APRIL 14, 2014


B. Proposal to Align Q-Drop and OTE (One-Time-Exception) Drop Policies: Academic Dishonesty (D 11516-11518).

Professor Rose presented legislation1 that would address issues resulting from the elimination of the signature requirement for Q-drops, one of which is that students may take a Q in order to escape scholastic dishonesty charges. Professor Mihran Aroian (McCombs School of Business) had been working closely with Student Judicial Services (SJS) on trying to promote good practices with respect to scholastic dishonesty and found that he had been writing a lot of reports as a result of eliminating the signature requirement and asked the EPC to address the issue. The committee recommended a simple sentence be added under “Limitations” in the Q-drop section, “Any Q-drop assigned will not be considered final until any investigations of scholastic dishonesty for the class in question are resolved.”

Professor Wade said she thought this was a good idea and asked, “Are there any other kind of investigations other than scholastic dishonesty that would also be thrown out unless there is specific language that includes them in there.” Professor Rose said she was not aware of any.

Professor Anthony Petrosino (curriculum and instruction) voiced his concern that scholastic dishonesty is not only a violation of the particular class, but of the student’s involvement at the University. When Professor Rose asked if he was referring to expulsion, he responded, “it’s not necessarily just a class problem, it is a fundamental problem with the relationship of that individual to the goals of the University.” Professor Rose explained that the policy being reviewed had only been designed for the issue of Q-drop, but added “There are some excellent efforts underway about trying, again to change the culture here at UT on these issues.” Professor Hofmann said that he was not opposed to the language but felt it would not change much and wondered if it was really necessary. Professor Rose clarified that when a faculty member received notice of a student’s intent to Q-drop a class, if there were a question of academic dishonesty, the faculty member ought to contact SJS. She added that the intent of the new language was aimed at empowering SJS. Professor Beckner said that his impression from the wording of the email message he had received was that the process would be held. Professor Rose said that was not the case. She pointed out that the system had been changed to address two issues: 1) to notify faculty members of the drop since they no longer received the form for drops, and 2) to begin to address the scholastic dishonesty issue.

Professor Rose asked faculty members to send comments to her, and she said she would work to clarify the exact language for the final vote in May.

1See related PowerPoint slides in Appendix B.

Return to main minutes