When chance turns to disaster: Parts A, B, and C.(Instructor's Note)

Armandi, Barry ; Sherman, Herbert ; Rowley, Daniel J. 等

CASE DESCRIPTION

This is a field-based disguised case which describes how an instructor's replacement for the last four weeks for three courses encountered plagiarism with two group case term papers and how he and the administration dealt with the situation. In Part A, Professor Reynolds is asked to replace Professor Chance for the last four weeks of the semester after Professor Chance missed two weeks of three Business Strategy courses. He develops a new course outline which he presents to the class only to find that certain students object to the new outline given the fact that it does not factor in previously graded work. In Part B Professor Reynolds stays with the current outline and assigned student groups cases from their text to present to the class and then required a group case term paper. In examining two of the papers, he noticed that they had been verbatim copied from the instructor's manual. Professor Reynolds consulted with the Dean and they then informed the Provost that these students would be withdrawn from this course and allowed to retake the course without penalty. Students freely admitted that they had copied from the instructor's manual, which was earlier given to them by Professor Chance. In Part C Professor Chance is confronted by the Provost about the situation and ends up storming out of the Provost's office refusing to resign.

The case is designed to be taught in one class period (may vary from sixty minutes to one hundred minutes, depending upon the course structure and the instructional approach employed [ see instructor's note] and is expected to require between six to ten hours of outside preparation by students (again, depending upon instructor's choice of class preparation method).

CASE SYNOPSIS

Derived from observation and field interviews, this two-part case describes how Professor Reynolds dealt with substituting for Professor Chance, a professor who seemed to have not been working out well with his classes. In Part A the students were complaining to Dr. Reynolds that much of their work was not being graded, and, if the work was graded, it was being graded too harshly--at a graduate student level. Professor Reynolds unilaterally decided that the best approach in the remaining four weeks of class would be to cover the course basics, and grade students not based upon past work (although those who received grades of B or better would receive extra credit) but upon four criteria: Mini-case Analysis (25%), Group Case Presentation (25%) and Group Case Report (50%). This decision did not go over well with some of the members of each class who had submitted work to Dr. Chance and now would not be considered as part of their grade unless they received a B or better (this would be used as extra credit).

Part B begins with Reynolds explaining to his students that it would be difficult for him to use Dr. Chance's grading of their work given Dr. Chance's seemingly inconsistent grading of their work. Reynolds then discussed with the Provost his new course outline and how he would handle prior course work and the Provost approved of Reynolds's resolution. After sitting through student presentations and reading student group papers, Professor Reynolds realized that two groups' of the groups' papers were verbatim copies of the instructor's manual. The Dean and Professor Reynolds interviewed the students individually who were involved in the plagiarism. Students clearly admitted to the plagiarism, however, the students indicated that Professor Chance gave them his instructor's manual for assistance. Reynolds and the Dean wondered if the students could be held accountable for their actions even though a faculty member was an unknowing "accomplice?"

In Part C the Dean and Professor Reynolds decided that the students who plagiarized would be with drawn from the course without penalty since plagiarism was inexcusable, regardless of Chance's actions. The Provost then met with Dr. Chance who confirmed that he had leant the students his instructor's manual. The Provost asked for Chance's resignation and the case ends with Chance refusing to resign and storming out of the Provost's office.

INSTRUCTORS' NOTES

PART A

Dr. Reynolds walked into a bad situation. Taking over for another professor in the last four weeks of a semester in three courses, regardless of the rationale, makes it very hard on the students as well as on the faculty member in trying to find a fair and equitable way to evaluate students based upon the old instructor's criteria and any new criteria proposed by the new faculty member. Did Professor Reynolds handle this situation in an equitable manner by changing the course outline and by disregarding all of the unmarked work of students, while giving only those students who did receive grades and grades of "B" or better, extra credit? Although a very fair question, this was not the only issue that Professor Reynolds had to address.

PART B

Professor Reynolds' noticed that two groups' term papers had been plagiarized from the textbook instructor's manual. However, Professor Reynolds should have been prepared for such a situation since it is well known that students plagiarize work and that plagiarism has plagued academia for an extended period of time. "A study by The Center for Academic Integrity found that almost 80% of college students admit to cheating at least once. According to a survey by the Psychological Record, 36% of undergraduates have admitted to plagiarizing written material. A poll conducted by U.S. News and World Reports found that 90% of students believe that cheaters are either never caught or have never been appropriately disciplined." (http://www.mustangps.org/~kingch/Cheating.htm, June 21, 2006) "A study conducted by Ronald M. Aaron and Robert T. Georgia: Administrator Perceptions of Student Academic Dishonesty in Collegiate Institutions found that 257 chief student affairs officers across the country believe that colleges and universities have not addressed the cheating problem adequately.... A national survey published in Education Week found that 54% of students admitted to plagiarizing from the internet; 74% of students admitted that at least once during the past school year they had engaged in "serious" cheating; and 47% of students believe their teachers sometimes choose to ignore students who are cheating." (http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism_stats.html, June 21, 2006.)

Circumstances notwithstanding, "plagiarism has never been easier than it is today. Before the Internet, cheating was labor-intensive and obvious. Potential plagiarists had to find appropriate works from a limited pool of resources, usually a nearby library, and copy them by hand. Since these resources were almost always professionally written, the risk of detection was very high." (http://www.plagiarism.org/learning_center/plagiarism_the_internet.html, June 21, 2006.)

Although not mentioned in the case, the Internet now makes it quite easy to find thousands of relevant sources in seconds, and, in the space of a short time, plagiarists can find, copy, and paste together a term paper, article, or even a book. Because the material online is produced by writers of varying levels of quality and professionalism, it is often difficult or impossible for educators and editors to identify plagiarism.

Even when an instructor or editor does suspect plagiarism, the sheer size of the internet seems to work in the plagiarist's favor. Search engines can be useful for tracking down suspect passages, but even they have their limitations, given the number, variety, and password-protected nature of many websites. Even where search engines do prove useful, manually searching the internet for matches of hundreds of papers or articles can be a formidable task.

"Additionally, the seemingly 'public' nature of online content blurs the distinction between publicly and privately owned information. Electronic resources which are, by nature, easily reproducible, are not perceived as 'intellectual property' in the same way that their material counterparts are. Just as peer-to-peer file-sharing programs have made it easy to trade copyrighted music files that most people would never think to steal in physical form, the internet makes plagiarism easy for students and writers who might have thought twice about copying from a book or published article.

Perhaps the greatest resources for would-be plagiarists in the educational world are the hundreds of online paper mills that exist solely for the purpose of providing students with quick-fix homework and term-paper solutions. Many of these services contain hundreds of thousands of papers on a wide variety of topics, and some even offer customized papers for an additional fee. The fact that many of these sites have become profitable ventures (complete with paid advertising!) only attests to the unfortunate truth that plagiarism has become a booming industry." (http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism.html, June 21, 2006.)

Given this backdrop of a plagiaristic society and the seemingly dire circumstances that the students seemed to have faced, is there anything that Professor Reynolds could have done with his course requirements or when he first met with his classes in order to minimize the potential for plagiarism?

PART C

The situation went from bad to worse, and shifted from focusing on Professor Reynolds' students to how the Dean and the Provost where going to handle Professor Chance's facilitating the plagiarism, albeit accidentally, by lending the instructor's manual to his students. Since a faculty member knowingly gave his students the instructor's manual, the Dean and Professor Reynolds should gave tread lightly in terms of the penalties associated with the plagiarism; but did they?

Chance's action would seem to have broken both an academic taboo and common sense (since instructor's manuals include answer keys that can easily be copied and decimated to other students over the web). However, Professor Chance had never taught in a traditional classroom setting before; he only taught in one-on-one and Internet settings. One is then left asking the question, given Professor Chance's lack of traditional academic classroom, why was he hired in the first place? Secondly, given his inexperience in this setting, why was the professor given the capstone course to teach and what support and supervision was provided to Professor Chance? Did the administration inadvertently set this situation up to fail?

The Provost's confrontation with Professor Chance also raises some interesting questions--whatever happened to the students' charges of sexual harassment and favoritism? Why weren't these charges even mentioned to Professor Chance? Also, Professor Chance refused to resign from his position when asked by the Provost and would, therefore, still be employed by the institution. Were Chance's actions so heinous (and was he so incompetent) that his continued employment would in fact jeopardize the quality of education received by his students?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION

This case is anthropological and autobiographical in nature since one of the authors experienced this situation firsthand. The others had experienced similar situations when faculty members in their departments took mid-semester medical leaves of absence (although their students did not plagiarize their work). Hence this research is subjective and phenomenological in nature since it is based upon the experiences of one of the parties described in the case. (An excellent discussion of phenomenological research is provided by Stan Lester at http://www.devmts.demon.co.uk/resmethy.htm, October 27, 2004.)

The writing style of the case, therefore, reflects a more colloquial style then one might find in a typical case and tries to capture the points of view of several of the case characters. The information for this case was collected by the co-authors through personal reflection, observations, e-mails, and discussions with the key characters in the case. The paraphrases presented in this case are from actual conversations between the case characters. The case was disguised, with some of the facts of the case altered, in order to further mask the case and protect all of the involved parties.

Intended Instructional Audience & Placement in Course Instruction

This case was primarily developed for graduates who were taking a course in higher education and administration since it deals with a real-life situation which post-secondary administrators and faculty may have to face. The content of the case also includes issues in human resource management (the hiring of professor Chance; charges of favoritism and sexual harassment; and lack of supervision, mentoring, and development), classroom management (the handling of old student assignments; the redesigning of the course), and ethics (the equity of not counting prior student work; student plagiarism; and the handling of Professor Chance). The case specifically deals with how the Dean, the Provost, and Professor Reynolds handled the problems that emerged from Professor's Chance's mismanagement of his three capstone courses. Parts A & B of this case may also be used for new faculty training purposes (either in a Ph.D. program or through new faculty development programs) since it directly addresses how both a faculty member and the college administration dealt with a rather unique form of plagiarism.

In terms of a course in Higher Education Administration, the case should be presented in conjunction with readings that address the topics of: evaluating faculty performance; recruiting, hiring, and mentoring and training faculty; dealing with difficult faculty members; avoiding legal problems; dealing with sexual harassment; and strategies for faculty development. (Leaming, 1998; Lees, 2006) Given the fact that these topics cover numerous text chapters, this case is somewhat comprehensive in nature and should be employed towards the end of the semester, perhaps as a sectional review, final case exam, or a comprehensive take-home case analysis.

Secondarily, the case may also be employed in any undergraduate class that deals with the issue of applied ethics (i.e. Business Ethics; Business, Government, and Society). There are several behaviors embedded in the case that could be questioned from a moral perspective. Those issues include:

1. Dr. Chance's giving students access to the instructor's manual.

2. The administration's immediate replacement of Dr. Chance for the entire semester before they even confronted him with the student complaints and harassment allegations.

3. Dr. Reynolds' discounting and/or dismissing of students' prior course work.

4. The students' use of the instructor's manual without proper citations.

5. The administration's request for Dr. Chance's resignation after it was found that he had given students access to the instructor's manual.

For a Business Ethics or Business, Government, and Society class, this case could be utilized with material that addresses the issues of proprietary technology and protection, and knowledge management. (Ghillyer, 2008; Lawrence and Weber, 2008). These topics are normally covered within one to two chapters on ethics and technology and therefore this case could serve as either an introductory case to these chapters or an end of chapter case.

For either groups' of students who do not have any background or assigned readings on plagiarism and education administration, handouts are available at the end of this teaching note that may be distributed to the class (See Appendix A--Handout on Plagiarism; Appendix B Handout on Education Administration).

Learning Objectives

The overall purpose of this case is to have students examine five critical, though indirectly related, topics: (1) the past issue of how the administration and Professor Reynolds dealt with replacing Professor Chance, (2) in Part A, how Dr. Reynolds dealt with students' complaints that prior work would not be counted towards their course grade, (3) the immediate issue in Part B as to how Professor Reynolds and the administration dealt with student plagiarism, (4) the immediate issue in Part C as to how the administration will deal with Professor Chance, and (4) the longer term issue of how to ensure that another professor does not find him or herself in the same situation as Professor Chance. This case, in particular, has practical value for graduate education students, since many of them may find that as educational administrators or faculty, they will have to deal with similar situations. Students are asked to probe beyond personalities and the immediacy of the moment and examine the underlying nuances of the posed problems.

