‘All of the faculty are on the same page,’ Glenn Sauer said as he shifted his glasses upward.
Well over three months have passed since Sauer, chair of the biology department, received an alarming phone call.
‘I was the bridge,’ Sauer said, recalling his role in the StagWeb grade-changing incident. ‘Once we realized the magnitude of it, I contacted Dr. Grossman and the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.’
‘First, the professor who saw the discrepancy alerted me. Sure enough, the first thing I did was look at my grades and saw that one of them was different,’ said Sauer.
He added that other biology faculty who had the student were notified and told to check their grades. Two additional grade changes were found in the first semester of the academic year.
In the opinion of Sauer and the majority of the professors involved, the lack of faculty involvement from that point forward is troubling.
‘Technically, a situation like this is in Dr. Grossman’s domain,’ Sauer said. ‘But we feel that we should have been notified right away. There really should’ve been more frequent and direct communication.’
Professor Richard DeWitt of the philosophy department echoed similar sentiments, but even went as far as to say that certain guidelines do exist in the University’s current Academic Handbook that mandate more faculty involvement.
‘In terms of procedure, there is one in place for things like academic dishonesty,’ DeWitt said. ‘Dr. Grossman suggested that academic dishonesty guidelines do not cover this case, which they [do].’
DeWitt’s reference is directed towards Fairfield’s Undergraduate Course catalogue, which mandates a definition of academic dishonesty, as well as a step-by-step procedural system following an incident.
First, the catalogue defines ‘falsification of academic records or grades’ and ‘falsification or fabrication of data’ as forms of academic dishonesty.
According to the catalogue, ‘in the event of such dishonesty, the professors may record an ‘F’ for the course’ and ‘when appropriate, expulsion may be recommended.’
As for Grossman’s final decision itself, Sauer felt that the punishment certainly does not meet the level of the crime.
‘The faculty failure in the course would be a more appropriate response,’ Sauer said, in response to Grossman’s decision to mark the final grade as ‘withdrawn.’
‘I hope that in the future there will be more serious consequences for this type of violation.”
Disappointment in Grossman’s verdict, though, has not precluded faculty from discussing ways in which issues like this can, in the words of DeWitt, ‘be evaluated more carefully.’
In response to the incident, a subcommittee of the Academic Council, the central board of elected faculty and administrative members that discusses academic issues and formulates policy, has been formed and will hold a meeting later this month.
The committee plans to discuss this case, its repercussions, and its impact on future policy.
Sauer and DeWitt are just a few of the direct faculty members involved in the StagWeb incident that plan to take part in this subcommittee.
In addition, an Educational Technology Committee [ETC], comprised of administrative officials and members of Computer and Network Services, is meeting to discuss possible changes to the StagWeb program.
The ETC’s first response will be to eliminate the problematic window that permitted the student to access StagWeb’s Banner grade system.
They will also contemplate other changes as well in order to make the system more secure.
In the meantime, it seems as if the issue will continue to be a hot-bed for comments among faculty members and administration alike.
‘I’ve received a ton of e-mails already from faculty,’ DeWitt said. ‘I’ve heard a lot of, ‘I can’t believe it. I didn’t have any idea.”
Leave a Reply