Annual Report on Student Discipline Matters

September 1, 2010 - August 31, 2011

S.12-1

Statistical Summary - Non-academic Discipline Incidents*

Statistical Summary - Academic Dishonesty Incidents*

University Board on Student Discipline **

Senate Committee on Disciplinary Appeals **

Section 6.1 of Policy S10.03 states:

The Registrar and the Senior Director, Student and

Community Life, shall maintain a statisticalsummary of cases which are handled through their

offices each year, and these data shall be included in the Annual Report on Student Discipline

Matters.

Section 6.2 of Policy S10.03 states:

In addition to the data in 6.1, the Annual Report on

Student Discipline Matters

must contain a summary of the UBSD Tribunal's decisions, the

President's decisions, SCODA's decisions and the penalties imposed. This report will be accessible

to the University community and will be submitted to Senate for information except where the

Tribunal, SCODA or the President determine that cases or parts of cases should not be disclosed.

The Summary must not disclose the identities of the parties. A set of decisions which does not

disclose the identities of the parties shall be maintained in the office of the Secretary of the

UBSD and is available for review upon reasonable notice.

SFU

STUDKNT SKRVICKS

Associate Vice-President Students

MBC3118

8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC

Canada V5A 1S6

TEL 778.782.4004

FAX 778.782.4341

trahilly@sfu.ca

http://students.sfu.ca

ATTENTION

Senate

DATE

October 24, 2011

FROM

Tim Rahilly

PAGES

Annual Report of Student Conduct:

September 1, 2010 through to August 31, 2011

According to the policy on Principles and Procedures for Student Discipline SI0.02, "The

Registrar and the Associate Vice-President Students or designate must maintain a statistical

summary of cases handled through their offices each year, and these data must be included in the

Annual Report to Senate on Student Discipline Matters." This report outlines the period of

September 1, 2010 to August 31st, 2011.

Simon Fraser University is committed to creating a scholarly community characterized by

honesty, civility, diversity, free inquiry, mutual respect, individual safety and freedom from

harassment and discrimination. Each student is responsible for his or her conduct as it affects the

University community.

The procedures for

handling student misconduct outlined in Policy SI0.01, Appendix 1. As per

the policy, reports of misconduct are forwarded to the Associate Vice President Students or

designate who will give the student an opportunity to meet and discuss the situation. The

Associate Vice President or designate is empowered to take one or more of the following courses

of action:

i. seek an informal resolution;

ii. recommend the student receive counselling or other professional assistance and, if

necessary, assist the student in obtaining counselling or other professional services;

iii. issue a formal written reprimand to the student;

iv. assess and recover costs to rectify the damage or loss caused by the student;

v. require the student to write a letter

of apology to any person adversely affected by

the student's behaviour;

vi. require the student to perform up to 50 hours of community service;

vii. terminate the student's scholarships or other financial support;

viii. refer the matter to the University Board of Student Discipline (UBSD).

This report does not include cases of student criminal activity which have taken place on campus

that are currently before the courts. However, cases that have already been disposed

of by the

courts and are then followed up under the Code

of Academic Integrity and Good Conduct policy

are included.

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

thinking of the world

Table one provides a five year history of the number of cases dealt with under the Policy as well

as categorized behaviors. Figure one shows this year's cases by the broad categories used in the

Policy.

Table 1 - Misconduct Cases from 2006 to Present

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10*

2010/11

Disruptive or Dangerous

Damage or Theft

Fraud and Misuse

Unauthorized Presence

Misuse of Procedures

University Policies

Firearms & other Weapons

Illegal Conduct

TOTAL

Figure 1 - Percentage of Misconduct Cases by Category (September 1, 2010 - August 31, 2011)

Non Academic Student Discipline

Incidents

• Disruptive or Dangerous

• Damage or Theft

University

Policies

44%

52%

Table two (next page) provides case-by-case outcomes for each incident reported. Generally, if a

case was resolved by seeking informal resolution, there are no other resolutions reported. This

year, there was one case where we did seek informal resolution but the student rejected this and

under the Policy opted to bring the case to the University Board on Student Discipline (UBSD).