Specific learning objectives are as follows:

1. For students to understand the numerous layers of the problems posed in this case and to do outside research on the topic of plagiarism and education administration.

2. For students to deal with the immediacy of the problem posed by Professor Reynolds replacing Professor Chance in the last four weeks of three capstone courses.

3. For students to determine whether Professor Reynolds and the administration handled this replacement appropriately as well as the reconstruction of the course and the discounting of prior student work.

4. For students to assess whether the administration and Professor Reynolds appropriately handled the plagiarism situation.

5. For students to judge whether the administration's treatment of Professor Chance (from hiring to request for his resignation) was proper.

6. For students to recommend policies and procedures that would ensure that this type of plagiarism would not reoccur and the faculty members would be properly hired, trained, mentored, and evaluated.

TEACHING STRATEGIES

Preparing the Student Prior to Case Analysis

There are several approaches, none of which are mutually exclusive, that an instructor may employ in terms of utilizing this case. It is strongly recommended that, regardless of the specific methodology employed, students, prior to reading this case, be exposed to some material on plagiarism, faculty human resource issues, dealing with difficult faculty, and classroom ethics. (Many colleges have excellent resources and websites describing plagiarism. For example, see Purdue's http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/01/ on avoiding plagiarism.) This will provide students with the proper background and knowledge base and allow them to acknowledge some of the managerial and ethical issues embedded in the case. (Noonen and Blechman, 1999)

This conceptual framework may be delivered prior to assigning the case by using at least one (1) of the follow methods:

* a short lecture and/or discussion session on the above noted topics.

* a reading assignment prior to reading the case that covers several of the topics mentioned.

* a short student presentation on each topic.

* a guest lecturer on one of the topics.

Case Method

Although most of the students in a graduate education programs may have had some exposure to the case method, it behooves the instructor to provide students with a review of the case method of analysis. In the traditional case method, the student assumes the role of a manager (department chair, Dean, Provost, etc..) or consultant and, therein, takes a generalist approach to analyzing and solving the problems of an organization. This approach requires students to utilize all of their prior learning in other subject areas, although the focus should be on the current course content. It is strongly suggested that students prepare for the case prior to class discussion, using the following recommendations:

* allow adequate time in preparing the case

* read the case at least twice

* focus on the key issues

* adopt the appropriate time frame. (Pearce and Robinson, Jr., 2005)

The instructor's role in case analysis is one of a facilitator. The instructor: (1) helps to keep the class focused on the key issues; (2) creates a classroom environment that encourages classroom discussion and creativity; (3) bridges "theory to practice" by referring back to key concepts learned in this or prior courses; and (4) challenges students' analyses in order to stimulate further learning and discussion. There are several variations of the aforementioned approach including: written assignments, oral presentations, team assignments, structured case competitions, and supplemental field work. (Nicastro and Jones, 1994).

Regardless of the variation employed, it is recommended that the students' work be evaluated and graded as partial fulfillment of the course's requirements. However, if this case is not employed as a comprehensive case, it is not recommended that this case (and its related assignments) have a large weight or impact on students' overall course standing.

Using Case Questions. Whether or not the instructor assigns questions for students to analyze with the case is usually a matter of educational philosophy and student readiness. Naumes and Naumes, for example, thought that if the questions were embedded in the case that "students will tend to focus only on the issues specifically raised by the questions (Naumes and Naumes, 1999). Lynn (1999), on the other hand, noted that the use of assignment questions provided students with more concrete guidance in case preparation and analysis; specifically directing them to consider the decision to be reached.

In deciding whether or not to assign questions, the instructor should first answer the following questions:

1. What is the level of course instruction?

2. What type of case is being taught? (Iceberg, incident, illustrative, head, dialogue, application, data, issue, or prediction--see Lundberg et. al., 2001 for full descriptions.)

3. What is the instructor's preliminary assessment of the students' ability to be self-directed learners?

4. What are the students' previous experiences with case instruction?

5. If the students have already been exposed to the case method, to what types of cases have they been exposed? Case incidents (1-2 page cases with questions)? Short cases (3-8 page cases with and/or without case questions? Comprehensive cases (greater than 8-15 pages) Harvard-style cases (greater than 15 pages)? (David, 2003)

6. What is the instructors preferred method for case instruction? (For example, "sage on the stage", "guide on the side", "student as teacher" (student-lead discussions), "observer and final commentator" (open class discussion with faculty summation, etc.).

Role-Playing (100 minutes)

Role-playing enacts a case and allows the students to explore the human, social, and political dynamics of a case situation. This case lends itself quite well to a two-part role playing exercise, since it involves a rather simple situation with only three to four characters and, therefore, most of the class can role play in this exercise.

Prior to role-playing the case part, students should be asked to not only read the case part but to answer the following questions:

1. Who are the key participants in the case? Why?

2. What is the "role" of each of these participants in the organization?

3. What is the dilemma that the characters are facing and/or how can they assist someone else in solving a problem?

The instructor may either go through these questions prior to case enactment or wait for the role playing exercise to be completed in order to use this material to debrief the class.

Step 1: Assignment of Roles & Instructions (10 minutes)

The class should form groups of three to four students with three of the students enacting the key roles in the case (Professor Reynolds, the Dean, and the Provost) and the other acting as observers. The instructor should pass out a short reminder notice about participants staying within their roles.

Step 2: Enactment 1--Deciding What to Do (20 minutes)

The student enacting the role of Professor Reynolds should be instructed to start the conversation, summarizing the situation in Parts A and B. The students enacting the roles of the Dean and the Provost should review the college's plagiarism policy (your own school policy should be employed, and readily available on the college's website or from the student or faculty handbook--if not see IM Table 1 Sample College Plagiarism Policy, below as a sample).

IM Table 1--Sample College Plagiarism Policy

Brooklyn-LIU Campus Plagiarim Policies

Undergraduate Bulletin 2004-2006 (p.28-29) & Graduate Bulletin 2002-2004 (p. 11)

Discipline:

Cheating on examinations and plagiarism of any sort are unacceptable and, if proven, are cause for the most severe penalties up to and including suspension or dismissal from the University. The classroom instructor determines the rules of acceptable student conduct during examinations. Each instructor has the right to insist on procedures to ensure the integrity of those examinations- seating arrangements, no communication among students, the restriction of materials available to students during the examination, and so on.

If a student is discovered cheating in a classroom examination or written assignment, either by crib notes or by receiving information from or giving information to a fellow student or by any means not stipulated by the rules of the examination, the instructor has the right to confiscate all test materials from the person or persons involved and give the grade of zero for the examination to the person or persons knowingly involved. The instructor also has the right to fail the students for the course.

Also, students who submit written or other work not their own or who submit work with sources inadequately acknowledged or with an inadequate system of documentation for a specific course assignment may be given the grade of zero for the work submitted and a failing grade for the course.

Any breach of discipline may result in disciplinary action, including suspension or dismissal. The Faculty-Student Judicial Review Board, in accordance with its procedures, may hear all cases that may result in suspension or dismissal and will recommend an appropriate course of action to the Dean of Students. (http://www.brooklyn. liu.edu/library/services/refservices/AntiPlagiarism.htm)

Students in this role playing exercise should, therefore, decide what a fair punishment is for the students who have plagiarized the team case term papers given the following circumstantial evidence:

1. The former instructor handed them the textbook's instructor's manual.

2. Prior work had been discounted by the new instructor and only counted for extra credit if the grade was "B" or better.

3. The prior instructor was replaced with only four weeks remaining in a class based upon his perceived incompetence.

4. This was their last semester and the final course they needed in order to graduate.

The students' group decision should be written down on a piece of paper and handed to the instructor when they are completed.

Step 3: Debriefing 1 (20 minutes)

The instructor should post all of the suggested solutions on the board and allow for an open discussion of the results of the exercise, perhaps employing the following questions:

1. Did the majority of the class agree with the solution strategy proposed by Reynolds, the Dean, and the Provost in the case? If so, why?

2. What were the differing solutions? How much did they vary by?

3. If groups hard harsher punishments, what were they and what was their rationale?

4. If groups had more lenient punishments or none at all, what were they and what was their rationale?

Step 4: Enactment 2--Confronting Professor Chance (20 minutes)

Two roles will need to be enacted, those of Professor Chance (the observer from Enactment 1) and the Provost. The student enacting the role of the Provost should be instructed to start the conversation by summarizing the situation, specifically how Professor Chance's lending the instructor's manual to his students accidentally allowed them to plagiarize their term papers. The student enacting that part should be instructed to display the Provost's displeasure at these actions but to not over-dramatize the situation. The instructions to the students playing Professor Chance would be to admit to the act but to assume that this was an honest mistake, one that will never happen again.

The role play should continue with the Provost pushing for Professor Chance's resignation and for Professor Chance offering both a rationale for his actions with the classes in general, and this situation in particular. The student enacting the Provost does have the opportunity to present the charges of favoritism and sexual harassment at this time, while the student playing the role of Professor Chance may point to his lack of supervision, support, mentoring, and supervisory direction.

Step 5: Debriefing 2 (20 minutes)

Once the role play is completed, the instructor might want to ask the following questions:

1. Was the situation resolved, or did Professor Chance, as in the case, storm out of the Provost's office?

2. If the situation was resolved, what was the resolution?

3. What were the similarities and differences in the resolutions reached? Rationale for each resolution?

4. What does the class as a whole think about what should be done with Professor Chance?

The instructor should then have the class as a whole comment on the results of the role-play and determine with the class their overall sentiment towards the problem. Students should also be given the opportunity to comment on the role-playing exercise as a learning instrument. The instructor might ask the class the following questions:

5. Did this exercise animate the case? Did students get a "feel" for the issues surrounding Professor Reynolds and Professor Chance's situation?

6. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the exercise? What changes would they make to the exercise given their experiences with it?

The debriefing session should produce closure for students by connecting the theory of family firm management and ethical behavior with case specifics and the results of the role-playing exercise.

SUGGESTED CASE QUESTIONS (2)

PART A

1. What problems were posed by Professor Reynolds replacing Professor Chance in the last four weeks of three capstone courses?

2. Did Professor Reynolds and the administration fairly (from the students' perspective) handle this replacement appropriately as well as the reconstruction of the course and the discounting of prior student work?

PART B

3. What could Professor Reynolds and the administration have done to try to prevent plagiarism from occurring?

4. Did the administration and Professor Reynolds handle the plagiarism situation appropriately? PART C

5. Did Professor Chance's behavior warrant replacement? Were there any extenuating circumstances with Dr. Chance that were not investigated?

6. Was the administration's treatment of Professor Chance handled (from hiring to request for his resignation) properly? How would you have handled the request for Dr. Chance's resignation?

PART A

1. What problems were posed by Professor Reynolds replacing Professor Chance in the last four weeks of three capstone courses?

This question asks students to describe the impact of replacing Professor Chance by Professor Reynolds mid-semester. Students must interpret case facts and determine the problems that explain why certain problems may have emerged due to this replacement.

A poor answer to this question will be an answer which merely lists the students' opinions as to what were the problems in the case caused by replacing Professor Chance and not supported by any sources of information.

A fair answer will include an acknowledgement that the first problem is that any change in the normal flow and operation of a classroom will be disruptive for the students attending that class, especially in a capstone course where students are expecting to graduate. Change theory would posit that a change that has not been planned with class involvement and that has not prepared the recipient for change is bound to have if not disastrous, certainly unsettling affects. (Rowley and Sherman, 2001). This is evidenced by the fact that several students felt quite upset that the material that they had already worked on in for the class would not count towards their final grade, unless they received a grade of B or better. Since many students submitted work that had not been graded, this work would not count toward their final grade.

