MICHIGAN
TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY University Senate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(version of 23 Feb 95)
PROPOSAL 27-95
(Voting Units: Academic Degree-Granting Departments)
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY POLICY & PROCEDURES
I. PREAMBLE
Academic integrity and honesty are central components of a student's
education, and the ethical conduct maintained in an academic context will
be taken eventually into a student's professional career. Academic
honesty is essential in a community of scholars searching and learning to
search for truth. Anything less than total commitment to honesty
undermines the efforts of the entire academic community. Both students
and faculty are responsible for insuring the academic integrity of the
university.
This Academic Integrity Policy is intended to provide guidance for
students and faculty concerned about maintenance of academic integrity.
It shall be the policy of this university to establish procedures to
ensure fairness and due process for all parties involved with any
apparent violation of academic integrity and honesty.
II. DEFINITIONS OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
A. Plagiarism: Knowingly copying another's work or ideas and calling
them one's own or not giving proper credit or citation. This
includes reading or hearing another's work or ideas and using them
as one's own; quoting, paraphrasing, or condensing another's work
without giving proper credit; purchasing or receiving another's work
and using, handling, or submitting it as one's own work.
B. Cheating: Intentional and/or unauthorized use of any study aids,
equipment, or another's work during an academic exercise. This
includes unauthorized use of notes, study aids, electronic or other
equipment during an examination; copying or looking at another
individual's examination; taking or passing information to another
individual during an examination; taking an examination for another
individual; allowing another individual to take one's examination;
stealing examinations. All academic exercises are expected to be
performed on an individual basis unless otherwise stated by the
instructor.
C. Fabrication: Intentional and/or unauthorized falsification or
invention of any information or citation during an academic
exercise. This includes changing or adding an answer on an
examination and resubmitting it to change the grade; inventing data
for a laboratory exercise or report.
D. Facilitating Academic Dishonesty: Knowingly allowing or helping
another individual to plagiarize, cheat, or fabricate information.
III. PRACTICE
A. In their classes, faculty are expected to:
1. announce and discuss specific problems of academic dishonesty
that pertain particularly to their classes (e.g. acceptable and
unacceptable cooperation on projects or homework);
2. act reasonably to prevent academic dishonesty in preparing and
administering academic exercises, including examinations,
laboratory activities, homework and other assignments, etc.;
3. act to prevent cheating from continuing when it has been
observed or reported to them by students, chairs, or deans;
and,
4. report in writing all acts of academic dishonesty to the Dean
of Student Affairs office (see Procedures below).
B. In their academic work, students are expected to:
1. maintain personal academic integrity;
2. treat all academic exercises as work to be conducted privately,
unless otherwise instructed;
3. ask faculty to clarify any aspects of permissible or expected
cooperation on any assignment; and,
4. report any cheating activity (see Procedures below).
IV. PROCEDURES
A. Handling & Reporting Incidents of Academic Dishonesty
1. Faculty Guidelines: The following procedural guidelines are
suggested for handling incidents in which a student in a
classroom is observed cheating on an examination or similar
exercise. If followed, the effectiveness of the report will be
maximized. Similar information should be obtained for
incidents of cheating in other circumstances.
a. Make a note of the time of the initial observation of the
misconduct.
b. If possible, have a colleague (proctor, etc.) verify the
behavior by observation.
c. Tell the student that you are aware of the situation, and
request that the behavior stop.
d. Allow the student to continue with the exam, unless the
behavior is creating a serious disturbance.
e. Continue to monitor the student's behavior.
f. Immediately file a report with the Dean of Student Affairs
office (see below).
2. Students
Students should report any cheating activity to make faculty
aware of the problem. Reporting may be done directly to the
instructor or department chair either in person or by an
anonymous note. The instructor is then responsible for
investigating the report, for filing a report if the incident
can be confirmed, and for preventing further cheating.
A student may make a report directly to the Dean of Student
Affairs on any cheating activity of which the student has
personal and not hearsay knowledge. The Dean must forward the
report to the department chair and instructor. The instructor
is then responsible for investigating the report, for filing a
report if the incident can be confirmed, and for preventing
further cheating.
A student may also file a report directly with the Dean of
Student Affairs, requesting that the Dean pursue formal
procedures for violations of the Academic Integrity Policy. In
this case, the student filing the report must be willing to
appear and testify in person at any hearings that may result.