In this case, ultimately, the student dropped the UBSD appeal and the case was resolved

informally.

Table 2 - Incident Type & Sanctions imposed (September 1,2010 - August 31,2011)

Non Academic Student Discipline Incidents

Incident

Type

Resolut

ion

Seek

Informal

Resolution

Recommend

Professional

Assistance

Issue a

Formal

Reprimand

Recover

Costs

Require

Written

Apology

Require

Community

Service

Terminate

Financial

Aid

Refer

UBSD

Disruptive or

Dangerous

Behaviour

Damage,

Destruction

or Theft

Fraud and

Misuse

Unauthorized

Entry/

Presence

Violation of

University

Policies

TOTAL

Percentage*

16%

76%

68%

12%

Each case can result in multip

e actions; ace

wrdingly p(

jrcentages will total more tha

n 100%

Finally, there are a few general observations I would like to share with Senate:

• The prorated

number of incidents is similar this year to last year.

• As has been the practice in past years, cases clearly stemming from mental health issues are

managed separately; provided the student agrees to that, the disciplinary process is not

brought to bear. Nonetheless, there has been an increase

of cases reported under this Policy

where students have been referred to counseling. There is no provision under the Policy that

permits me to compel a student to follow the recommendation to seek counseling.

• The use of alcohol remains a strong correlate to incidents of student misconduct.

Respectfully Submitted,

Tim Rahilly, Ph.D.

SFU

MEMORANDUM

SENATE AND ACADEMIC SERVICES

Student Enrollment, Student TEL 778.782.5350

Services

FAX 778.782.45732

3104 Maggie Benston Centre

attention Senate

from

Kate Ross, Registrar and Executive

Director, Student Enrollment

ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE REPORT 2010-2011

date December 1,2011

ioah(fl),sfu.ca

This report covers the period from September 2010 to August 2011. The revised Academic

Honesty

and Student Conduct Policy effective May 2009 requires reporting of academic

dishonesty incidents to the

Registrar's office.

There are 39 active

Academic Integrity Advisors representing programs, departments and

faculties coordinated by the Academic Integrity Coordinator in the Registrar's office. The

Academic Integrity Advisory Committee reports to the Registrar and 2010-2011 members

included: David Paterson, Lou Hafer, Rob Gordon, Elaine Fairey (chair), Jenny Fiorini, Kate

Ross, Jo Hinchliffe, and two student representatives. It meets once each term.

The Academic Integrity Coordinator in the Registrar's office collects and compiles data

regarding academic dishonesty cases from units across all three campuses. Between September

2010 and August 2011, 457 incident report forms were filed in the Registrar's office. Twenty-

nine of thirty-four academic units reported incidents. Seven cases involving repeat offenders

were identified through the central database and dealt with either by the Registrar or the

Academic Head following established policy.

Table 1 below lists the most common types of incidents that occur and Table 2 details the

breakdown of penalties assigned. Table 3 looks at the breakdown of incident reports by Faculty.

The Academic Integrity Advisory committee wishes to bring to the attention of Senate that 53%

of students with academic dishonesty records in this period are international-visa students (up

from 47%). Jo Hinchliffe, the Academic Integrity Coordinator is leading a project to review and

develop communication and programmatic strategies related to the student population in general

and international students in particular.