A good answer would indicate in more detail that a change, specifically in the course outline, is quite problematic in that the course outline, or syllabus, performs 17 functions: (1) describes course content; (2) places the course in the context of the program; (3) delineates entry-level skills; (4) explains course logistics; (5) cites reference materials; (6) details the sequence of course activities; (7) outlines course goals; (8) enhances student motivation; (9) suggests alternative learning modes; (10) provides students with a mechanism for self-monitoring; (11) identifies terminal performance objectives; (12) serves as an articulation tool; (13) publicizes and promotes the course; (14) provides a reference point for course modifications; (15) explains the grading system; (16) fulfills accreditation requirements; and (17) serves as an instructor/student contract [emphasis added]." (Lear, Jr., 1980)

In essence, a new course outline, especially one for only the next four weeks, with a new instructor would seem to imply that , although the content of this new course may be similar to the prior course (although it would seem that it may not),. This is quite apparent in that not only has the course content and course logic changed, course performance objectives and the grading system has changed as well.

A very good answer would also indicate that another problem that may emerge is that, by changing the course outline without mutual consent, the new instructor had broken a tacit contract that existed between the class and the previous instructor. A contract is defined as "a binding agreement between two or more parties for performing, or refraining from performing, some specified act(s) in exchange for lawful consideration" (http://www.investorwords.com/1079/contract.html) yet the new instructor abolished that agreement and acted as if that agreement was not binding upon him and the institution he represented. Lear has posited that "course syllabi ... serve as student performance contracts" (Lear, Jr., 1980) and therefore any change in that contract would need to be done by mutual consent. It was evident from the case that several students objected to the change in contract since it discounted the value of their previous work and did not take into consideration their prior ten weeks of effort.

An excellent answer would address not only the problem of change but the problem of equity as well. How could the professor unilaterally decide to change the grading requirements of the course without at least consulting the class beforehand? Secondly, how could he, in all fairness, discount any previous work submitted, approximately 2/3 of the course, therein only counting the work submitted for the last 4 weeks of the semester?

Equity is defined as "justice according to fairness, especially as distinguished from mechanical application of rules under common law." (http://www.people.vcu.edu/ ~bwooldri/pdf_docs/social_equity_pdf/sep_ education.pdf) Justice as fairness as described by John Rawls "consists of two principles: that all have the greatest degree of liberty compatible with like liberty for all, and that social and economic inequalities be attached to positions open to all under fair equality of opportunity and to the greatest benefit of the least well-off members of society." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness) The question then, given this definition, is, "Are students in these classes given the greatest amount of liberty and has the inequality of the student-teacher relationship impacted the outcome of the decision?"

Students might perceive that the new instructor had taken advantage of the class and the inequitable power relationship by acting in an authoritarian manner by imposing his new course requirements. This not only creates a perception of inequity by the students but may also lead to possible student grievances (Robinson and Bridgewater, 1979) (if they receive a perceived unfavorable grade) and perhaps even legal redress. (Santora and Stoner, 2003)

2. Did Professor Reynolds and the administration fairly (from the students' perspective) handle this replacement appropriately as well as the reconstruction of the course and the discounting of prior student work?

This question asks students to evaluate the actions of the administration relative to the problems posed by replacing Professor Chance as well as alternative choices the administration could have made in light of being fair and just to the students in the class.

A poor answer to this question will be an answer which merely denotes the students' opinions as to whether or not replacing Professor Chance was done properly as well as how correct it was for the new instructor to reconstruct the course and discount prior student work.

A fair answer would note that research indicates that "the average valence variable from the expectancy theory model was found to be the best overall predictor of actual academic performance" (Geiger and Cooper, 1995) and that role expectations of teachers and adult students indicates that if teachers and students had similar expectations toward educational goals and objectives, then by mid-semester, the teachers would not have changed their initial work requirements; and few would have altered their teaching style. (Blumenthal, 1969) It is therefore safe to assume that students would have an expectation that course requirements would remain stable throughout the semester. A shift in course requirements, and the instructor, would therefore negatively impact their motivation and therein their learning and course performance.

Expectancy theory suggests that the amount of effort or motivation that an individual will exert ultimately depends on three perceptual relationships: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. Expectancy is a person's subjective estimation of the likelihood of successfully performing a particular behavior, instrumentality is a person's subjective estimation of the likelihood that a particular behavior will result in certain outcomes, and valence is the positive or negative value that a person places on each of these outcomes. (Hancock, 1995)

By changing the course instructor, the course outline, and, the course requirements, the administration impacted students' expectations of classroom performance and therein students' performance in the course (research indicates that 28 percent of the variance [R2] in the students' cumulative grade point averages can be explained through expectancy theory). (Pringle, 1995). The administration, therefore, should have taken great pains in supporting students' performance expectations and therein a perception of fairness, as per Adams' equity theory. (Adams, 1965)

A good answer would go into some detail as to how the administration could have supported students' current set of performance expectations and their perception of fairness. For example, rather than having the secretary inform students via emails and phone calls over the weekend that a new professor would be in to cover the courses for the next four weeks until the end of the semester (and that he would be grading them), a meeting by the Dean with the class to discuss the change would have served as an excellent 'instrumental behavior' on the part of the administration to facilitate student performance. This discussion would address students' concerns about the current instructor, inform the students of the faculty member's leave of absence, and deal with expectations about the new instructor and the material he was going to cover, students' preferences in terms of how their prior work was going to be employed as part of their grade, and their preferences and expectations as to what assessment instruments were going to be employed for the last four weeks of class for grading purposes. This information would then be delivered to Professor Reynolds by the Dean so that he could construct a modified course outline and grading system that would have met most of the students' expectations about the course, prior work, and future course requirements.

A very good answer would have Professor Reynolds as the new instructor engage the class in the development of the new course outline in order to ensure that he and the students had similar expectations toward educational goals and objectives and therein a better perception of fairness. This could, as per the "good" answer above, be a follow-up to the Dean's discussion by presenting to the class a proposed updated syllabus that would address: how prior work would be dealt with (how would graded and ungraded material count towards their final grade), what material would be covered in class, and what additional assignments would be required including the weighting of those assessment instruments. Students should then be given an opportunity to actually develop their own syllabus for the class, with the understanding that not everyone will agree on the final result but that each and every student would have input into the final outline and grading system. The outcome may not be perceived as "fair" by everyone but at least the process would have allowed for student voice. (Hirschman, 1970)

An excellent answer might have Professor Reynolds take an even more interactive approach to developing the new course by, rather than presenting a proposed course outline, actually acting as a facilitator for the class in their development of their own outline for the course. He would assist the students by describing his learning objectives for the class, what their options were in terms of learning content (what specific knowledge of strategic management could they acquire), the learning process (what combination of instructional methodologies would be employed (i.e., lecture, discussions, films, case, experiential exercises, student-lead lecture/discussions, guest lecturers, simulations, etc.), and the assessment instruments (exams, papers, presentations, participation, etc.) and their weightings. He would then conduct an open class session where he would work with the class to develop their own learning objectives and to develop an outline that addressed those objectives.

PART B

3. What could Professor Reynolds and the administration have done to try to prevent plagiarism from occurring?

This question asks students to examine the question of plagiarism in general terms and to determine what could be done at the school and instructor level to minimize student plagiarism.

A poor answer to this question will be one that merely denotes the students' opinions as to what the administration and professor Reynolds have done to minimize student plagiarism and would not include any references or citations to outside sources.

A fair answer would start by defining plagiarism. "Plagiarism is a form of cheating, and within academia is seen as academic dishonesty. It is a matter of deceit: fooling a reader into believing that certain written material is original when it is not. Plagiarism is a serious and punishable academic offense, when the goal is to obtain some sort of personal academic credit or personal recognition.... [In this case] plagiarism is the passing off of another person's work as if it were one's own, by claiming credit for something that was actually done by someone else." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism)

At the administrative level, they should: "(1) communicate policies on academic misconduct regularly to students and faculty; (2) encourage faculty to discuss dishonesty with students; (3) establish non-permissive test environments with watchful instructors, spaced seating and varying exam formats; (4) enforce policies in a consistent, fair and timely manner; and (5) maintain emphasis on mature behavior, self-responsibility and proper conduct." (Gerdeman, 2000)

At the instructor level, there is an acknowledgement that "the majority of the faculty does not regularly follow institutional policy and most handle incidents of cheating and plagiarism on their own. They believe that the responsibility for reducing academic dishonesty lies primarily with students and faculty." (Burke, 1997) That being said, "plagiarism is avoided by learning and using the agreed citation style; such as MLA style, Chicago style, or APA style. Students will also be expected to learn and adopt the style that has been adopted by the university they are attending." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism) There is an expectation that faculty should therefore not only instruct their students on what constitutes plagiarism, and how to avoid it, but that faculty will be diligent in checking students' work, including adopting of electronic plagiarism checkers as a means of systematically policing student submissions. (Scanlon, 2003)

A good answer would go beyond the fair answer by acknowledging that there are two forms of plagiarism: purposive and accidental. "Intentional and obvious plagiarism, where an entire essay or research paper is copied from another source, is often blamed on stress or laziness. Accidental plagiarism is often the result of poor citation or referencing or of poor preparation, or a misunderstanding of plagiarism per se. Sometimes a student will arrive at university unprepared for the writing of academic essays and research papers, and will take a few semesters to familiarize themselves with what is required." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Plagiarism)

This division of the types of plagiarism should therefore lead to differing interventions from the administration and the faculty. In order to avoid accidental plagiarism, the administration should have a standard policy, usually published in the student handbook and the college catalog, for defining what constitutes plagiarism, and an educational mechanism (be it a required course, a required learning component of a course, etc.) for insuring that students not only are taught what constitutes plagiarism but can demonstrate that they are capable of avoiding it. (http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/plagiarism.html) At the faculty level, accidental plagiarism can best be dealt with by faculty seeing "themselves less as plagiarism police and begin to converse with their students about the evolving process of idea-making." (Kraus, J., 2002). "Educators have attended and continue to attend to plagiarism in positive ways that help students better recognize, understand, and avoid it: we educate students on how to properly work with sources...". (Willen, 2004)

Intentional or purposive cheating requires a different approach. At the administrative level, the key to dealing with cheating would seem to be the development of an enforcement system that applies the college's standards of academic integrity both fairly and consistently; i.e., "at St. Thomas University School of Law [the faculty and students] are divided over the way plagiarism charges against five students were handled. Only two of the students were found guilty and were sentenced to complete a five-page paper on plagiarism, two had the charges against them dropped before a hearing was held, and one was acquitted by a student panel. The punishments were seen by one associate professor of law as proof that the law school does not take cheating seriously." (Mangan, 1997) This perception of inequitable and loose treatment of offenders sends two inharmonious messages to students: (1) that the university really does not stand behind its policies when actually confronted with having to apply them; and (2) even when applied, the university cannot be consistent in its application. This lack of consistent and discriminatory enforcement of policy would tend, therein, to support a cheating mentality in that students would perceive a weak system of enforcement--if threats are not backed by enforcement then a system of law cannot exist. (Hart, 1994)

Purposive cheating can be dealt with at the faculty level via expectancy theory by "ensuring that students (a) understand the rules of ethical writing, (b) expect the writing assignment to be manageable, (c) expect ethical writing to lead to personally important benefits, (d) expect plagiarizing to be difficult, and (e) expect plagiarizing to lead to personally important costs." (Malouff and Sims, 1996) Again, faculty must apply the college's plagiarism guidelines, policies, and procedures in order to ensure consistent and fair application of those guidelines.

A very good response would further recognize that academic dishonesty is a multifaceted phenomenon which goes beyond instructor and administrative influences and "appears related to: (1) individual characteristics such as student academic achievement, age, social activities, major, and gender; (2) peer group influences; (3) instructor influences; and (4) institutional policies." (Gerdeman, 2000) That being the case, interventions must be aimed at dealing with social influences and well as individual student influences. In that regard, "the current generations of students do not view plagiarism as theft." (Wood, 2004) Therefore the administration and the faculty have to understand that, in order to deal with purposive plagiarism; they must address the issue of academic integrity [and integrity in general] and what that means in the age of digital information.