3. Reports of Academic Dishonesty
The Dean of Student Affairs office shall act as the central
location where all records of incidents of academic dishonesty
are kept on file.
A report of any violations of this policy should include the
following information:
a. what happened
b. when it happened and for how long
c. where it occurred (classroom, lab, etc.)
d. the names of students who were involved
f. other faculty who have also observed the activities
g. what action has been taken
h. what sanctions are recommended
B. Notification of Complaint
When a report of a violation of academic integrity is received, the
Dean of Student Affairs office expeditiously shall send the
student(s) a written notice with a specification of charges
attached. The specification of charges shall contain a numbered
series of allegations which either individually or collectively
constitutes one or more violations of the Academic Integrity Policy.
The written notice will also inform the student of the time and
place of an Initial Conference with the Dean of Student Affairs or
an Associate Dean of Student Affairs for the purpose of reviewing
the specification of charges. The conference shall take place
within five (5) working days from the time of notification.
A copy of the notification will be sent to the complainant.
C. Initial Conference
If the student refuses to appear at the Initial Conference, all
charges shall be considered true and accurate, and appropriate
sanctions shall be imposed by the Dean of Student Affairs office.
At the Initial Conference, the student will be informed of the right
to an Administrative Hearing or to a hearing by the Academic
Integrity Committee. The student may elect one of the following
courses of action:
1. To sign a statement accepting responsibility for violating the
Academic Integrity Policy, and requesting adjudication by the
Dean of Student Affairs office. The student may request that
sanctions be determined by the Dean of Student Affairs, or
recommended by the Academic Integrity Committee. In either
case, the student may request that the determination and
imposition of sanctions be postponed for up to 48 hours to
allow the student to produce relevant witnesses or evidence.
2. To deny the alleged violation(s), in which case the student
shall request one of the following:
a. An immediate Administrative Hearing, to be carried out by
the individual conducting the Initial Conference, who may,
in appropriate cases, postpone a hearing up to 48 hours in
order to allow the accused student to prepare a defense.
b. A hearing by the Academic Integrity Committee. If,
however, the Academic Integrity Committee cannot be
convened immediately, the Dean or Associate Dean will
propose an immediate Administrative Hearing. The student
may opt to wait until the Academic Integrity Committee can
convene. In either case, the Dean of Student Affairs may
grant additional time to the accused student to prepare a
defense.
D. Hearings
At the Initial Conference, a student who denies violating the
Academic Integrity Policy shall request either an Administrative
Hearing or a hearing before members of the Academic Integrity
Committee.
1. Administrative Hearings
Administrative hearings are conducted by the Dean of Student
Affairs or by an Associate Dean of Student Affairs, who will
review the charge against the accused student and the evidence
presented in support of the charge. The accused student has
the right to ask questions relevant to the complaint, and to
any other questions of due process.
Administrative hearings are not open to the public.
2. Hearings by the Academic Integrity Committee
a. The Academic Integrity Committee
The Academic Integrity Committee is comprised of three
faculty, three full-time undergraduate students, three
graduate students, and two student affairs professionals.
The faculty members will be chosen from the faculty at
large by the University Senate. The three undergraduates
shall be chosen from the undergraduate student body by the
Undergraduate Student Government. The three graduate
students shall be chosen from the graduate student body by
the Graduate Student Council. The two student affairs
professionals will be chosen by the Dean of Student
Affairs.
One student, one faculty member, and one student affairs
professional shall constitute a hearing panel. Panels
convened to hear cases involving an undergraduate student
shall include an undergraduate student. Panels convened
to hear cases involving a graduate student shall include a
graduate student. Panel membership will rotate on a
system determined by the members of the committee.
b. Hearing Procedures
The Academic Integrity Committee will convene a hearing
panel no later than seven business days after a student
requests a Committee hearing at the Initial Conference.
During the hearing, the panel's role shall include
directing the hearing, calling recesses, postponing
hearings, taking appropriate steps to maintain order,
deciding questions on the relevancy of evidence or
testimony, recalling witnesses or calling further
witnesses as deemed appropriate in the resolution of
matters pertaining to the hearing, and ensuring that
established procedures are followed.
The order of hearings conducted by panels of the Academic
Integrity Committee:
1. Meeting will be called to order by the chair of the
hearing panel.
