 |
The following is part of the Department of Computer Science Lab Use Policy. This portion tries to attach tangible penalties to lab abuse. At the Department level, penalties have two components: a suspension of account privileges and a service fee charged for reinstating an account.
Penalties, in the form of short account suspensions, are used as punishment for abusing that account. Short account suspensions are practical and appropriate penalties where access to the resource which was abused is withheld. Although an account suspension of 6 working days or less may affect a student's ability to complete an assignment on time and thus becomes an academic "inconvenience", it is considered short enough as not to jeopardize a student's ability to complete a course, term or program and thus cannot be construed as a formal Academic penalty. Longer account suspensions will be reserved as formal Academic penalties as a result of a more formal Academic or non-academic offense procedure conducted at the Department, College or University levels.
The Department incurs serious loss of staff time when investigating lab policy violations. This policy recognizes the costs and our need to recover some of them in the form of a reinstatement fee charged to a student when that student has been found to be in violation of the Lab Policy.
In addition to Department level procedures and penalties, lab policy violations may also be forwarded to other campus and/or non-campus authorities for their review and possible action.
The major goal of these procedures is to increase the level of compliance with the Department of Computer Science Computer Lab Use Policy (Lab Policy) and thereby reduce the amount of staff time expended in enforcement. The recommended procedures include: recording procedures to log and review violations, prespecified courses of action that must be taken, and tangible costs associated with punishment. The Department hopes that these procedures will help reduce the recent trend of increased abuse of the computer systems.
The Department believes that the vast majority of our students do not and will not maliciously violate lab policies. These procedures try to deter violations (especially repeated and/or severe violations) and to recover some fraction of the real cost of such violations from those directly responsible. Further, this policy makes it much clearer to students that a standard, fair, and equitable process will be applied in all cases.
When a policy violation is suspected, the Department must determine the level of of severity of the offense. Based on the severity of the offense, there are 4 possible charges an offender may face: Official Warning (WARNING), First Minor (MINOR1), Second Minor (MINOR2), or Major (MAJOR).
Three dimensions will be evaluated, in sequence, to determine the severity of an offense and thereby the charge the offender will face. The result of evaluating a dimension is the minimum charge the offender will face. The minimum charge determined by the first dimension is used as the starting point in the second dimension. Evaluating the second dimension may result in: the same charge as, or a more serious charge than, the one determined by the first dimension. The third dimension is used to increase a charge to MAJOR if circumstances dictate.
The first dimension is that of prior history or prior record.
if offender has a previous MAJOR
then minimum charge is MAJOR
else if offender has a previous MINOR2
then minimum charge is MAJOR
else if offender has a previous MINOR1
then minimum charge is MINOR2
else if offender has a previous WARNING
then minimum charge is MINOR1
else if offender has no prior record
then if under certain conditions (see 5.1.2) where formal
penalties would serve no useful purpose
then minimum charge is WARNING
else minimum charge is MINOR1
The second dimension is the evaluation of a set of attributes of the offense under consideration. The attributes are listed by name followed by a rough set of keyword descriptors in order of increasing significance. An offense whose attributes are all low in significance will likely not see an increase in the charge determined by the first dimension. However, an offense which has one or more highly significant attributes or many moderately significant attributes may have the charge, as determined by the first dimension, increased.
These attributes include:
apparent goal of activity: experimental, exposition, manipulation, personal gain;
desired effect: joke, teasing, irritating, provoking, abusive, vulgar, harassing (racial, sexual, other), threatening, violent;
actual effect: same possibilities as desired effect;
frequency pattern: isolated/targeted, sampling, pervasive;
number of similar or separate incidents: one, several, many;
resources consumed: minimal, substantial, many;
topographical pattern: one machine, Computer Science, Campus, off campus;
attitude portrayed and level of trickery: timid, casual, secretive, challenging, malicious;
(and) involvement of others: solo mission, duping others, enticing others, group organization.
At this time, exact specifications on what significance thresholds will be used for these attributes in deciding if an offense warrants a higher charge are not given. However, the Department intends that a consistent evaluation of the spirit of this dimension will be used and a case log of precedents will be established.
The third dimension is partly based on the results of the first two and partly based on the need to rationalize the offense within the existing policies, regulations and procedures of the University and the Provincial and Federal Statutes. An offense is automatically considered MAJOR if it constitutes:
an illegal act,
Academic Dishonesty, Other Academic Offense, or a Non-Academic offense as defined in [1] , or
a violation of other University Policies or Procedures such a [2] or [3].
For those who find it difficult to understand what types of offenses would result in an offender facing a particular charge, some examples are given below. The Department does not intend that these examples be used as points of reference, arguments for defense or for defining by exclusion what users are allowed to do with impunity. Simply understand that these examples are at least in the stated categories but that based an evaluation of the three dimensions above, more serious charges may actually result.
Some examples of a first minor (MINOR1) offense are:
a solitary forged mail message,
playing games when the lab is full,
logging into a machine and letting a friend use your account,
running IRC, MUDD or other multi-user network server on prohibited machines,
running compute, memory or disk intensive programs on enough machines to the point that other's access is hindered.