"Academic integrity contains fundamental values and principles that reinforce educational mission and academic processes. Academic integrity focuses on standing up for academic honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility." (Drinan, 1999) The solution, therefore, is to try to develop a culture where academic integrity and honesty are highly valued, nurtured, and rewarded. From the institution's perspective, "faculty needs to teach them about standards of academic integrity; help them to understand academic culture; and explain the ramifications, both intellectual and ethical, of cheating. [To facilitate this process], some schools have developed pledges and honor codes to help cultivate an ethos of integrity on campus." (Willen, 2004)

"Faculty can build bridges to student understanding of academic values by modeling academic integrity as an institutional norm." (Wood, 2004) This requires that faculty "should move beyond a tendency to see student plagiarism as fully informed attempts to defraud the academic process" (Kraus, 2002) and "that they have a primary role in values education." (Burke, 1997)

An excellent answer would acknowledge that the best way to address plagiarism at the faculty level would be for faculty to "address the problem by designing projects which make plagiarizing difficult." (Willen, 2004) More specifically, "faculty in many disciplines have even given up on assigning research papers that require students to identify, locate, evaluate, and use research materials on their own. Instead, they simply have their students write papers based on assigned, pre-selected readings." (Grassian, 2004) Although this may minimize the potential for purposive plagiarism from other sources (assuming that these pre-selected readings are new, not employed by an earlier class, and have not been analyzed by someone else and posted to the internet), students may still be plagiarize from each other and may still accidentally plagiarize by failing to cite any outside sources used to support their analysis of the readings.

4. Did the administration and Professor Reynolds appropriately handle the plagiarism situation?

The purpose of this question is to have students address the issue of how the plagiarism was handled by the administration, especially in light of the fact that Professor Chance's accidentally assisting students in this endeavor. Students are asked to determine whether or not there were better alternatives which the administration could have availed them of.

A poor answer to this question will be an answer which merely denotes the students' opinions as to whether or not Professor Reynolds and the administration properly dealt with the issue of student plagiarism and would not include any references or citations to outside sources.

A fair answer to the question would indicate that Professor Reynolds did take this problem to the Dean, rather than act on his own, and, therefore, acted appropriately by not dealing with this problem by himself. However, there was no indication in the case that the Dean acted in consultation with any college guidelines that would have both defined what plagiarism was and, more specifically, detailed the procedures for handling an accusation of plagiarism.

A good answer would include some research as to what the typical procedures for handling an accusation of plagiarism would entail. See below excerpt as an example:

Procedure for Handling a Possible Case of Plagiarism or Misuse of Sources

When you think you may have a case of plagiarism, it is essential that you document (by email and other means) the process from beginning to end. Remember that everything you write (especially email) could become a legal document, so document as if a bevy of lawyers were looking over your shoulder.

We want you to consult and follow these procedures, but as the teacher of record in these courses it will be you who decides in almost all cases what actions (disciplinary or otherwise) should be taken.

There are three parts to handling a potential plagiarism case:

1. Arranging a meeting with the student, copying documents, and arranging for a director to be present at your meeting with the student,

2. Meeting with the student and assessing the nature and severity of the case,

3. If you decide the student has plagiarized, imposing an academic consequence and contacting the Dean of Students Office.

Arranging a meeting with the student, copying documents, and informing a director when you think you may have a case of plagiarism (not just misuse of sources), take care of these preliminaries (in no particular order).

* Make a copy of the relevant documents.

In addition to copying the document in question, you may also want to copy such documents as other examples of the students' writing, the assignment, and (if you have it) the document you believe the student plagiarized from.

* Inform one of the FE Directors or the English Department Chair about the problem by email.

Explain the case in moderate detail, including why you're questioning the work. In addition, we encourage you also to meet with one of us in person.

* Arrange for another person (director, mentor, or other colleague) to be present.

For legal reasons and for your own protection, a director or mentor must be present during your meeting with the student. The director in most cases will be a Rhetoric and Writing director, but you can also arrange to have another faculty member present. It is preferable that this director/faculty member not be your gender; i.e., if you're a female, choose a male, etc.

* Arrange a meeting with the student.

Tell the student you need to speak with him/her about the assignment in question and arrange a meeting outside of class. Meeting with the student and assessing the nature and severity of the case

This is the tricky part. This is where you try to discern exactly what the problem is: Has the student deliberately and dishonestly appropriated someone else's ideas or words (plagiarism)? Did s/he make an innocent (not dishonest) mistake because she didn't know how to use sources? Or is the problem somewhere in between?

Try to maintain a coaching relationship; avoid becoming a plagiarism cop. Give the student the benefit of the doubt. To whatever extent possible, assume ignorance, not dishonesty. If it's a case of a markedly different style, assume first that the student has made a quantum leap (which does happen occasionally, thank goodness).

Here are some general guidelines.

1. Before the meeting, arrange for another person (director, mentor, or other colleague) to be present. This is for your protection. As with all student conferences, keep your door open.

2. Give the student an opportunity to explain her or his actions.

In almost every case, you should not begin by accusing the student or showing him/her your evidence. Ask questions that will help you determine whether this is a case of plagiarism (academic dishonesty) or merely a case of misusing sources or a getting too much help.

For instance, you might ask the student

* how s/he went about composing this paper;

* specifically what help s/he received with this paper;

* what sources s/he used.

3. Explain why you're questioning the work.

You can show the student evidence if you have it, or explain what concerns you--(e.g., a markedly different style or level of discourse; a document similar to hers that a student from another section wrote or that you found on the Internet).

Remember that students sometimes make a leap in writing ability so marked that it only appears to be a different writer. When this happens, you can close the case and congratulate the student on his/her progress.

4. End the meeting with your assessment and (when appropriate) explain how s/he can avoid such problems in the future.

When appropriate, use this as a teachable moment to explain, for instance, documentation practices or what constitutes too much help. Explain precisely what you want him/her to do: revise the paper (e.g., if sources are inadequately cited); re-write the paper (e.g., if the student received too much help).

If you think harsher sanctions (e.g., zero for paper, failure of course, etc.) might be appropriate, do not at this time tell the student what further actions (if any) you will pursue. In cases where you believe the student has plagiarized, meet with a Rhetoric and Writing director.

(If you decide the student has plagiarized) Imposing an academic consequence and contacting the Dean of Students Office

If you determine the student has been academically dishonest, do the following:

1. Meet with one of the directors to discuss the case.

2. Take one or more of the following disciplinary actions.

We can advise you about which course of action is most appropriate, but you will almost always be in control of this decision.

* Require a re-write (usually an entire re-write where the student starts from scratch)

* Fail the assignment.

* Fail the student for the course.

3. Write the student a memo explaining your actions.

4. Contact the Dean of Students Office via an email memo.

In all cases of academic dishonesty, the teacher of record (must inform the Dean of Students Office about the case. You have two options here: (1) just having the Dean of Students Office keep a record of the incident or (2) pursue a possible Student Code of Conduct violation.

In either case, write an email memo to the Dean of Students Office. Your email should do the following:

* Request that the Office examine the students' record to determine whether there are previous cases involving the student, and inform you about their findings.

* Provide a detailed account of the events concerning the case.

* Summarize the academic actions you have taken against the student for the academic dishonesty.

This memo becomes a legal document, so it is vital that you stick to the facts and use a professional tone. If you're new to this, please get help from one of the directors. Should the case be serious or should the student have a history of academic dishonesty, we encourage you to have the Dean of Students Office pursue a Student Code of Conduct charges against the student. As always, you will make this decision. (http://www.unm.edu/ ~english/Resources/pdf/Plagiarism.pdf)

A very good answer would indicate that, although the Dean and Professor Reynolds did not seem to have consulted with the College's policies and procedures manual, Professor Reynolds did obtain evidence as to the nature of the plagiarism. The Dean and Professor Reynolds did in fact interview each of the students involved with the plagiarism incident, and the students readily admitted that they had used the instructor's manual. The case also indicated that the Dean informed the Provost of the incident and the Provost concurred with the imposed penalty of withdrawing all of the students involved with the plagiarism incident from the class (there was no preferential treatment). This would, from a procedural perspective, be an appropriate way in which to handle the plagiarism incident.

An excellent answer would indicate that, although the students' freely admitting copying material from the instructor's manual, Professor Chance had not been consulted about the incident until after the decision was made to withdraw the students from the class. That is, Professor Chance did not have an opportunity to substantiate the students' claims that he gave the instructor's manual to them and that the students had purposely copied the manual and used the material. Without consulting Professor Chance about the incident, the administration and Professor Reynolds could have made a grievous error--why would you take the word of students who had admittedly plagiarized the instructor's manual? What, however, would have occurred if this was not, in fact, actually what had occurred? Would the same punishment for plagiarism had been imposed if it had come to light that these students had stolen or illegally downloaded a copy of the instructor's manual? (Haworth, 1997)

This answer might also address the issue of the punishment itself (given the mitigating circumstances of prior student work not counting, replacing the instructor, and imposing new course requirements during the last four weeks of the semester); that is, does the crime of plagiarism warrant course withdrawal? Doesn't the administration have to take some responsibility for not only hiring Dr. Chance (and, therefore, setting up what students might have perceived as an untenable situation in the first place) but also hiring a replacement during the last four weeks of the course who, with the approval of the administration, imposed new course requirements? Didn't the administration and Dr. Reynolds perhaps accidentally establish a situation where students' expectations were such that they felt that perhaps the only way they could pass the course was through cheating? Worse, did the administration and Professor Reynolds take any conscious steps to minimize accidental and purposive plagiarism?

In this answer, students may posit that a penalty of such a nature of being withdrawn from the capstone course, and, therefore, having to repeat the course in order to graduate from the College, was perhaps overly drastic. A less punitive requirement, such as students having to individually redo the assignment using differing cases from those in their textbook, would have more clearly made the point that it was the students' actions that were reprehensible but also that the Professor Chance, an employee of the university, was indirectly culpable for their actions in that he gave them access to the instructor's manual. If the temptation would not have been presented to them, perhaps they would have completed the assignment without plagiarizing.

PART C

5. Did Professor Chance's behavior warrant replacement? Were there any extenuating circumstances with Dr. Chance that were not investigated?

The purpose of this question is to have students examine Chance's instructional behavior as reported by students and to determine if that behavior was so abominable as to warrant replacement for the last four weeks of the semester.

A poor answer to this question will be an answer which merely lists the students' complaints against Professor Chance and that is solely based upon the student's opinion and not supported by any sources of information.

A fair answer to this question would first define what actions would warrant mid-semester replacement. This requires recognition by the student that faculty replacement and suspension is governed by faculty personnel policies that normally are found in the faculty handbook and/or in the faculty member's collective bargaining agreement. (Bianco and Chalofsky, 1999) The student would, therefore, have to access his or her college's faculty handbook or collective bargaining agreement. An alternative would be to access information from the internet. An internet search would be quite fruitful and uncover text similar to the following:

Section VII. Policies Regarding Cessation of University Employment

a) Suspension and Discharge

1. The permissible grounds for the discharge or suspension of either a faculty member with permanent tenure or a faculty member without permanent tenure before a fixed term expires are incompetence, neglect of duty, and misconduct [emphasis added] of such a nature as to indicate that the individual is unfit to continue as a member of the faculty.

2. The policy for due process before discharge or the imposition of serious sanctions, i.e., diminishment in rank, is identical to the procedure described in Section 603 of the Code. (http://www.acs.appstate. edu/orgs/facsen/appendixa.html)

The student in this question has to determine if Professor Chance was guilty of incompetence, neglect of duty, and misconduct. According to the case, Professor Chance had been out for the last two weeks, claiming that he was not feeling well. In that time about fifty of his seventy students came over and complained. Their complaints were that: (1) he was absent most of the time; (2) he didn't cover a lot of material; (3) they didn't use the book, which cost them around $180; (4) he only graded about 50% of the midterms and out of that only 20% got grades; (5) on another assignment, he only gave about 10% of the class feedback and grades; and (6) some students said he was grading them using graduate standards, but they are only undergraduates. There were also charges of sexual harassment of a female student and racial discrimination by two black students levied against Dr. Chance. Based on this data, the student would then make a determination whether or not Dr. Chance was incompetent, neglectful of duty, and unfit to continue as a faculty member.

A good answer would include greater specificity from the faculty handbook or union contract relative to the functions and responsibilities of a faculty member and, then, application of that job description to the case situation in order to determine if Professor Chance was guilty of incompetence, neglect of duty, and misconduct. For example, Texas A&M denotes the following responsibilities for a faculty member:

2.2 Faculty Responsibilities

A. Teaching Faculty

Texas A&M International University is committed to excellence in instruction, a concern for students, and the integrity of the institution. As such, all teaching faculty are expected to:

1. Make known to students in writing the goals and requirements of each course, the nature of the course content and the methods of evaluation to be employed.