2. Hearings will be closed to the public. However, an
open hearing may be held, at the discretion of the
hearing panel, if requested by the accused student.
3. Any person, including the accused student, who
disrupts a hearing or fails to adhere to the rulings
of the chair may be excluded from the proceedings.
4. Hearing panel members, the accused student, and the
complainant shall be introduced.
5. The hearing shall be tape recorded or transcribed.
6. The chair of the hearing panel will read the charges.
7. The hearing panel will determine if the accused
student received a copy of the Specification of
Charges and whether or not the charges are
understood.
8. The hearing panel will ask the student to confirm a
plea of guilty or not guilty.
9. The complainant shall present, in detail, the alleged
events leading to the complaint.
a. Members of the hearing panel may ask further
questions and/or seek clarification by directing
questions to the complainant.
b. The accused student may ask questions and/or
seek clarification on any element of the
complainant's statements, but may not make any
statements at this time.
10. The complainant may present witness(es), who may
offer testimony relevant to the complaint.
a. Members of the hearing panel may ask further
questions and/or seek clarification by directing
questions to the complainant's witness(es).
b. The accused student may ask questions and/or
seek clarification on any element of the
statements by the complainant's witness(es), but
may not make any statements at this time.
11. Complainant may present any other physical or written
evidence which is supportive of the complaint.
12. The accused student shall present, in detail, the
alleged facts or matters pertaining to the
circumstances of the complaint.
a. Members of the hearing panel may ask further
questions and/or seek clarification by directing
questions to the accused student.
b. The complainant may ask questions and/or seek
clarification on any element of the accused
student's statements, but may not make any
statements at this time.
13. The accused student shall present his/her
witness(es), who may offer testimony relevant to the
circumstances stated by the accused student.
a. Members of the hearing panel may ask further
questions and/or seek clarification by directing
questions to the accused's witness(es).
b. The complainant may ask questions and/or seek
clarification on any element of the statements
by the accused student's witness(es), but may
not make any statements at this time.
14. The accused student may present any other physical or
written evidence which is supportive of the accused
student's opening remarks to the hearing panel.
15. The accused student and the complainant may each make
summary statements to the hearing panel. There will
be no rebuttal.
16. Adjournment by panel chair.
3. Decisions of Hearings
In private deliberations, the hearing panel or the
administrative hearing officer will decide whether the student
violated the Academic Integrity Policy. The hearing panel or
the administrative officer will submit the decision in writing
to the Dean of Student Affairs, and will recommend sanctions in
cases of policy violation.
Decisions will be made based upon the preponderance of the
evidence presented in the hearings.
Within five (5) business days of the hearing, the Dean of
Student Affairs will notify in writing the student and
complainant of the decision and recommendations of the hearing
panel or administrative officer, and of any sanctions imposed
by the Dean.
E. Appeals
Students may wish to appeal decisions of the hearing
panel/administrative hearing officer. To initiate an appeal, the
student must submit a written request for an appeal within three (3)
business days of notification of the results of the hearing. All
requests must be submitted to the Dean of Student Affairs.
An appeal must be in writing and its scope shall be limited to the
following:
1. Question of Fact: A student may appeal on "questions of fact"
by introducing new evidence which would significantly affect
the outcome of the case. Evidence that comes forward that was
not known by the accused shall be considered as new evidence.
Evidence which was withheld by the student shall not constitute
a question of fact, nor is it to be considered upon appeal.
2. Question of Procedure: Appeals will be considered on the basis
of "questions of procedure" by demonstrating that the
procedural guidelines established in this document were
breached and that such departure from established procedure
significantly affected the outcome of the case.
3. Severity of Sanction: A student may appeal the "severity of
sanction" that has been imposed by presenting a statement
explaining why they feel the penalty is too severe.
All facts and evidence related to the case shall be reviewed by the
Dean of Student Affairs to determine whether just cause exists to
overturn the hearing panel's or hearing officer's decision. If just
cause is determined to exist, then a 3-member Appellant Hearing
Panel of the Academic Integrity Committee shall be convened by the
Dean of Student Affairs. If the original hearing was before a
hearing panel, then the appeal panel shall be comprised of members
of the Academic Integrity Committee who did not hear the original
case.
