
The Subcommittee believes that appropriate Academic Senate committees should now be formally consulted regarding the relative merits and disadvantages of possible deployment of anti-plagiarism software on the Berkeley campus.
V. Concluding Observations
The work of the Subcommittee is a first step toward establishing a clear and consistent set of campus policies and practices with regard to academic integrity. The implementation of our recommendations will require continuing time and effort by both the Academic Senate and the administration, so it will be critical to establish an appropriate structure and mechanisms to translate these proposals into reality. The Subcommittee recommends that Professor Gronsky, Vice Chancellor Padilla, and I work together to develop that implementation framework.
Vice Provost Christina Maslach, Chair
Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarism Subcommittee