2. Meet classes as scheduled.

3. Instruct so as to meet course objectives.

4. Maintain competence in teaching fields.

5. Be professional in conduct, in the classroom, and show respect for students.

6. Be available to students for consultation on course work during regular published office hours.

7. Serve as academic advisor in accordance with College policy on advisement.

8. Engage in service activities according to requirements for performance by rank as stated in Section 2.4 of this Handbook, and applicable College and Departmental policies.

9. Engage in scholarly activity according to requirements for performance by rank as stated in Section 2.4 of this Handbook, and applicable College and Departmental policies. (http://www.tamiu.edu/facsenat/faculty.htm)

After perusing this list, students might denote that Dr. Chance seemed negligent in at least items 2 (meet class as scheduled) and 5 (showing respect to students) and, therefore, substantiate grounds for dismissal.

A very good answer will include the realization that most faculty handbooks and union contracts have a section dealing with due process, describing how a matter of this magnitude and seriousness should be handled. Without going through due process, the removal of Dr. Chance could be deemed as premature (at best) and heavy handed (at most), since Dr. Chance had at no time been given an opportunity to present his side of the story (the purpose of having defined procedures for dealing with such situations). (Rossow and Tate, 2003) Students might also cite the procedures associated with bring such charges, see below.

SECTION 603. DUE PROCESS BEFORE DISCHARGE OR THE IMPOSITION OF SERIOUS SANCTIONS

(1) A faculty member, who is the beneficiary of institutional guarantees of tenure, shall enjoy protection against unjust and arbitrary application of disciplinary penalties. During the period of such guarantees the faculty member may be discharged or suspended from employment or diminished in rank only for reasons of incompetence, neglect of duty or misconduct of such a nature as to indicate that the individual is unfit to continue as a member of the faculty. These penalties may be imposed only in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this section. For purposes of these regulations, a faculty member serving a stated term shall be regarded as having tenure until the end of that term. These procedures shall not apply to nonreappointment (Section 604) or termination of employment (Section 605).

(2) The Chancellor or his delegate shall send the faculty member by registered mail, return receipt requested, a written statement of intention to discharge him. The statement shall include notice of the faculty member's right, upon request, to both written specification of the reasons for the intended discharge and a hearing by an elected standing faculty committee on hearings.

(3) If, within ten days after he receives the notice referred to in paragraph (2) above, the faculty member makes no written request for either a specification of reasons or a hearing, he may be discharged without recourse to any institutional grievance or appellate procedure.

(4) If, within ten days after he receives the notice referred to in paragraph (2) above, the faculty member makes written request, by registered mail, return receipt requested, for a specification of reasons, the Chancellor or his delegate shall supply such specification in writing by registered mail, return receipt requested, within ten days after receiving the request. If the faculty member makes no written request for a hearing within ten days after he receives the specification, the faculty member may be discharged without recourse to any institutional grievance or appellate procedure.

(5) If the faculty member makes a timely written request for a hearing, the Chancellor or his delegate shall insure that the hearing is accorded before an elected standing committee of the institution's faculty. The hearing shall be on the written specification of reasons for the intended discharge. The hearing committee shall accord the faculty member twenty days from the time it receives his written request for a hearing to prepare his defense. The hearing committee may, upon the faculty member's written request and for good cause, extend this time by written notice to the faculty member.

(6) The hearing shall be closed to the public unless the faculty member and the hearing committee agree that it may be open. The faculty member shall have the right to counsel, to present the testimony of witnesses and other evidence, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses and to examine all documents and other adverse demonstrative evidence. A written transcript of all proceedings shall be kept; upon request, a copy thereof shall be furnished to the faculty member at the institution's expense.

(7) The Chancellor, or his delegate or counsel, may participate in the hearing to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses and make argument.

(8) In reaching decisions on which its written recommendations to the Chancellor shall be based, the committee shall consider only the evidence presented at the hearing and such written or oral arguments as the committee, in its discretion, may allow. The committee shall make its written recommendations to the Chancellor within ten days after its hearing concludes.

(9) If the Chancellor concurs in a recommendation of the committee that is favorable to the faculty member, his decision shall be final. If the Chancellor either declines to accept a committee recommendation that is favorable to the faculty member or concurs in a committee recommendation that is unfavorable to the faculty member, the faculty member may appeal the Chancellor's decision to the Board of Trustees. This appeal shall be transmitted through the Chancellor and be addressed to the Chairman of the Board. Notice of appeal shall be filed within ten days after the faculty member receives the Chancellor's decision. The appeal to the Board of Trustees shall be decided by the full Board of Trustees. However, the Board may delegate the duty of conducting a hearing to a standing or ad hoc committee of at least three members. The Board of Trustees, or its committee, shall consider the appeal on the written transcript of hearings held by the faculty hearing committee, but it may, in its discretion, hear such other evidence as it deems necessary. The Board of Trustees' decision shall be made within forty-five days after the Chancellor has received the faculty member's request for an appeal to the trustees. This decision shall be final except that the faculty member may, within ten days after receiving the trustees' decision, file a written petition for review with the Board of Governors if he alleges that one or more specified provisions of The Code of The University of North Carolina have been violated. Any such petition to the Board of Governors shall be transmitted through the President, and the Board shall, within forty-five days, grant or deny the petition or take such other action as it deems advisable. If it grants the petition for review, the Board's decision shall be made within forty-five days after it has notified the faculty member that it will review the petition.

(10) When a faculty member has been notified of the institution's intention to discharge him, the Chancellor may suspend him at any time and continue the suspension until a final decision concerning discharge has been reached by the procedures prescribed herein. Suspension shall be exceptional and shall be with full pay. (http:// www.acs.appstate.edu/orgs/facsen/appendixa.html)

These students might therefore conclude that without due process it would be impossible to determine whether or not Dr. Chance was guilty of incompetence, neglect of duty, and misconduct and therefore should not have been replaced on those grounds.

An excellent answer would indicate that Dr. Chance's missing two weeks of class claiming he was not feeling well would have been enough cause for replacing him for the remainder of the semester but as sick leave rather than due to any issue of incompetence, neglect of duty, or misconduct. There is no evidence in that case that would substantiate the students' claims that he was negligent in his duties (i.e., grading papers, covering course material, etc.) nor did the administration take any action regarding the sexual harassment and racial discrimination charges. Again, students should indicate that faculty personnel issues, such as sick leave, are covered in faculty handbooks and/or union contracts (Anonymous, 1988) and there are procedures (due process) for applying for sick leave as well as benefits associated with taking a sick leave. See below.

The salary for a full-time faculty member (code 102) may be continued at the discretion of the Dean, subject to approval by the Office of the Provost, for absence caused by illness or disability, for up to six months. Applications are to be submitted to the Dean, who may approve leaves of up to seven days duration. Leaves in excess of seven days must be approved by the Dean and by the Office of the Provost.

Legally, an absence caused by inability to work because of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions must be treated at least as favorably as an absence caused by illness or disability for all employment related purposes. At the time a faculty member gives birth, she is entitled to an aggregate of six consecutive weeks of paid maternity leave preceding and following date of birth.

A physician's statement certifying that the faculty member is unable to work because of illness or disability and the date on which it is anticipated that he or she can return to work, may be required.

The University, in addition, may require that the faculty member be examined by a physician designated by the University at no cost to the faculty member. In cases of childbirth, no certification will be required unless the request for leave extends beyond six weeks.

A full-time faculty member who is totally disabled for more than six consecutive calendar months may claim benefits under long term disability insurance if a participant. (http://www.nyu.edu/fas/GAP/ FAS/AppointRecord4.html#4.7)

6. Was the administration's treatment of Professor Chance handled (from hiring to request for his resignation) properly? How would you have handled the request for Dr. Chance's resignation?

This question asks students to evaluate the hiring of Professor Chance, given the limited information in the case, as well as to evaluate how the university supported Professor Chance and, via the Provost, attempted to alleviate themselves of his services. Students are also asked to provide alternative solutions.

A poor answer will simply indicate the students' opinions as to whether or not or the university treated Professor Chance properly overall and, specifically, the university's request that he resign from his position. It would exclude any references or citations to outside sources. It would also include unsupported alternatives for Dr. Chance's resignation.

A fair answer would recognize that the College had hired a faculty member who had never taught in a traditional classroom environment (he had only taught through distance learning and one-on-one mentoring), and worse, had placed this person without instructional support in three sections of a capstone course. The student in this answer would then perhaps question the validity of the College's recruitment process, although not described in the case, as well as the orientation and instructional support provided to new faculty. (Salom, 1977).

In terms of the requesting Dr. Chance's resignation, the question again arises as to whether the university followed their own designated procedures (either in the faculty handbook or in a union contract) in their attempts to terminate Dr. Chance, either based upon his role in the plagiarism incident or in terms of his overall academic performance. The case does indicate that the Dean stated several times that he did not want Dr. Chance teaching in his School but does not indicate that Dr. Chance was ever brought up on any charges due to either the plagiarism incident, his perceived incompetence, or the sexual harassment and racial discrimination charges. This answer by students might then indicate that the administration should have moved ahead and taken formal action against Dr. Chance for the three aforementioned incidents (of course following their own designated procedure) in order to put some pressure on Dr. Chance. These actions could then be employed as leverage that would have made Dr. Chance's resignation a viable alternative and a way for him to avoid a possibly messy, complicated, and expensive series of court cases.

A good answer would also provide a set of guidelines for what would constitute appropriate recruitment, orientation, faculty development, and dismissal processes. The faculty recruitment process would "consist[s] of nine primary elements ...: establishing position objectives, initial contact with the candidate, initial candidate interview, reference contacts, evaluation of the candidate, campus visit, decision to extend an offer, making the employment offer, and post-recruiting activity" (Morin and Kehoe, 1982.) with the intent to screen applicants by "excluding ineligible applicants, identifying candidates who have received some preferential attention, and evaluating nominees' files." (Waggaman, 1983) Applicant selection would require matching the applicant's requirements to the job description and specifications as well as to the department's and College's mission and culture. (Cole, 1995)

Faculty orientation normally involves interaction with other faculty and with senior faculty and normally includes a mentoring component. (Garrison, 2005) "The orientation program targets immediate information concerning employment and getting started in the classroom, while the mentoring program provides peer support for the duration of the employee's first years of service. The initiative is divided into three stages: (1) the initiation phase in which the orientation takes place; (2) the cultivation phase in which proteges become more involved in college activities; and (3) the redefinition phase when proteges become more self-sufficient and self-confident in their instructional role." (Howard and Hintz, 2002) Faculty support includes faculty modeling, motivating, mentoring and networking (Gmelch and Miskin, 1995) with the overall objective being to assist faculty in assessing their own instructional needs and providing them the resources in order to address those needs. (Scriven, 1980)

In terms of dismissing Dr. Chance, "private colleges and universities are held responsible for matters of contract and relevant state legislation." (Mawdsley and Permuth, 1985) In this circumstance, Dr. Chance had a two-year contract and the university would have to demonstrate that Dr. Chance had violated the clauses in that contract in order to dismiss him and break the agreement. The university was, therefore, responsible to make sure that the contract covered "these criteria for dismissing a probationary faculty member ...: (1) the demonstration of professional incompetence, (2) the demonstration of moral turpitude, and (3) the gross neglect of professional responsibilities." (Holderfield and Brown, 1973) Based upon the facts presented in the case, it would appear that the University had a prima face case and would be able to move forward with their civil suit.

This answer might also include an excerpt from a faculty handbook dealing with dismissals, since the handbook may be considered as part of the employment contract. See below.

Dismissal for cause is a severance action by which the college terminates its contract with the faculty member for just cause. Any teaching contract is subject to action under this subsection. Dismissal for cause must be directly and substantially related to the fitness of a faculty member to continue in their professional capacity as a faculty member. Dismissal for cause will not be used to restrain a faculty member's academic freedom. The faculty personnel committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the president of the college on dismissal for cause.