The Appellant Hearing Panel will review the facts of the case in
accordance with the due process guidelines set forth in this
document. The Dean of Student Affairs will notify the student in
writing of the decision of the Appellant Hearing Panel within three
(3) business days of the appellant hearing. This action shall be
final and is not subject to further appeal.
V. RIGHTS OF STUDENTS ACCUSED OF VIOLATING THIS POLICY
Students charged with one or more violations of the University's Policy
on Academic Integrity have a right to:
A. Receive a written statement of the specific charges. If requested,
students will be allowed to examine any written statements or
evidence which the University plans to submit to any hearing panel.
B. Reasonable time to prepare for the hearing.
C. Be present at the hearing during the presentation of any matters on
which a decision may be based.
D. Present an explanation of their situation or circumstances at a
hearing and ask individuals to present information on their behalf.
Should the student fail to appear at the scheduled time and place,
however, the hearing will be held in their absence.
E. Be accompanied by another member (defined as a registered student,
faculty, or staff member) of the campus community to serve as
"counsel" at a hearing. Counsel is permitted to advise the accused
student in the organization of their thoughts and presentation of
materials, and can advise the student directly in the hearing.
Counsel may not address the hearing panel or officer, nor any other
individuals providing testimony. Counsel may not respond to any
questions for the accused.
F. Ask questions of any hearing panel or officer and of any witnesses.
G. Present a summary statement at the close of the hearing.
H. A decision about the accuracy of charge based solely upon evidence
and testimony presented at the hearing. (If the charges are found
to be true, a decision on a sanction can be based upon the hearing
and other matters of record.)
I. An expeditious hearing of the student's case.
J. A written report of the results and findings of the hearing within
five (5) business days of the hearing.
K. Appeal the decision of the hearing panel.
VI. SANCTIONS
Sanctions imposed upon students for violating the Academic Integrity
Policy are outlined below.
A. Types of Sanctions:
1. Academic Integrity Warning: An official written notification
which includes a warning that further violations of the
Academic Integrity policy will result in a more severe
sanction.
2. Special Failing Grade: A student receives a special grade of
"F*" which indicates a failure due to academic dishonesty. The
Academic Integrity Committee by majority vote may remove the
asterisk from the permanent transcript upon petition by the
student after a period of two terms (excluding summer) from the
date of the infraction, and then only if the student has not
committed another infraction of academic integrity during this
period of time.
Students with an "F*" remaining on their transcripts after two
terms (excluding summer) may not serve as an officer of any
recognized student organization, nor represent the university
in any varsity sports, student contests, or arts performances.
3. Suspension: A decision of Suspension terminates the person's
status as an enrolled student for an indefinite period of time
and prohibits the student from attending classes. Persons who
reside on campus shall remove their belongings from their place
of residence within 72 hours of notice that the penalty of
Suspension has been rendered. Reinstatement and conditions for
reinstatement, if any, shall depend upon an evaluation by the
Dean of Student Affairs following an application for
reinstatement by the student.
Students receiving sanctions ranging from Academic Integrity Warning
to Suspension also will be required to participate in an education
program. Education programs are assigned by the Academic Integrity
Committee. Assignments can include a requirement for a student to
attend a workshop, seminar or course on an issue related to academic
integrity; complete a community service project or present a paper
on a topic related to academic integrity.
4. Expulsion: A decision of Expulsion terminates the person's
status as an enrolled student with no opportunity for
reinstatement. An expelled student may not enter onto any part
of the campus without specific authorization from the Dean of
Student Affairs. Persons who reside on campus shall remove
their belongings from their place of residence within 72 hours
of notice that the penalty of Expulsion has been rendered.
Expulsion which results from a violation of the Academic
Integrity Policy is listed as such on the student's academic
transcript.
B. Range of Sanctions:
1. First Offense: Penalties may range from Academic Integrity
Warning to Suspension. In cases associated with a criminal
act, a sanction of Expulsion may be imposed.
2. Second Offense: Penalties may range from Special Failing Grade
to Expulsion.
3. Third Offense: Expulsion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of Proposal
Nov 1991: Dean of Students asks the Senate to review current policy on
student integrity & honesty (see Attachment A).
Jun 1994: Summer Task Force on Student Academic Integrity, working from
the office of the Dean of Student Affairs, begins to formulate
a policy to replace the current policy. Committee consists of
Dean and Associate Dean of Student Affairs, two graduate
students, two undergraduate students, and one Senate
representative appointed by Senate president.
