Fairfield fraud

A stressful night of studying turns into an emotional breakdown. Weeks worth of assignments and term papers pile endlessly on a desk. Solitude and anxiety slowly degenerate into desperation, despair, and, in the case of a student yet to be named, crime.

A former Fairfield employee and full-time undergraduate biology major tampered with StagWeb’s BANNER grading system to adjust his final grades shortly before graduation.
The identity and name of the student, though, has yet to be released by Public Safety or the University’s academic office.

According to a report released by academic Vice President Orin Grossman, the student abused his privileges as an employee of the University by obtaining StagWeb identification numbers of six of his professors. He then reset the passwords of each of his professors individually, using StagWeb’s default privacy settings.

‘When faculty members enter grades in StagWeb, there is a window of time before those grades are rolled into BANNER by the Registrar’ office,’ said Grossman in a memorandum to all faculty members.

‘The student gained access during that window of time and changed six grades,’ he said.
The student’s rouse became apparent to a professor shortly before graduation, who subsequently filed a report with the University.

‘A colleague of mine discovered that there had been a grade change,’ said a professor who requested anonymity. ‘She went back on a subsequent day to enter other [undergraduate] grades and discovered that the grade had been changed.’

A tampering charge was then filed via Public Safety, an immediate investigation among university offices began, and the student’s degree was eventually withheld.

The incident, though, was far from isolated. While four of the grades changed involved the student’s courses in the spring semester of 2008, two professors discovered inconsistencies with his final grades from the previous fall semester.

Additionally, access to a faculty member’s StagWeb account pertains to far more than just student grades.

The student potentially had access to ‘faculty social security numbers, bank account information, retirement portfolios, [and] student degree evaluations of the professor’s former students and advisees’ through the faculty version of StagWeb, according to a professor involved in the incident.

‘Information, such as the social security numbers of all professors, should not be available,’ the professor added.

Grossman confirmed that ‘in principal’ access to the information was potentially available.

However, he added that a review of computer access logs by Computer and Networking Services maintained that the student had only adjusted grades and did not tamper with other information.

Several other discrepancies, though, exist in the story.

Richard DeWitt, a professor in the philosophy department, was particularly surprised that Grossman’s memo mentioned a cross-functional investigation involving ‘a broad consultation within the university.’

‘The [Grossman] memo mentioned that there was broad consultation,’ said DeWitt. ‘But there was no consultation with the faculty involved.’

Grossman, though, maintained that incidents of academic dishonesty extend beyond the jurisdiction of faculty members, and that the decision ultimately belonged in the hands of the administration.

‘The professors had submitted their grades,’ said Grossman. ‘Once a grade is handed in, it is out of the professors’ hands.’

Grossman added, ‘Professors were victimized by this situation, and you don’t want to ask someone who has been victimized recommendations on how to deal with an issue. You need an independent voice.’

In addition, there was apparent displeasure among professors with the end result.
Grossman’s investigation committee, after discussing the issue extensively with administration and the individual, ultimately decided to mark the adjusted grades on the student’s transcript as ‘W,’ or withdrawn.

The student’s academic profile will have a full account of the incident and will be revealed in future background checks. However, he receives no penalty in terms of GPA and will have no record of the incident on his course records.

Furthermore, the administration ultimately decided to allow the student to remain a part of the Fairfield community and complete his degree, ironically, via the Internet through University College.

‘It’s an outrage,’ said DeWitt. ‘If I was a student, I would be particularly upset with this result.’

DeWitt added, ‘There have been far less serious cases of academic dishonesty that have received far harsher penalties.’

Grossman, though, felt that ‘the punishment was severe enough’ and that he had no intentions of ‘ruining the person’s life.’

‘At a certain point, a feeling of cura personalis sets in,’ Grossman said. ‘Hopefully he’ll have learned something.’

In addition to Grossman’s decision, faculty that were directly involved are particularly bothered by the procedural process of the investigation.

‘As soon as one of my colleagues found out about the grade discrepancy, we reported it to the Chair [of the Department,] who then wrote a letter and reported it to Public Safety and the Academic Vice President,’ said a professor who wished to remain anoynymous.

‘[The administration] took it from there and, basically, we were never informed of anything besides that,’ said the professor.

DeWitt echoed similar sentiments in terms of the investigation’s time line.

‘About May 10 we received a one to two sentence e-mail regarding the issues and the particulars,’ said DeWitt. ‘Almost two and a half months later, we received word of the finalized story. Faculty was not even informed that their identities has been impersonated.’

DeWitt felt that the administration was not being secretive, but rather blatantly ignored faulty input regarding what he referred to as ‘the most extreme case of action that falls under academic dishonesty I’ve ever seen.’

‘We should have been informed of the investigation,’ said DeWitt.

‘In terms of the punishment, if the University decided that [allowing him to continue through University College] was the best course of action, the faculty would not have been happy.’

‘But to be entirely left out of the loop is outrageous,’ said DeWitt.

Grossman did concede that he regretted the lack of contact between the administration and the faculty directly involved regarding the investigation.

‘That’s something I regret and I apologize,’ said Grossman.

As if the story itself or the administration’s decision is not provocative enough, one intriguing fact still stands: no one on campus knows.

‘There should’ve been notification to everyone ‘- faculty, students, staff,’ said DeWitt.
‘In retrospect, it could’ve been a positive experience, a learning experience,’ said a professor. ‘The administration could have said that things of this nature will not be tolerated.’

While it is uncertain as to the whether a valuable lesson has been learned or justice has been served, one glaring truth exists: A student sits behind a keyboard yet again to finish a degree.