Dismissal proceedings may be instituted on the following grounds:

a. Professional incompetence;

b. Failure to perform job related assignments or other neglect of academic duties;

c. Breach of any term or condition of employment or other serious personal misconduct;

d. Formal or overt rejection of the fundamental mission and purpose of the college;

e. Knowing or reckless violation of the professional ethics of the college or of the rights and freedom of fellow faculty members, administrators, or students;

f. Knowing or reckless violation of established legal rights of students or employees of the college including, without limitation, any form of discrimination or harassment;

g. Conviction of a crime directly related to the faculty member's fitness to practice the faculty member's profession;

h. Dishonesty, including, but not limited to, plagiarism, falsification of credentials or experience, or the misappropriation or misapplication of funds; or

i. Failure to follow standards of the institution in respect to standards, policies, directives and guidelines within this policy manual after oral and written warnings.

The process for implementing dismissal for cause shall include the following:

a. Written notice to the faculty member from the dean of faculty, that a recommendation for dismissal for cause shall be made to the president. This notice shall contain a statement of the grounds upon which the recommendation is to be made, and a brief summary of information supporting such grounds;

b. A reasonable opportunity for the faculty member to meet with the dean of faculty to present the faculty member's defense to the dismissal recommendation before the recommendation is made; and

c. A reasonable opportunity for the faculty member to meet with the president of the college to present the faculty member's defense to the dismissal recommendation if it is accepted by the president.

The president shall make the ultimate decision regarding termination.

In any case involving dismissal for cause, the burden of proof that just cause exists shall be on the college, which proof shall be by a preponderance of the evidence in the record considered as a whole.

The decision to terminate a faculty member for cause may be the basis of a grievance before the faculty review committee, which shall review the case in accordance with procedures established in section 4.12 of this volume IV. (www.sckans.edu/policy/docstoc/vol4_index.html)

A very good answer would also point out perhaps Professor Chance was accidentally set up to fail in the first place, given the poor match between the professor's inexperience in traditional classroom and the college's needs coupled with a lack of institutional support. That being the case, the institution was morally obligated to ensure that their hiring processes produced results that would benefit its students, the college, and the newly hired faculty member. "Ethical standards in college faculty recruitment can not be taken for granted. As the recruitment process becomes more competitive and applicant numbers dwindle, the process should be carefully examined to ensure that truth, trust, and honesty are characteristic of the recruiting procedure." (Van Ommeren, 1991)

In terms of Dr. Chance's dismissal, an alternative solution might resolve the issue and employ a slightly more diplomatic approach (and perhaps even more ethical one). Offering Dr. Chance a medical leave of absence, based upon his claiming that he was not feeling well during the last two weeks he was assigned to teach the class, might be a way of mitigating possible legal action and the associated bad publicity. As noted in one university faculty handbook "in the event of illness or other difficulty that prevents meetings of classes, the chairperson should be notified as soon as possible. The chairperson is to inform students and the Dean. If the absence is to be extended, other members of the department may be asked to assist by carrying the colleague's load temporarily. Such arrangements usually suffice for emergency situations, but if the absence extends beyond two weeks a suitable replacement is sought." (http://www.berea.edu/dadf/facultyManual/responsibilities.asp) Medical leaves are usually accompanied with some form of compensation and, therefore, may be more palatable to Dr. Chance and make his departure more tenable.

An excellent answer would also note that the university needs to examine its human resource management practices (recruitment, selection, placement, orientation, training, development, compensation, and evaluation), both at the administrative and department levels, to ensure that these processes add value to a student's education, while protecting the university from possible litigation (both from disgruntled students and parents as well as from its dismissed faculty). (Rowley and Sherman, 2002) However, research on college human resource management indicates that these "new management strategies [of universities] appear to have little effect on the recruitment and termination processes, and these processes have remained traditionally based while the organization is changing under environmental influences." (Burke, 1988) It would therefore appear that a concerted, planned effort on behalf of the university is required in order to intervene in the current human resource practices of the university in order to implement effective change.

EPILOGUE

The Provost contacted the University's lawyers. They told the Provost that Chance had a bona fide contract, but that the Provost and the Dean could assign him anything. They suggested that the case would be stronger if the School sent him an evaluation and vote. The Provost contacted Barrett immediately and explained the situation. Barrett in turn contacted all members of the School Promotion and Tenure Committee. The next week they meet, discussed the matter, looked at the student evaluations, which the Dean had processed as a priority, and unanimously decided not to endorse Chance. Barrett rushed the vote and recommendation to the Provost.

The Provost subsequently contacted the university lawyers who said that they would handle it. They asked the Provost to assign Chance courses next semester. The Provost informed Barrett who was upset but agreed. Barrett had Jen assign Chance two "Introduction to Business" courses and one Business Communications course. The courses spanned four days, rather than the normal two-day schedules, and started in the morning and ended at night. Chance was furious with the assignment and had his lawyer contact the university as to his unfair treatment.

The University lawyers decided to meet with Chance and his lawyer to see if they could work things out before they went to arbitration. A deal was struck which was that Chance would resign after the next semester. The University would pay him for an additional semester. If Chance found a job in the meantime, the University would still pay him for one semester. In any subsequent follow-up by another college for a recommendation, the matter would remain confidential and a positive recommendation would be made. The Provost was informed and relayed the deal to Barrett, indicating that Chance would be teaching those courses in the spring semester.

Two weeks later, the Dean received a registered letter from Chance. It read:

"Effective immediately, I hereby resign my position as an Assistant Professor in the School of Business. I thank you for your support and wish you and the School all the best in the coming year."

APPENDIX A

Plagiarism

"Plagiarism is a form of cheating, and within academia is seen as academic dishonesty. It is a matter of deceit: fooling a reader into believing that certain written material is original when it is not. Plagiarism is a serious and punishable academic offense, when the goal is to obtain some sort of personal academic credit or personal recognition.... plagiarism is the passing off of another person's work as if it were one's own, by claiming credit for something that was actually done by someone else." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism)

There are two forms of plagiarism: purposive and accidental. "Intentional and obvious plagiarism, where an entire essay or research paper is copied from another source, is often blamed on stress or laziness. Accidental plagiarism is often the result of poor citation or referencing or of poor preparation, or a misunderstanding of plagiarism per se. Sometimes a student will arrive at university unprepared for the writing of academic essays and research papers, and will take a few semesters to familiarize themselves with what is required."

In order to avoid accidental plagiarism, the administration should have a standard policy, usually published in the student handbook and the college catalog, for defining what constitutes plagiarism, and an educational mechanism (be it a required course, a required learning component of a course, etc.) for insuring that students not only are taught what constitutes plagiarism but can demonstrate that they are capable of avoiding it. (http://www.unc.edu/ depts/wcweb/handouts/plagiarism.html) At the faculty level, accidental plagiarism can best be dealt with by faculty seeing "themselves less as plagiarism police and begin to converse with their students about the evolving process of idea-making." (Kraus, 2002) "Educators have attended and continue to attend to plagiarism in positive ways that help students better recognize, understand, and avoid it: we educate students on how to properly work with sources ...". (Willen, 2004)

Intentional or purposive cheating requires a different approach. At the administrative level, the key to dealing with cheating would seem to be the development of an enforcement system that applies the college's standards of academic integrity both fairly and consistently. For example, "at St. Thomas University School of Law [the faculty and students] are divided over the way plagiarism charges against five students were handled. Only two of the students were found guilty and were sentenced to complete a five-page paper on plagiarism, two had the charges against them dropped before a hearing was held, and one was acquitted by a student panel. The punishments were seen by one associate professor of law as proof that the law school does not take cheating seriously." (Mangan, 1997) This perception of inequitable and loose treatment of offenders sends two inharmonious messages to students: (1) that the university really does not stand behind its policies when actually confronted with having to apply them; and (2) even when applied, the university cannot be consistent in its application. This lack of consistent and discriminatory enforcement of policy would tend, therein, to support a cheating mentality in that students would perceive a weak system of enforcement--if threats are not backed by enforcement then a system of law cannot exist. (Hart, 1994)

Purposive cheating can be dealt with at the faculty level via expectancy theory by "ensuring that students (a) understand the rules of ethical writing, (b) expect the writing assignment to be manageable, (c) expect ethical writing to lead to personally important benefits, (d) expect plagiarizing to be difficult, and (e) expect plagiarizing to lead to personally important costs." (Malouff and Sims, 1996) Again, faculty must apply the college's plagiarism guidelines, policies, and procedures in order to ensure consistent and fair application of those guidelines.

Academic dishonesty is a multifaceted phenomenon which goes beyond instructor and administrative influences and "appears related to: (1) individual characteristics such as student academic achievement, age, social activities, major, and gender; (2) peer group influences; (3) instructor influences; and (4) institutional policies." (Gerdeman, 2000) That being the case, interventions must be aimed at dealing with social influences and well as individual student influences. In that regard, "the current generations of students do not view plagiarism as theft." (Wood, 2004) Therefore the administration and the faculty have to understand that, in order to deal with purposive plagiarism; they must address the issue of academic integrity [and integrity in general] and what that means in the age of digital information.

"Academic integrity contains fundamental values and principles that reinforce educational mission and academic processes. Academic integrity focuses on standing up for academic honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility." (Drinan, 1999) The solution, is to try to develop a culture where academic integrity and honesty are highly valued, nurtured, and rewarded. From the institution's perspective, "faculty needs to teach them about standards of academic integrity; help them to understand academic culture; and explain the ramifications, both intellectual and ethical, of cheating. [To facilitate this process], some schools have developed pledges and honor codes to help cultivate an ethos of integrity on campus." (Willen, 2004)

"Faculty can build bridges to student understanding of academic values by modeling academic integrity as an institutional norm." (Wood, 2004) This requires that faculty "should move beyond a tendency to see student plagiarism as fully informed attempts to defraud the academic process" (Kraus, 2002) and "that they have a primary role in values education." (Burke, 1997)

The best way to address plagiarism at the faculty level would be for faculty to "address the problem by designing projects which make plagiarizing difficult." (Willen, 2004) More specifically, "faculty in many disciplines have even given up on assigning research papers that require students to identify, locate, evaluate, and use research materials on their own. Instead, they simply have their students write papers based on assigned, pre-selected readings." (Grassian, 2004)

At the administrative level, the administration should: "(1) communicate policies on academic misconduct regularly to students and faculty; (2) encourage faculty to discuss dishonesty with students; (3) establish non-permissive test environments with watchful instructors, spaced seating and varying exam formats; (4) enforce policies in a consistent, fair and timely manner; and (5) maintain emphasis on mature behavior, self-responsibility and proper conduct." (Gerdeman, 2000)

SAMPLE COLLEGE PLAGIARISM POLICY

Brooklyn-LIU Campus Plagiarim Policies: Undergraduate Bulletin 2004-2006 (p.28-29) & Graduate Bulletin 2002-2004 (p. 11)

Discipline: Cheating on examinations and plagiarism of any sort are unacceptable and, if proven, are cause for the most severe penalties up to and including suspension or dismissal from the University. The classroom instructor determines the rules of acceptable student conduct during examinations. Each instructor has the right to insist on procedures to ensure the integrity of those examinations- seating arrangements, no communication among students, the restriction of materials available to students during the examination, etc.

If a student is discovered cheating in a classroom examination or written assignment, either by crib notes or by receiving information from or giving information to a fellow student or by any means not stipulated by the rules of the examination, the instructor has the right to confiscate all test materials from the person or persons involved and give the grade of zero for the examination to the person or persons knowingly involved. The instructor also has the right to fail the students for the course.

Also, students who submit written or other work not their own or who submit work with sources inadequately acknowledged or with an inadequate system of documentation for a specific course assignment may be given the grade of zero for the work submitted and a failing grade for the course.

Any breach of discipline may result in disciplinary action, including suspension or dismissal. The Faculty-Student Judicial Review Board, in accordance with its procedures, may hear all cases that may result in suspension or dismissal and will recommend an appropriate course of action to the Dean of Students. (http://www.brooklyn.liu.edu/library/services/ refservices/AntiPlagiarism.htm)

Faculty Procedure for Handling a Possible Case of Plagiarism or Misuse of Sources

When you think you may have a case of plagiarism, it is essential that you document (by email and other means) the process from beginning to end. Remember that everything you write (especially email) could become a legal document, so document as if a bevy of lawyers were looking over your shoulder.