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

i HIN KINn 0 F THE W0 R

TABLE 1

Type of Incident:

January-

August 2010

September to

August 2010-2011

Plagiarism

Examples:

- Mainsection

of paperwas taken

from an on-line document

without any reference to this

source

- Most of paperwrittenby tutor

- Usedpatchwritingfor 60% of

written assignment

211

Cheating on exams or assignments

Examples:

- Completely filled the back of the

calculator with data, equations,

nomenclature and other aids

- Notes found in washroom with

student

- Provided assignment solutions to

another student

- Two students handed in the same

codes as their solution to the

assignment

- Used clickerregisteredto

another student and answered

quiz questions

238

Fraud/Misrepresentation

Examples:

- Forged medical documents used

to obtain a deferred final exam

- Found to have taken several

Chinese courses in high school

in China

- Missed four labs but asserted

they were present and asked for

grades

Stole a manual

TOTAL

179

456

TABLE 2

Penalties

*Note: Students can receive more

than one penalty

January to

August 2010

September to August

2010-2011

Give the student a warning

Assign a grade penalty less harsh than

'F' for the work

Impose a failing mark for the work

116

291

Assign a grade less harsh than 'FD'

for the course

Assign a grade of "FD"

Re-do the work or do supplementary

work

Issue a formal reprimand

TABLE 3

Faculty

Incident Reports

January to August

2010

Incident Reports

September to

August 2010-2011

BUS

EDUC

ENV

FAS

168

FASS

159

FCAT

HSCI

SCI

December 2011

University Board on Student Discipline

Reporting Period: September 1, 2010 - August 31, 2011

UBSD Membership

Faculty: V. Gordon Rose (Coordinator), Psychology (January 2009 - December 2011)

Wanda Cassidy, Education (November 2008 - October 2011)

Anne Macdonald, Business Administration (September 2006 - August 2012)

Kevin Douglas, Psychology (September 2010 - September 2013)

Students: Anton Bezglasnyy, Undergraduate, Political Science (Sept 2009 - August 2011)

Kathy McKay, Graduate, History (July 2008 - June 2012)

Pasha Tashakor, Graduate, Engineering Science (September 2010 - September 2011)

Kyle Vincent, Graduate, Statistics (September 2010 - September 2011)

Staff:

Tracy Bruneau, Computing Science (August 2004 - August 2013)

Donalda Meyers, Education (November 2005 - October 2011)

Harriet Chicoine, Engineering Science (January 2010 - December 2012)

Seven cases concerning academic dishonesty, one case concerning student misconduct, and one

case concerning misrepresentation were submitted to the University Board on Student Discipline

in the period covered by the report.

A summary of the cases is forwarded to Senate for information.

V. Gordon Rose

Coordinator, University Board on Student Discipline

Student Discipline Summary

File#

Nature of Offence

11-1

Academic Dishonesty - Two separate

acts of academic dishonesty, committed

in consecutive semesters, following a

previous instance of academic

dishonesty in the prior semester.

11-2

Academic Dishonesty - An incident of

plagiarism following two previous

reported cases

of academic dishonesty

that occurred prior to 2009.

11-3

Case of Student Misconduct

11-4

Academic Dishonesty - An admission

of academic dishonesty by a student

who has a record at SFU for a previous

act of academic dishonesty.

11-5

Academic Dishonesty - An admission

of academic dishonesty by a student

who has a record at SFU for two

previous acts of academic dishonesty.

11-6

Misrepresentation - Prior learning

experience in the Chinese language.

11-7

Academic Dishonesty - Student

appealed an FD grade in CMPT 383 for

academic dishonesty. Director is

recommending that a greater penalty be

imposed due to the student submitting,

as his original work, two assignments

that were purchased or acquired from

another source.

11-8

Academic Dishonesty - An admission

of academic dishonesty by a student

who had copied work from a previous

report submitted in 2010. Student had

been previously disciplined for

academic dishonesty.

11-9

Academic dishonesty. Cheating on

midterm exam by failing to take

reasonable measures to protect answers

from use by other students.

Outcome

The student admitted to the academic dishonesty. The President

accepted the unanimous recommendation

of the UBSD that an

appropriate course grade for CMPT 125 be re-determined by the

Director of the School and that the student receive a three-semester

suspension from the University commencing with the Summer 2011

semester.