Sep 1994: A Draft Academic Integrity Policy is submitted by the Ad Hoc
Committee to the Instructional Policy Committee of the Senate,
to USG, and to GSC.
Fall 94: Instructional Policy Committee works through several drafts of
the Policy.
Jan 95: Counsel for the University is consulted about level of
evidence. A draft dated 23 January is circulated to GSC and to
the Provost for comments. No negative comments are returned to
the Instructional Policy Committee.
Feb 1995: Committee draft is assigned Proposal 27-95 by Senate Officers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal Background
The present integrity policy is given in the current (1989) edition of
the Faculty Handbook (p.31-32):
"Student integrity and honesty
"In preparation and administration of examinations, the
instructor is expected to use every reasonable means to prevent
dishonesty.
"The following policy regarding student integrity and honesty
was adopted by the Senate.
'A student detected cheating beyond any reasonable doubt
during any examination period or in the preparation of any
significant individual assignment such as a quarter report is
to receive a failing grade for the course, and a record for the
failure is to be submitted to the Dean of Students. This
record is to be for the confidential use of the Dean of
Students and is to be destroyed upon the student's graduation.
On the second such occurrence, a student shall be expelled from
the University without the possibility of readmission.' "
Compared with the proposed policy, the current policy appears brief and
simple, and simplicity is always preferable. However, the current policy
is only superficially simple. The University and individual faculty are
exposed legally, student rights to due process are not protected, and the
evidentiary standard ("beyond a reasonable doubt") is unacceptably high.
The length of the proposed policy is due mostly to the spelling out of
guidelines and procedures lacking in current policy. Faculty often do
not follow the current policy because it is unclear how it should be
followed. The procedures and penalties of the current policy are
sufficiently vague to be an ineffective deterrent to dishonest student
conduct.
Beyond the legal realm, there are cogent arguments favoring the new
policy. However, because the potential liabilities of faculty are the
most pressing reasons for adopting a new policy, those issues will be
mentioned here. The other reasons, largely concerned with making faculty
and students aware of the problems of academic integrity, are best
handled in other forums. To avoid misinterpretation, the Instructional
Policy Committee is basing its urging of the legal side on the following
excerpted material:
The following excerpts are from Jendrek (1989):
1. Faculty members are not supposed to react in an idiosyncratic
fashion to instances of academic dishonesty. Academic dishonesty
codes have become a necessity in public colleges and universities
since Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961). The court
ruled that public colleges and universities are governmental bodies;
therefore, they had to establish procedures that did not violate
students' due process rights when considering a disciplinary action
such as suspension or dismissal.
The courts have interpreted Dixon as requiring a
written notice of charges, a reasonable time to
prepare a defense, an opportunity to rebut the
charges, to have the charges heard by an
unbiased hearing officer, and to obtain a record
of the proceeding." (Roberts, 1986 p.372)
2. Faculty members also say frequently that they ignore cheating be-
cause of a fear of litigation. The Dixon case was dual-edged. On
the one hand, the court argued that students who were accused of
academic dishonesty had to be afforded due process under the
Fourteenth Amendment. On the other hand, faculty members and
administrators did not understand the concept of due process.
[They] erroneously assume that full adversarial
hearings, technical rules of evidence, multiple
appeals, and the like are required `by law' in
student disciplinary cases." (Pavela, 1981,p.64)
This was not the intent of Dixon. In fact, the court in Board of
Curators of the University of Missouri et al. v. Horowitz (1985)
gave the following argument:
A school is an academic institution, not a
courtroom or administrative hearing room
. . . the educational process is not by nature
adversarial, instead it centers around a
continuing relationship between faculty and
students . . .
The following excerpts are from Gehring and Pavela (1994):
1. Often faculty fail to report alleged acts of academic dishonesty
because they fear being sued. These fears are not supported by the
evidence. The authors have monitored and reviewed the pertinent
case law related to academic integrity in higher education for over
30 years and have yet to find even one case in which administrators,
faculty, or students have been assessed damages for reporting
alleged acts of academic dishonesty.
