The chancellor's statement represents a compromise position. The heart of the chancellor's statement is a resolution on student participation passed in 1990 by the Faculty Senate, but not supported by the Student Senate. Subsequent debate on this matter in the Faculty Senate included discussion that it would be administratively difficult to enforce such a restriction in many areas of campus activities. The chancellor's memorandum of December 7 retains the language of the Faculty Senate resolution, but "urges," rather than "requires," compliance with the Faculty Senate guideline.
Currently, few consistent efforts are being made to monitor the extent of compliance with the Faculty Senate resolution. A survey of 107 student organizations in 1992 found that sixty-nine were unaware of the chancellor's statement "urging" compliance. Of the student organizations that said they enforced the Faculty Senate policy, most were in compliance because of organizational bylaws enacted independently of and prior to the Faculty Senate resolution (e.g., honorary societies). Currently, only student-athletes consistently comply with the Faculty Senate resolution, and this is because they answer to NCAA Bylaw 14.01.1, which limits competition to student-athletes who are in "good academic standing."
The policies governing the maintenance of good academic standing at NCSU are defined by the probationary portion of the current graduated-retention schedule, as instituted by the Faculty Senate in 1990. Students on Academic Warning I and II are considered to be in good academic standing; those on probation are considered not to be in good academic standing.
"Academic Warning I" means that a student's cumulative grade point average at NCSU is less than 2.0 but greater than that which would result in Academic Warning II on the graduated-retention schedule. It is assigned to students who have:
Credit hours
attempted at NCSU Cumulative grade Cumulative grade
plus credit hours point average greater point average
transferred than or equal to less than
------------------ --------------------- ----------------
1-35 1.6 2.0
36-47 1.7 2.0
48-59 1.8 2.0
60-71 1.9 2.0
"Academic Warning II" means that a student's cumulative grade point average at NCSU is below the minimum required for continuation under the next step in the graduated-retention schedule. It is assigned to students who have:
Credit hours
attempted at NCSU Cumulative grade Cumulative grade
plus credit hours point average greater point average
transferred than or equal to less than
------------------ --------------------- ----------------
1-35 1.5 1.6
36-47 1.6 1.7
48-59 1.7 1.8
60-71 1.8 1.9
72-83 1.9 2.0
"Suspension" means that a student has failed to meet the minimum eligibility standard for continued enrollment as an undergraduate student. A suspended student has failed to maintain the required grade point average for the number of credit hours attempted at NCSU plus transferred credit hours according to the following graduated-retention schedule:
"Probation" means that a student has failed to achieve the minimum cumulative grade point average required under the graduated-retention schedule and is not in good academic standing. Students on probation are allowed to enroll for one additional regular semester for the purpose of achieving the minimum cumulative grade point average as required under the graduated-retention schedule.
Credit hours Minimum required
attempted at NCSU cumulative grade point
plus credit hours average on all courses
transferred taken at NCSU
----------------- ---------------------
1-35 1.5
36-47 1.6
48-59 1.7
60-71 1.8
72-83 1.9
84 or more 2.0
Many believe that restrictions on participation in extracurricular activities for students who are not in good academic standing make senseespecially for time-consuming activities such as holding a major office in a fraternity or sorority, or being the president of a club. Furthermore, the disparity between what is required of student-athletes and other students seems unfair.
Recommendation 10.27: NCSU should adopt and enforce a policy that prevents any student who is on academic probation from serving in a leadership, performance, or representation role in any extracurricular activity.
The complete Code of Student Conduct and Regulations is a fifty-five page document funded by student government and published by the Department of Student Development. Revised in 1990 after two years of development with input from students, faculty and administrators, this thorough document clearly defines the jurisdiction of judicial bodies, the disciplinary responsibilities of institutional officials, and all disciplinary procedures [5.5.3.3.2]. The document contains the entire "Code of Student Conduct" as well as a "Procedures Manual for Implementing the Disciplinary Process" and a section on "Related University Policies and Regulations." Copies are mailed to all deans and department heads and are distributed when the coordinator of judicial programs makes presentations at faculty meetings. The section of the code related to academic dishonesty is reprinted in the Adviser's Handbook and the Faculty Handbook, and the complete Code of Student Conduct appears in the student government guidebook that is distributed to all new students during orientation. The coordinator of judicial programs, a staff member in the Department of Student Development who supervises the judicial boards and is responsible for implementing the Code of Student Conduct on campus, discusses the code during orientation sessions.