The UBSD panel unanimously found that the alleged act of

academic dishonesty was not established on a balance of

probabilities.

Student appealed allegations and disciplinary sanctions. Allegations

and disciplinary sanctions 'withdrawnby the University. Student

withdrew the appeal.

The President accepted the unanimous recommendation of the

UBSD that the student receive a suspension of five semesters to

commence in the Fall semester of 2011.

The President accepted the unanimous recommendation of the

UBSD that the student receive a suspension of six semesters to

commence in the Fall 2011 semester.

Case withdrawn by applicant.

The student continued to deny responsibility. The President

accepted the unanimous recommendation of the UBSD that the

student receive an FD grade in CMPT 383 and a suspension of three

semesters to commence in the Fall 2011 semester. Appealed to

SCODA.

The President accepted the recommendation of the UBSD that the

FD grade in ENSC 384 be confirmed and that the student receive a

two semester suspension from the University to commence in the

Fall 2011 semester.

Student

appealed

the

departmental

finding

academic

dishonesty.

The Tribunal upheld the student'sappeal and instructed the

department to restorethe student's midtermexam mark to its pre-

penalty status.

Senate Committee on Disciplinary Appeals - SCODA

2011 Report

Senate Committee on Disciplinary Appeals

Reporting Period

September 2010 - August 2011

The

Senate Committee on Disciplinary Appeals (SCODA)

heard

seven

appeals during the

period covered by this report, four

of which involved charges of plagiarism and three of which

involved charges of cheating during an examination. Two cases involved graduate students and

five involved undergraduate students.

SCODA Appeal Nos. 2010-02 and 2010-03 (plagiarism)

Appeal based on Policy SI0.04, section 2.1(iii) ("the penalty imposed on the student is

excessive in all the circumstances of the case.") The penalties under appeal were grades

of "FD" assigned to two students who were part of the same 2-person work group and

submitted an assignment worth 5% of the course grade identical to that submitted by a

third student in the course. The third student received a grade of "0" for the assignment,

significantly less harsh than that imposed on the two students who appealed. Given the

disproportionate nature of the penalties imposed even though all three students were

equally involved in the incident, the Committee found in favour of the students and

varied the penalties to substitute grades of "F" for the course in each case.

SCODA Appeal No. 2010-04 (cheating during an examination)

Appeal based on Policy SI0.04, section 2.1(i) ("a procedural error occurred of sufficient

magnitude that it may reasonably be said to have affected the fairness of the process or

altered the outcome of the case against the student") and section 2.1 (iii) ("the penalty

imposed on the student is excessive in all the circumstances of the case.") The penalty

under appeal was a grade of "FD" assigned to a student based on violation of SI 0.01,

section

4.1.2(e)(ii),

prohibiting

cheating

during

examinations

"providing

answers

other students." The student was given the opportunity to discuss the incident with the

instructor, but was not given an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Chair of the

Department

before

the "FD" was imposed, as required by SI0.01, Appendix 3. For that

reason, the Committee found in favour of the student on this issue, varying the penalty to

substitute a grade of "F" for the course.

SCODA Appeal No. 2010-05 (cheating during an examination)

Appeal based on Policy SI 0.04, section 2.1(i) ("a procedural error occurred of sufficient

magnitude that it may reasonably be said to have affected the fairness of the process or

altered the outcome of the case against the student") and section 2.1 (iii) ("the penalty

imposed on the student is excessive in all the circumstances of the case.") The penalty

under appeal was a grade of "FD" assigned to a student based on violation of SI 0.01,

section 4.1.2(e)(ii), prohibiting cheating during examinations by "using, or attempting to

use, another student'sanswers." The student was given an opportunity to discuss the

matter with the instructor. The Chair of the Department conceded, however, that he did

not contact the student to give him an opportunity to discuss the matter

before

the "FD"

was imposed, as required by SI0.01, Appendix 3. For that reason, the Committee found

* |l

Senate Committee on Disciplinary Appeals - SCODA

2011 Report

in favour of the student on this issue, varying the penalty to substitute a grade of "F" for

the course.