We want you to consult and follow these procedures, but as the teacher of record in these courses it will be you who decides in almost all cases what actions (disciplinary or otherwise) should be taken.

There are three parts to handling a potential plagiarism case:

1. Arranging a meeting with the student, copying documents, and arranging for a director to be present at your meeting with the student,

2. Meeting with the student and assessing the nature and severity of the case,

3. If you decide the student has plagiarized, imposing an academic consequence and contacting the Dean of Students Office.

Arranging a Meeting with the Student, Copying Documents, and Informing a Director

When you think you may have a case of plagiarism (not just misuse of sources), take care of these preliminaries (in no particular order).

* Make a copy of the relevant documents.

In addition to copying the document in question, you may also want to copy such documents as other examples of the students' writing, the assignment, and (if you have it) the document you believe the student plagiarized from.

* Inform one of the FE Directors or the English Department Chair about the problem by email.

Explain the case in moderate detail, including why you're questioning the work. In addition, we encourage you also to meet with one of us in person.

* Arrange for another person (director, mentor, or other colleague) to be present.

For legal reasons and for your own protection, a director or mentor must be present during your meeting with the student. The director in most cases will be a Rhetoric and Writing director, but you can arrange to have another faculty member present. It is preferable that this director/faculty member not be your gender; i.e., if you're a female, choose a male, etc.

* Arrange a meeting with the student.

Tell the student you need to speak with him/her about the assignment in question and arrange a meeting outside of class.

Meeting with the Student and Assessing the Nature and Severity of the Case

This is the tricky part. This is where you try to discern exactly what the problem is: Has the student deliberately and dishonestly appropriated someone else's ideas or words (plagiarism)? Did s/he make an innocent (not dishonest) mistake because she didn't know how to use sources? Or is the problem somewhere in between?

Try to maintain a coaching relationship; avoid becoming a plagiarism cop. Give the student the benefit of the doubt. To whatever extent possible, assume ignorance, not dishonesty. If it's a case of a markedly different style, assume first that the student has made a quantum leap (which does happen occasionally, thank goodness).

Here are some general guidelines:

1. Before the meeting, arrange for another person (director, mentor, or other colleague) to be present. This is for your protection. As with all student conferences, keep your door open.

2. Give the student an opportunity to explain her or his actions. In almost every case, you should not begin by accusing the student or showing him/her your evidence. Ask questions that will help you determine whether this is a case of plagiarism (academic dishonesty) or merely a case of misusing sources or a getting too much help. For instance, you might ask the student

* how s/he went about composing this paper;

* specifically what help s/he received with this paper;

* what sources s/he used.

3. Explain why you're questioning the work. You can show the student evidence if you have it, or explain what concerns you-(e.g., a markedly different style or level of discourse; a document similar to hers that a student from another section wrote or that you found on the Internet).

Remember that students sometimes make a leap in writing ability so marked that it only appears to be a different writer. When this happens, you can close the case and congratulate the student on his/her progress.

4. End the meeting with your assessment and (when appropriate) explain how s/he can avoid such problems in the future.

When appropriate, use this as a teachable moment to explain, for instance, documentation practices or what constitutes too much help. Explain precisely what you want him/her to do: revise the paper (e.g., if sources are inadequately cited); re-write the paper (e.g., if the student received too much help).

If you think harsher sanctions (e.g., zero for paper, failure of course, etc.) might be appropriate, do not at this time tell the student what further actions (if any) you will pursue. In cases where you believe the student has plagiarized, meet with a Rhetoric and Writing director.

(If you decide the student has plagiarized) Imposing an academic consequence and contacting the Dean of Students Office.

If you determine the student has been academically dishonest, do the following:

1. Meet with one of the directors to discuss the case.

2. Take one or more of the following disciplinary actions.

We can advise you about which course of action is most appropriate, but you will almost always be in control of this decision.

* Require a re-write (usually an entire re-write where the student starts from scratch).

* Fail the assignment.

* Fail the student for the course.

3. Write the student a memo explaining your actions.

4. Contact the Dean of Students Office via an email memo.

In all cases of academic dishonesty, the teacher of record (must inform the Dean of Students Office about the case. You have two options here: (1) just having the Dean of Students Office keep a record of the incident or (2) pursue a possible Student Code of Conduct violation.

In either case, write an email memo to the Dean of Students Office. Your email should do the following:

* Request that the Office examine the students' record to determine whether there are previous cases involving the student, and inform you about their findings.

* Provide a detailed account of the events concerning the case.

* Summarize the academic actions you have taken against the student for the academic dishonesty.

This memo becomes a legal document, so it is vital that you stick to the facts and use a professional tone. If you're new to this, please get help from one of the directors. Should the case be serious or should the student have a history of academic dishonesty, we encourage you to have the Dean of Students Office pursue a Student Code of Conduct charges against the student. As always, you will make this decision. (http://www.unm.edu/~english/Resources/pdf/ Plagiarism.pdf)

APPENDIX B

EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION

Faculty Recruitment, Selection, and Orientation

The faculty recruitment process "consist[s] of nine primary elements ...: establishing position objectives, initial contact with the candidate, initial candidate interview, reference contacts, evaluation of the candidate, campus visit, decision to extend an offer, making the employment offer, and post-recruiting activity" (Morin and Kehoe, 1982) with the intent to screen applicants by "excluding ineligible applicants, identifying candidates who have received some preferential attention, and evaluating nominees' files." (Waggaman, 1983) "Ethical standards in college faculty recruitment cannot be taken for granted. As the recruitment process becomes more competitive and applicant numbers dwindle, the process should be carefully examined to ensure that truth, trust, and honesty are characteristic of the recruiting procedure." (Van Ommeren, 1991) Applicant selection would require matching the applicant's requirements to the job description and specifications as well as to the department's and College's mission and culture. (Cole, 1995)

Faculty orientation normally involves interaction with other faculty and with senior faculty and normally includes a mentoring component. (Garrison, 2005) "The orientation program targets immediate information concerning employment and getting started in the classroom, while the mentoring program provides peer support for the duration of the employee's first years of service. The initiative is divided into three stages: (1) the initiation phase in which the orientation takes place; (2) the cultivation phase in which proteges become more involved in college activities; and (3) the redefinition phase when proteges become more self-sufficient and self-confident in their instructional role." (Howard and Hintz, 2002) Faculty support includes faculty modeling, motivating, mentoring and networking (Gmelch and Miskin, 1995) with the overall objective being to assist faculty in assessing their own instructional needs and providing them the resources in order to address those needs. (Scriven, 1980)

Faculty Responsibilities

A. Teaching Faculty

Texas A&M International University is committed to excellence in instruction, a concern for students, and the integrity of the institution. As such, all teaching faculty are expected to:

1. Make known to students in writing the goals and requirements of each course, the nature of the course content and the methods of evaluation to be employed.

2. Meet classes as scheduled.

3. Instruct so as to meet course objectives.

4. Maintain competence in teaching fields.

5. Be professional in conduct, in the classroom, and show respect for students.

6. Be available to students for consultation on course work during regular published office hours.

7. Serve as academic advisor in accordance with College policy on advisement.

8. Engage in service activities according to requirements for performance by rank as stated in Section 2.4 of this Handbook, and applicable College and Departmental policies.

9. Engage in scholarly activity according to requirements for performance by rank as stated in Section 2.4 of this Handbook, and applicable College and Departmental policies." (http://www. amiu.edu/facsenat/faculty.htm)

Sick Leave

"The salary for a full-time faculty member (code 102) may be continued at the discretion of the Dean, subject to approval by the Office of the Provost, for absence caused by illness or disability, for up to six months. Applications are to be submitted to the Dean, who may approve leaves of up to seven days duration. Leaves in excess of seven days must be approved by the Dean and by the Office of the Provost.

Legally, an absence caused by inability to work because of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions must be treated at least as favorably as an absence caused by illness or disability for all employment related purposes. At the time a faculty member gives birth, she is entitled to an aggregate of six consecutive weeks of paid maternity leave preceding and following date of birth.

A physician's statement certifying that the faculty member is unable to work because of illness or disability and the date on which it is anticipated that he or she can return to work, may be required.

The University, in addition, may require that the faculty member be examined by a physician designated by the University at no cost to the faculty member. In cases of childbirth, no certification will be required unless the request for leave extends beyond six weeks.

A full-time faculty member who is totally disabled for more than six consecutive calendar months may claim benefits under long term disability insurance if a participant." (http://www.nyu.edu/fas/GAP/FAS/AppointRecord4.html#4.7)

POLICIES REGARDING CESSATION OF UNIVERSITY EMPLOYMENT

Suspension and Discharge

The permissible grounds for the discharge or suspension of either a faculty member with permanent tenure or a faculty member without permanent tenure before a fixed term expires are incompetence, neglect of duty, and misconduct [emphasis added] of such a nature as to indicate that the individual is unfit to continue as a member of the faculty. The policy for due process before discharge or the imposition of serious sanctions, i.e., diminishment in rank, is identical to the procedure described in Section 603 of the Code." (http://www.acs.appstate.edu/orgs/facsen/ appendixa.html)

Due Process--Discharge or Suspension

"(1) A faculty member, who is the beneficiary of institutional guarantees of tenure, shall enjoy protection against unjust and arbitrary application of disciplinary penalties. During the period of such guarantees the faculty member may be discharged or suspended from employment or diminished in rank only for reasons of incompetence, neglect of duty or misconduct of such a nature as to indicate that the individual is unfit to continue as a member of the faculty. These penalties may be imposed only in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this section. For purposes of these regulations, a faculty member serving a stated term shall be regarded as having tenure until the end of that term. These procedures shall not apply to nonreappointment (Section 604) or termination of employment (Section 605).

(2) The Chancellor or his delegate shall send the faculty member by registered mail, return receipt requested, a written statement of intention to discharge him. The statement shall include notice of the faculty member's right, upon request, to both written specification of the reasons for the intended discharge and a hearing by an elected standing faculty committee on hearings.

(3) If, within ten days after he receives the notice referred to in paragraph (2) above, the faculty member makes no written request for either a specification of reasons or a hearing, he may be discharged without recourse to any institutional grievance or appellate procedure.

(4) If, within ten days after he receives the notice referred to in paragraph (2) above, the faculty member makes written request, by registered mail, return receipt requested, for a specification of reasons, the Chancellor or his delegate shall supply such specification in writing by registered mail, return receipt requested, within ten days after receiving the request. If the faculty member makes no written request for a hearing within ten days after he receives the specification, the faculty member may be discharged without recourse to any institutional grievance or appellate procedure.

(5) If the faculty member makes a timely written request for a hearing, the Chancellor or his delegate shall insure that the hearing is accorded before an elected standing committee of the institution's faculty. The hearing shall be on the written specification of reasons for the intended discharge. The hearing committee shall accord the faculty member twenty days from the time it receives his written request for a hearing to prepare his defense. The hearing committee may, upon the faculty member's written request and for good cause, extend this time by written notice to the faculty member.

(6) The hearing shall be closed to the public unless the faculty member and the hearing committee agree that it may be open. The faculty member shall have the right to counsel, to present the testimony of witnesses and other evidence, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses and to examine all documents and other adverse demonstrative evidence. A written transcript of all proceedings shall be kept; upon request, a copy thereof shall be furnished to the faculty member at the institution's expense.

(7) The Chancellor, or his delegate or counsel, may participate in the hearing to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses and make argument.

(8) In reaching decisions on which its written recommendations to the Chancellor shall be based, the committee shall consider only the evidence presented at the hearing and such written or oral arguments as the committee, in its discretion, may allow. The committee shall make its written recommendations to the Chancellor within ten days after its hearing concludes.