Faculty fear of litigation stems from the unfounded belief that
if they report an alleged act of academic dishonesty, the student
will be exonerated since it is only the faculty member's word
against the student's and having been exonerated, the student will
then bring suit for defamation. Many questions of fact come down to
one individual's word against another. However, hearing panels may,
for a variety of factors, attach greater weight to one individual's
testimony than they do to another and the courts will generally not
overrule a factfinder's decision. In a cheating case where the
student was found guilty and the evidence provided by the professor
was in conflict with the student's testimony, the court said "As it
is arguable that room for choice exists between the conflicting
testimony, the respondent's [university's] decision as to which
version of events to accept should not be disturbed" (Abrahamian v.
City University of New York).
2. Although properly reporting alleged acts of academic dishonesty has
not lead to liability, faculty who choose to ignore campus policies
and procedures expose themselves to the real possibility of damages
and actually encourage academic dishonesty. Faculty who indepen-
dently assign an "F" to a student suspected of committing an act of
academic dishonesty rather than going through the proper campus
procedures risk liability for violating students' constitutional and
contractual rights as well as breaching their own contractual
obligations to the institution (James v. Wall). While the former
could result in money damages, the latter could result in
termination of employment.
Finally, faculty must comply with the outcome of the procedures.
Having a fair procedure for reporting and resolving offenses is
worthless if faculty ignore the results. Thus, students who are
found not to have engaged in an act of academic dishonesty should
not continue to be penalized by the accusing faculty member
(Lightsey v. King).
3. The imposition of disciplinary sanctions for acts of academic
dishonesty requires basic procedural protections for students. Such
protection is desirable because it serves an a useful check upon the
arbitrary interpretation and enforcement of campus regulations.
Justice Jackson observed that "due process of law is not for the
sole benefit of the accused. It is the best insurance against those
blunders which leave lasting stains on a system of justice", and
which are "bound to occur" when individuals are given unchecked
authority (Shaughnessy v. United States, 1953, p.224-225).
Unfortunately, many administrators have been paralyzed by a
misconception of "due process" and have erroneously assumed that
full adversarial hearings, technical rules of evidence, multiple
appeals, and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof have
been regarded "by law" in student disciplinary cases. Not
surprisingly, faculty members are reluctant to involve themselves in
such proceedings. As a consequence, some of them ignore academic
dishonesty altogether, thereby putting honest students at a
disadvantage. Others simply lower the grades of students whom they
presume guilty of cheating or plagiarism. Both practices injure
students without any due process at all, and prevent the university
from identifying repeat offenders.
Literature Cited
Gehring, D., and G. Pavela. 1994. Issues and Perspectives on Academic
Integrity. Second edition. National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators, Washington, DC. 36p.
Jendrek, M. P. 1989. Faculty reactions to academic dishonesty. Journal
of College Student Development 30:401-406.
Pavela, G. 1981. Cheating on the campus: Who's really to blame.
Chronicle of Higher Education, February 9, p.64.
Roberts, R. N. 1986. Public university response to academic dishonesty:
Disciplinary or academic. Journal of Law and Education 15:369-384.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal 27-95 Attachment A
MTU OFFICE MEMO
TO: Larry Julien DATE: November 26, 1991
Senate President
FROM: Martha Y. Janners COPY: William J. Powers
Dean of Students Bert K. Whitten
SUBJECT: Student integrity and honesty
It is my opinion that a review of our student integrity and honesty
statements are in order.
The current policy, as adopted by the Senate, states consequences of
cheating, but does not set out due process rules.
As a matter of practice, when cases of alleged cheating are brought to
the Dean of Students the accused student is given the opportunity to face
the accuser in the presence of a third party, who then rules on the
evidence and testimony.
However, not all cases are brought to the Dean of Students and in
situations where guilt is determined by a faculty member, the incident is
often not reported to the Dean's office, so there is no central record
concerning offenses by individual students.
It is my opinion that there should be more consistent application and
enforcement of this policy at MTU.
A review of the integrity and honesty policy should also address issues
related to the changing educations environment (e.g. programming
assignments, cooperative learning efforts).
I would be happy to serve in an ad hoc advisory capacity to a Senate
committee (Instructional Policy) which studies these issues. I also
strongly suggest that at least two students be appointed to the group.
I would like to complete this review and adoption of a new statement by
early in the Spring Quarter, 1992, so that it can be widely promulgated
prior to the start of the '92-03 academic year.
.