The chancellor of the University, authorized by the Board of Governors, has ultimate authority for student discipline. The chancellor may delegate disciplinary authority to appropriate administrators, committees, and organizations, and students who serve on student judicial boards. Members of the Student Judicial Boards are selected through a lengthy application and interview process and must meet high standards of academic achievement and personal character. Once selected, judicial board members undergo fifteen to thirty hours of pre-service and in-service training.
Acts of academic misconduct that are referred to the Office of Student Conduct are reviewed by an Academic Integrity Board. This board is convened by the coordinator of the Office of Student Conduct and consists of the chief justice, two student members, and two faculty members. Acts of non-academic misconduct can be referred to any one of four judicial boards. The Student-Faculty Hearing Board considers cases that may result in suspension or expulsion of students. The Residence Hall Judicial Board deals with acts that occur within residence halls or violate the Housing and Residence Halls Agreement. The Review Board deals with challenges of student government elections. The coordinator of the Office of Student Conduct can also convene special boards.
Table 10.8 provides a summary of the disposition of cases handled by the Office of Student Conduct.
A further breakdown of the specific kinds of cases heard and the judgments rendered in those cases is available in a report from Student Affairs.
Academic Cases 1991-92 1992-93-----------------------------------------
Guilty 32 47
Not guilty 0 4
Cases pending 1 6*
Suspensions** 6 0
Total academic 33 57
Nonacademic cases
-----------------------------------------
Guilty 296 383
Not guilty 30 55
Cases pending 31 71***
Suspensions** 6 3
Total nonacademic 35 509
Total number of cases 392 566
* Two cases have suspension recommendations pending and four are unresolved
** Suspensions are included in guilty findings *** One case has an expulsion recommendation pending, one is on interim suspension, six are being held in abeyance, 15 are on hold because the individuals are not enrolled and 48 are unresolved
Although the coordinator of judicial programs has shown leadership in disseminating information about the code to faculty, students and administrators, and has improved the process for selecting and training members of the student judicial boards, his efforts have been hampered by budget and staff constraints. The budget allocation from student government for printing copies of the complete Code of Student Conduct and Regulations is only $2,000, which allows for fewer than 2,000 copies of the manual to be printed each year. With a student body of nearly 27,500 and a faculty of 3,500, distribution of the complete manual is obviously limited.
Recommendation 10.28: NCSU should make copies of the Code of Student Conduct and Regulations more readily available to students.
Because the coordinator of judicial programs has no staff, he assumes sole responsibility for disseminating information about the code to students and faculty and sole staff responsibility for the student judicial system. After carrying out such responsibilities, he has only limited time for planning training activities and doing research relevant to the increasingly complex problems that cause students to be brought into the judicial system. The increase in the activities of the coordinator over the past few years have caused the system to be severely overloaded.
Recommendation 10.29: NCSU should provide support staff for the Office of Student Conduct so that it can educate the University community about the judicial system, conduct research on the extent of student misconduct, and deal with the increased caseload.
Many faculty decry the lack of a campuswide ethos at NCSU regarding academic integrity. In particular, they perceive a great deal of latitude across campus with regard to the monitoring of student behavior during tests and with regard to the reporting of offenses by students and faculty. There is currently a lot of hearsay and anecdotal information about cheating on campus, but little hard evidence. Evidence that the caseload of incidents brought before the student courts is increasing indicates, however, that the faculty perception may be correct. Furthermore, it is important to consider that data from the judicial system may understate the real situation, since the Academic Integrity Review Board deals only with incidents of student misconduct that are actually brought before them.
A number of bodies, including the Chancellor's Commission on Academic Integrity and the Faculty Senate, have tried to promote a general proactive approach to academic integrity. Recently, the chancellor has proposed that all students at the University sign an honor pledge to "ensure uniform implementation and emphasis on academic integrity across this campus" (see self-study library for a copy of the April 5, 1993, letter from the chancellor to the Faculty Senate). Acceptance of this policy would likely entail increasing the staff and budget of the Office of the Coordinator of Judicial Programs.
