Ethics and Academic Integrity

1. Ethics andAcademic Integrity Dr. Nancy Stanlick Assistant Professor UCF Department of Philosophy stanlick@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu Office: CNH 411 407-823-2273

2. The Problem of Academic Dishonesty Contents I. Preventing the Problem • Preparation • Time Management • Assistance from the instructor • UCF Writing Center • Outlines, Notes, Drafts II. Dealing with the Problem: Reaction • OSC Ethics Seminar III. Theoretical Approaches to Cheating and Plagiarism: The Use of Theory IV. References and Resources

3. I. Preventing the Problem • Preparation – research, notes, references • Time Management • UCF Writing Center • MLA, Chicago, Other Manuals • Building an Atmosphere of Respect • For Yourself • For the Discipline • For the Instructor

4. II. Dealing With the Problem: Reaction Office of Student Conduct/ Academic Integrity Seminar

5. OSC Ethics Seminar for Students • Meets at least once each semester. • Student participation in the seminar: discussion, assignments • A way to “reinstate the student into the academic community” • A “contractarian/Kantian” approach – respect for persons • Responsibility and Alternatives • Website for the student seminar: http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~stanlick/oscethicsfall02b.html

6. Searches, Websites and Resources • Internet Resources • UCFs Golden Rule/Student Academic Behavior.   Go to http://www.ucf.edu/goldenrule/studaca.html • Plagiarism: How to Recognize it and How to Avoid it. Go to http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/wts/plagiarism.html • Ethics Updates. Go to http://ethics.acusd.edu/Resources/AcademicIntegrity/Index.html • The Center for Academic Integrity at Duke University. Go to http://www.academicintegrity.org/

7. III. Theoretical Approaches to Cheating and Plagiarism: The Use of Theory • Bernard Gert, Morality: Its Nature and Justification (New York: Oxford UP, 1998) – available on NetLibrary • Nancy Stanlick, “Honor Codes, Individual Worth, and the Academic Community: Teaching Ethics to Plagiarists and Cheaters Across the Curriculum” (in progress)

8. Gert’s Position Summary of Some Main Points (from pp. 191-194 of his Morality: Its Nature and Justification and his presentation, “Cheating,” at the Society for Ethics Across the Curriculum Conference, Gainesville, FL, February 2002). Gert’s position is that academics are primarily (and perhaps exclusively) competitive. He likens the process to a game (so that if one is not playing by the rules, one is not playing the game). To cheat in a game is not to cheat umpires or referees (and so it is not to cheat faculty, or even the cheater), but it is to cheat the other players. Hence, cheating is cheating the other students (because part of the purpose is not simply to do well in the educational endeavor, but to do better than others). Doing well is the primary goal, but that isn’t what makes cheating wrong. What is wrong is that it disadvantages others who are engaging fairly in the same competition. If academics are not competitive, then prohibitions against cheating are nothing more than paternalistic rules. But academics are competitive (and apparently should be so), and prohibitions against cheating derive from moral rules. Furthermore, faculty and administrators must be clear that their function is as “referees” whose function is to protect non-cheaters from cheaters. The cheater is arrogant. “Cheating, no matter what the motive, shows that he (the cheater) regards himself as not being subject to the same constraints of the activity that everyone else participating in that activity is required to obey. It demonstrates an arrogance that is likely to show itself in even more harmful ways than cheating.”

9. An Alternative Approach From my “Honor Codes, Individual Worth and the Academic Community: Teaching Ethics to Plagiarists and Cheaters Across the Curriculum” Presented at the Society for Ethics Across the Curriculum Conference, February 2002 • Thesis: In a manner similar to that in which a Kantian understanding of punishment is “backward looking” and punitive, one may consider participation in an ethics seminar designed for cheaters and plagiarists to be in some sense retaliatory on the part of the college or university in which a conduct code violation has occurred. On the contrary, however, a Kantian view of punishment is also “forward looking” in that violators are reinstated into the academic community against which they have committed a violation, and their participation in an ethics seminar focused on issues of academic dishonesty is acknowledgement of their value as members of that community. Being recognized as a member of (and being reinstated into) an academic community is consistent with the dignity of the person and conducive to the goals of the academic community. Rather than simply to expel or punish, violators of academic codes of conduct become part of the content of the ethics seminar in which they are enrolled, becoming active participants in a course intended to foster understanding of the value of intellectual integrity. • I disagree with Gert’s position that the educational process is necessarily competitive, and I therefore also disagree with him that a cheater always cheats other students. My position is that the cheater cheats himself as well as the community of which he is a member. For a student to understand what “cheating yourself” means makes considerable difference in the motivation to avoid cheating and in our reactions to cheating.

10. Closing Considerations • How Does Academic Dishonesty Reflect on You? • For a first case of honor code or academic integrity violation, an integrity/ethics seminar is appropriate • Theories of “Punishment”: • Forward Looking – Utilitarian/Community Oriented • Rehabilitative/Responsibility Oriented • Backward Looking • Retributive • A Case of “Giving Up”

11. IV. References and Resources(in addition to those listed on previous pages) • Herman, A.L., “College Cheating: A Plea for Leniency,” Journal of Higher Education, 37(5) May 1966: 260-266. • Kibler, William L, Elizabeth M. Nuss,et. Al., Academic Integrity and Student Development: Legal Issues and Policy Perspectives (College Administration Publications, 1988). • McCabe, Donald L, Linda K. Trevino and Kenneth D. Butterfield, “Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research” Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 2001: 219-232. • McCabe, Donald L. and Linda K. Trevino, “Academic Dishonesty: Honor Codes and Other Contextual Influences” Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), Sep-Oct. 1993: 522-538. • Noah, Harold J. and Max A. Eckstein, Fraud and Education: The Worm in the Apple (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001).