(9) If the Chancellor concurs in a recommendation of the committee that is favorable to the faculty member, his decision shall be final. If the Chancellor either declines to accept a committee recommendation that is favorable to the faculty member or concurs in a committee recommendation that is unfavorable to the faculty member, the faculty member may appeal the Chancellor's decision to the Board of Trustees. This appeal shall be transmitted through the Chancellor and be addressed to the Chairman of the Board. Notice of appeal shall be filed within ten days after the faculty member receives the Chancellor's decision. The appeal to the Board of Trustees shall be decided by the full Board of Trustees. However, the Board may delegate the duty of conducting a hearing to a standing or ad hoc committee of at least three members. The Board of Trustees, or its committee, shall consider the appeal on the written transcript of hearings held by the faculty hearing committee, but it may, in its discretion, hear such other evidence as it deems necessary. The Board of Trustees' decision shall be made within forty-five days after the Chancellor has received the faculty member's request for an appeal to the trustees. This decision shall be final except that the faculty member may, within ten days after receiving the trustees' decision, file a written petition for review with the Board of Governors if he alleges that one or more specified provisions of The Code of The University of North Carolina have been violated. Any such petition to the Board of Governors shall be transmitted through the President, and the Board shall, within forty-five days, grant or deny the petition or take such other action as it deems advisable. If it grants the petition for review, the Board's decision shall be made within forty-five days after it has notified the faculty member that it will review the petition.

(10) When a faculty member has been notified of the institution's intention to discharge him, the Chancellor may suspend him at any time and continue the suspension until a final decision concerning discharge has been reached by the procedures prescribed herein. Suspension shall be exceptional and shall be with full pay." (http://www.acs.appstate.edu/orgs/facsen/appendixa.html)

Dismissal for Cause

"Dismissal for cause is a severance action by which the college terminates its contract with the faculty member for just cause. Any teaching contract is subject to action under this subsection. Dismissal for cause must be directly and substantially related to the fitness of a faculty member to continue in their professional capacity as a faculty member. Dismissal for cause will not be used to restrain a faculty member's academic freedom. The faculty personnel committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the president of the college on dismissal for cause.

Dismissal proceedings may be instituted on the following grounds:

j. Professional incompetence;

k. Failure to perform job related assignments or other neglect of academic duties;

l. Breach of any term or condition of employment or other serious personal misconduct;

m. Formal or overt rejection of the fundamental mission and purpose of the college;

n. Knowing or reckless violation of the professional ethics of the college or of the rights and freedom of fellow faculty members, administrators, or students;

o. Knowing or reckless violation of established legal rights of students or employees of the college including, without limitation, any form of discrimination or harassment;

p. Conviction of a crime directly related to the faculty member's fitness to practice the faculty member's profession;

q. Dishonesty, including, but not limited to, plagiarism, falsification of credentials or experience, or the misappropriation or misapplication of funds; or

r. Failure to follow standards of the institution in respect to standards, policies, directives and guidelines within this policy manual after oral and written warnings.

The process for implementing dismissal for cause shall include the following:

d. Written notice to the faculty member from the dean of faculty that a recommendation for dismissal for cause shall be made to the president. This notice shall contain a statement of the grounds upon which the recommendation is to be made, and a brief summary of information supporting such grounds;

e. A reasonable opportunity for the faculty member to meet with the dean of faculty to present the faculty member's defense to the dismissal recommendation before the recommendation is made; and

f. A reasonable opportunity for the faculty member to meet with the president of the college to present the faculty member's defense to the dismissal recommendation if it is accepted by the president.

The president shall make the ultimate decision regarding termination.

In any case involving dismissal for cause, the burden of proof that just cause exists shall be on the college, which proof shall be by a preponderance of the evidence in the record considered as a whole. The decision to terminate a faculty member for cause may be the basis of a grievance before the faculty review committee, which shall review the case in accordance with procedures established in section 4.12 of this volume IV." (http://www.sckans.edu/policy/ docstoc/vol4_index.html)

REFERENCES

Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 62:335-343.

Anonymous (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.acs.appstate.edu/ orgs/facsen/appendixa.html, July 5, 2006.

Anonymous (1988). "Agreement between Bard College and the Bard College Chapter of the American Association of University Professors [1988-1989]." Annandale-on-Hudson, NY.: Bard College and the American Association of Univ. Professors [Washington, DC].

Anonymous (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.berea.edu/ dadf/facultyManual/responsibilities. asp, July 7, 2006.

Anonymous (n.d.). Retrieved July 5, 2006 from http://www.brooklyn.liu.edu/library/services/refservices/ AntiPlagiarism.htm.

Anonymous (n.d.). Retrieved July 5, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness. See Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.

Anonymous (n.d.). Retrieved July 7, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism.

Anonymous (n.d.). Retrieved June 21, 2006, from http://www.mustangps.org/ ~kingch/Cheating.htm.

Anonymous (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.nyu.edu/fas/GAP/FAS/ AppointRecord4.html# 4.7, July 5, 2006.

Anonymous (n.d.). Retrieved June 21, 2006, from http://www.plagiarism.org/learning_center/ plagiarism_the_internet.html.

Anonymous (n.d.). Retrieved June 21, 2006 from http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism.html.

Anonymous (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.sckans.edu/ policy/docstoc/vol4_index.html, July 7, 2006.

Anonymous (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.tamiu.edu/ facsenat/faculty.htm, July 5, 2006.

Anonymous (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.unm.edu/ ~english/Resources/pdf/Plagiarism.pdf, July 7, 2006.

Bianco, M., E. Virginia, and E.N. Chalofsky (1999). The Full-Time Faculty Handbook. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications.

Blumenthal, S. (1969). Changing Expectations of Teachers and Students during One Semester at an Adult Education Institution. New School for Social Research (Ph.D. Thesis) Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.

Burke, D.L. (1988). A New Academic Marketplace. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, Inc.

Burke, J.L. (1997). Faculty Perceptions of and Attitudes toward Academic Dishonesty at a Two-Year College. University of Georgia, Ed.D. Dissertation.

Cole, B. (1995). Applying total quality management principles to faculty selection. Higher Education (Jan) 29, 59-75.

David, F. R. (2003). "Strategic management case writing: Suggestions after 20 years of experience." S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal (Summer) 68, 3, 36-38.

Decker, R. (1984). "Faculty decision-making impact and collective bargaining in Illinois Community Colleges." ASHE 1984 Annual Meeting Paper. Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (Chicago, IL, March 12-14).

Drinan, P.F. (1999). "Loyalty, learning, and academic integrity." Liberal Education (Winter) 85, 1, 28-33.

Garrison, C. (2005). "Exploring new faculty orientation: The good, the bad, and making it better." Essays in Education (Spring) 13, 1-9.

Geiger, M. and E.A. Cooper (1995). "Predicting academic performance: The impact of expectancy and needs theory." The Journal of Experimental Education (Spring) 63, 251-62.

Gerdeman, R.D. (2000). "Academic dishonesty and the Community College." ERIC Digest. Los Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges.

Ghillyer, A. W. (2008). Business Ethics: A Real World Approach. 1st Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Gmelch, W.H. and V.D. Miskin (1995). Chairing an Academic Department. Survival Skills for Scholars, Volume 15. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Grassian, E. (2004). Do they really do that? Librarians teaching outside the classroom. Change (May-June) 36, 3, 22.

Hart, H.L.A. (1994). The Concept of Law. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Hancock, D.R. (1995). "What teachers may do to influence student motivation: An application of expectancy theory." The Journal of General Education 44, 3, 171-9.

Haworth, K. (1997). "Publishers press colleges to stop software piracy by their students." Chronicle of Higher Education (Jul 11) 43, 44, A19-A20.

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Holderfield, H.M, and F.D. Brown (1973). Institutional Responsibility in the Development of Faculty Dismissal Criteria. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University and the Dept. of Higher Education.

Howard, B. and S.S. Hintz (2002). "Adjunct faculty orientation and mentoring: Developing and retaining the best!" Annual Meeting of the National Institute for Staff & Organizational Development Austin, TX: May 26-29.

Kraus, J. (2002). "Rethinking plagiarism: What our students are telling us when they cheat." Issues in Writing (Fall/Winter) 13, 80-95.

Lawrence, A. T. and Weber. J. (2008). Business and Society: Stakeholders, Ethics, Public Policy. 12th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Leaming, D. (1998). Academic Leadership: A Practical Guide to Chairing the Department. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Lear, G. M. Jr. (1980). Developing a Performance Syllabus. Implementing Competency Based Education in Community Colleges, 3. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg. Retrieved from http://www.investorwords.com/1079/contract.html, July 5, 2006.

Lees, N. Douglas (2006). Chairing Academic Departments: Traditional and Emerging Expectations. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Lundberg, C. C., P. Rainsford, J. P. Shay, and C.A. Young (2001). "Case writing reconsidered." Journal of Management Education (August) 25, 4, 450-463.

Lynn, L. E. Jr. (1999). Teaching & Learning with Cases: A Guidebook. New York: Seven Bridges Press.

Malouff, J.M. and R.L. Sims (1996). "Applying an employee-motivation model to prevent student plagiarism." Journal of Education for Business (Sept/Oct) 72, 58-61.

Mangan, K.S. (1997). "Handling of law-school plagiarism case angers faculty members." The Chronicle of Higher Education (Feb 21) 43, A11.

Mawdsley, R.D. and S. Permuth (1985). "Faculty dismissal: Comparison of public and private higher education." In Jones, T.N. and D. P. Semler (Eds.) School Law Update Topeka, KS: National Organization on Legal Problems of Education.

Morin, B.A. and W.J. Kehoe (1982.) "Effectively recruiting faculty: A structured model." Journal of the College and University Personnel Association (Sum) 33, 2, 11-18.

Naumes, W. and M. J. Naumes (1999). The Art & Craft of Case Writing. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications, p.86.

Nicastro, M. L. and D. C. Jones (1994). Cooperative Learning Guide for Marketing Teaching Tips for Marketing Instructors. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc..

Noonen, N. M. and R. S Blechman (1999). Higher Education Administration: A Guide to Legal, Ethical, and Practical Issues. Westport, CT: The Greenwood Press. Specifically material on "A Delicate Balance: Legal, Ethical, and Practical Issues"; "Hiring Issues"; "Terminations, Nonrenewals, and Reductions in Force"; "Academic Freedom"; and "Student Disputes on Academic Matters."

Pearce, J. A. II and R. B. Robinson, Jr. (2005). Strategic Management: Formulation, Implementation, and Control. 9th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Pringle, C.D. (1995). "Expectancy theory: Its applicability to student academic performance." College Student Journal (1995) 29, 249-55.

Robinson, K. & S. Bridgewater (1979). Named in a grievance: It happened to us. Nursing Outlook (Mar) 27, 3, 191-94.

Rossow, L. and Tate, J.O. (2003). The Law of Teacher Evaluation. 2nd Ed. Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.

Rowley, D. & H. Sherman (2001). From Strategy to Change: Implementing the Plan in Higher Education. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Rowley, D. & H. Sherman (2002). Implementing the strategic plan. Planning for Higher Education 30, 4, 5-14.

Salom, W. (1977). "The department head who is indeed." Annual Meeting of the Florida Council of Teachers of English (Orlando, Florida, October 20-22).

Santora, K. and E.N. Stoner (2003). "What would you do?" Change (May/June) 35, 3, 44-7.

Scanlon, P.M. (2003). "Student online plagiarism: How do we respond?" College Teaching (Fall) 51, 4, 161-5.

Scriven, M. (1980). "The evaluation of college teaching. Professional development occasional paper number 3." National Council of States on Inservice Education Syracuse, NY: National Dissemination Center.

Van Ommeren, R. (1991). "Ethical issues in recruiting faculty." CUPA Journal (Fall) 42, 3, 29-35.

Waggaman, J.S. (1983). "Faculty recruitment, retention, and fair employment: Obligations and opportunities." ASHE- ERIC Higher Education Research Report, 2. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.

Willen, M.S. (2004). "Reflections on the cultural climate of plagiarism." Liberal Education (Fall) 90, 4, 55-58.

Wood, G. (2004). "Academic original sin: Plagiarism, the internet, and librarians." Journal of Academic Librarianship (May) 30, 3, 237-42.

ENDNOTES

(1) The names of the characters and the college have been disguised, as per the request of the protagonist.

(2) We would like to thank the reviewers for suggesting this reorganization of the parts of the case; the separation of student fairness issues, plagiarism, and administrative issues

Barry Armandi, SUNY @ Old Westbury (deceased) Herbert Sherman, Long Island University--Brooklyn Campus Daniel J. Rowley, University of Northern Colorado