SCODA Appeal Nos. 2011-01 (plagiarism)

Appeal based on Policy SI0.04, section 2.1(iii) ("the penalty imposed on the student is

excessive in all the circumstances of the case.") The penalty under appeal was a grade

of "F" assigned to a graduate student for a term paper, lengthy passages of which were

copied almost verbatim from the original source with little or no attribution. The student

conceded that the paper was plagiarized but argued that the copying was not intentional.

The Committee confirmed the original decision which remained unchanged.

SCODA Appeal No. 2011-02 (cheating during an examination)

Appeal based on Policy SI0.04, section 2.1 (iii) ("the penalty imposed on the student is

excessive in all the circumstances of the case.") The penalty under appeal was a grade of

"0" assigned for a midterm worth 17.5% of the course grade after the instructor found an

open notebook in the student's possession during the examination, in violation of SI0.01,

section 4.1.2(c)(iii). The student admitted that he had an open notebook in his possession

during the examination but asserted that he did not intend to cheat. The Committee

confirmed the original decision which remained unchanged.

SCODA Appeal No. 2011-03 (plagiarism)

Appeal based on Policy SI0.04, section 2.1(i) ("a procedural error occurred of sufficient

magnitude that it may reasonably be said to have affected the fairness of the process or

altered the outcome of the case against the student") and section 2.1 (iii) ("the penalty

imposed on the student is excessive in all the circumstances of the case.") At issue were

three grades of "F" assigned to a graduate student for separate graduate courses after it

came to light that substantial parts of major papers submitted for each were plagiarized,

contrary to Policy SI0.01, section 4.1.2(a). The Department acted immediately to notify

the student of the concern that had arisen in connection with the first paper and to give

her an opportunity to discuss the matter. By the time the meeting took place a day later,

the Department had learned that similar problems existed with two papers submitted for

other courses. All three papers were discussed at the meeting; the Department informed

the student that it would impose grades of "F" for the three courses based on academic

dishonesty. In imposing penalty, the Department weighed the factors set out in SI0.02,

section 1.9, including whether the academic dishonesty in each instance was part of a

pattern of repeated acts. The Committee noted that if the plagiarism in the first paper had

been discovered at the time it was originally graded, it would not yet have been part of a

pattern of repeated acts and this particular factor might have been assigned less weight.

The Committee therefore found in favor of the student on the issue of excessiveness with

regard to the first paper, varying the penalty to substitute a grade of "0" for the paper but

allowing the grades she had earned in the remainder of the course to stand, resulting in a

"C+" in the course. The Committee concluded, however, that the grades of "F" assigned

for the later courses were not excessive in all the circumstances of the case. It confirmed

the original decisions with regard to these courses which remained unchanged.

Senate Committee on Disciplinary Appeals - SCODA

2011

Report

SCODA Membership as of November 2011:

Chair:

Dr. Andrea Geiger, Department of History

Vice-Chair:

Dr. Abraham Punnen, Department

of Mathematics

Faculty (Regular Members)

Dr. Andrea Geiger, Department of History

Dr. Geoffrey Poitras, Faculty of Business Administration

Dr. Abraham Punnen, Department of Mathematics

Faculty (Alternate Members)

Dr. Doug Allen, Department of Economics

Dr. Lorraine Halinka Malcoe, Faculty of Health Sciences

Students (Regular Members)

Ms. Christi Garneau-Scott, graduate student

Mr. Jordan Kohn, undergraduate student

Mr. Lucas McFadden-Gummeson, undergraduate student

Students (Alternate Members)

Mr. Ben Lee, undergraduate student

Dr. Kamran Reayat, graduate student

Secretary

Ms. Concetta Di Francesco, Student Academic Appeals

Andrea Geiger

Chair, SCODA

ndrea Geiger

Date