OCR Text |
Show Prof-Peer Responsibility Needed i own personal responsibility to himself and his fellows, to report re-port cheating when and where he see's it happening. Fortunate ly, we have had some students who were sensitive enough to their obligation to do this." THE IDEAL situation, apparently, appar-ently, would be an honor system; sys-tem; the honor system, though is impractical for an institution of this size. The logical conclusion conclu-sion is that the students themselves, them-selves, within a large institution such as ours, should have enough sensitiveness for their social obligation ob-ligation to form sort of an informal in-formal honor system and police themselves. While theoretically this idea is a thing of beauty, there is still the problem of a great many students feeling that their loyalties might be better directed in saving their colleagues col-leagues the embarrassment of cr&tHncr nailed for fudeine on an and plagarism, and to preside as an officiating unit in handing down discipline. The end result of these preceding pre-ceding methods, then, is the acceptance ac-ceptance of responsibility by both the professor and the student. stu-dent. "The responsibility of the teacher," stated Dean Bennion, "would be four fold: (a) give creative tests where possible, (b) let students know in advance the number and types of tests he will give, (c) administer a large variety of tests and quizes, and (d) create genuine interest." The last principal is the most important, according to Dr. Bennion, Ben-nion, because "the more honest a teacher is with his students and the more genuine his interest inter-est in creating interest, then the less inclination there is to cheat because the students will be interested in-terested enough in the subject and will want to learn." By DON BAKER Ed. Note: This is the third and last in a series of three articles on Academic Dishonesty on campus. The solution of the problem of academic dishonesty constitutes consti-tutes a complex and interdependent interde-pendent relationship between measures of control and discipline, disci-pline, and student-teacher re-1 re-1 sponsibility. "THE PRIMARY, or 'first line of defense' in the control of cheating is the individual pro-' pro-' fessor," says Dr. Lowell L. Ben nion, Dean of Student at the University. "The professor," continues con-tinues Dr. Bennion, "has the right of academic action. He may either fail the student or report him to the Student Behavior Committee for disciplinary action. ac-tion. "The second line of defense, however, lies in the realm of 'peer responsibility,' of in other words, the individual student's o . exam. If this problem of student stu-dent responsibility is attacked on the individual level, the forsee-able forsee-able result would be a reasonable reason-able deterrent for cheating a self policing action by such a substantial number of students, that fear of retribution would be pretty much eliminated. Another control of cheating is disciplinary action. While this is obviously not the most desirable de-sirable method of control, often it is the only deterrent that some people seem to understand. At the University, our policy is either suspension or expulsion. The tough sentence is a result of the great concern that the Administration feels for the problem of academic dishonesty on our campus. DISCIPLINARY action is usually usu-ally handled by the Student Behavior Be-havior Committee consisting of five faculty members and five students. The council's responsibility responsi-bility is to act as the judicial force in problems of cheating |