Some example of a second minor offense (MINOR2) are:
an offender who has previously been officially documented as committing a first minor offense and has now committed another minor offense, or
if the offender committed two minor offenses before the staff detected any offenses,
forging more than one mail message,
giving out your password so a friend can regularly use your account,
running more than one IRC, MUDD or other multiuser network server on prohibited machines,
forging one mail message and letting someone else use your account
logging into someone else's account and sending a forged mail message
Some examples of major offenses (MAJOR) are:
intentionally crashing a multi-user system for personal gain or subversive purposes,
cracking, guessing or otherwise acquiring passwords to other accounts,
circumventing logging or security facilities,
mail bombing - automatically resending forged and/or abusive messages,
scanning or probing a system in order to determine weaknesses,
monitoring network traffic without permission,
transmitting unsolicited commercial or personal advertisements, solicitations or promotions in a mass or bulk mail manner.
repeated offenses, ie the offender has previously been officially documented as committing a MAJOR or MINOR2 offense
the details of the case indicate that the offense constitutes Academic dishonesty such as obtaining advance copies of exams or solution keys, plagiarism, cheating, or "ghost writing"
acquiring superuser, administrator or operator status on a machine without permission
violation of the Campus Copyright Compliance Policy such as illegally copying or pirating software
violation of the Campus Sexual Harassment Policy
intentionally and needlessly preventing other users from accessing the system,
unauthorized logging into other accounts on or off campus
destruction, moving, viewing or alteration of data, files, information or transmissions which are not your own and to which you have not been formally granted access
The Department will establish a Lab Policy Violations Review Committee which will meet as necessary to hear reports of violations. The Committee will include, at a minimum, the lab manager, a faculty member, and any relevant staff members. The Department Head will be notified of all Committee meetings.
In all cases where a staff member(s) suspects a lab policy violation has occurred, the staff member(s) will suspend the account immediately and as soon as possible discuss the situation with at least one other staff member for a potentially minor (MINOR1 or MINOR2) offense, and with at least two others for a potentially major (MAJOR) offense. If upon further examination, the suspicion is shown to be unfounded, the account will be reinstated without further action. If the staff members agree that there is a reasonably good chance that a violation has occurred, the account will remain suspended in order to cause the account holder to visit a staff member for an interview about the matter. At that time, the primary investigating staff member(s) involved will inform the student that they are being charged with an offense and the initial classification of the severity of the offense. Depending on the initial classification, events proceed as follows.
If upon interviewing the student, the staff member(s) feel that the student's naivete with regards to the situation is sufficiently high, that the chances of this individual being a repeat offender is sufficiently low, and that the overall impact of the incident is negligible, a Lab Policy Violation Report Form is signed by the student and the staff indicating that the student has been officially warned and they will take due care and consideration of their actions in the future.
The WARNING charge has been implemented as a method of educating unwary students without any cost to them. Thus, the Department anticipates that there is no need for agreement by the student that they have committed an offense and as well there is no need for an appeal of an official WARNING.
The student is interviewed by the investigating staff member(s). There are several possible outcomes.
MI.1 It is determined that the student did not violate the policy.
MI.2 It is determined that the student did indeed violate the policy and the student agrees.
MI.3 It is determined that the student did indeed violate the policy and the student disagrees. The account suspension remains in effect and a meeting of the Lab Policy Violations Review Committee will be called to review the case with the student. There are three possible subsequent outcomes:
MI.3.1 The committee agrees with the student that the policy was not violated.
MI.3.2 The committee determines that the policy was indeed violated, and the student agrees.
MI.3.3 The committee determines that the policy was indeed violated, and the student disagrees. The student account suspension remains in effect and the student is directed to address any further appeals to the Department Head. At this point it is the Head who mediates between the Committee and the student. If the case is particularly unresolvable, the Head may choose to make a referral to the Associate Dean (Academic). The Department will retain complete records of the incident until its final resolution because the College and/or other Authority may order a copy of them for their review of the case.
In outcomes MI.1 and MI.3.1, the case is summarily dropped with no official record of the incident being kept. In outcomes MI.2 and MI.3.2, the student and the staff member(s) will sign a Lab Policy Violation Report Form which states that the student admits that they (in the generalized singular sense of a student) violated the policy and that they reaffirm that they will comply with the policy in the future. The form and record of the incident will be officially retained by the Department for use in any subsequent disciplinary action. The information pertaining to the incident may be forwarded to a third party if other campus policies and regulation or laws so require. The student is assessed a $20 account reinstatement fee. The account will remain suspended for approximately 2 working days from the day the form is signed. Receipt of the fee by the Department will be required before the account is reinstated.
If a student is believed to be responsible for a second minor offense the above procedure (that of the first minor offense) will be followed. The possible outcomes are the same, however, the penalties in outcomes MI.2 and MI.3.2 will be higher with: a) an official notice will be issued to the student that they have demonstrated a pattern of repeated violation of the laboratory policy and that any subsequent offense will be automatically considered a major offense and b) the account will remain suspended for approximately 4 working days from the day the form is signed. The reinstatement fee will again be $20 and receipt of the fee by the Department will be required before the account is reinstated.
If during the initial interview, it appears to the investigating staff member(s) that the student is indeed a major offender, a meeting is scheduled for as soon as possible with the student and at least 2 staff members to discuss the particulars. There are several possible outcomes.
MA.1 It is determined that the student did not violate the policy.
MA.2 It is determined that the student did indeed violate the policy and the student agrees.
MA.3 It is determined that the student did indeed violate the policy and the student disagrees. The account suspension remains in effect and a meeting of the Lab Policy Violations Review Committee will be called to review the case with the student. There are three possible subsequent outcomes:
MA.3.2 The committee determines that the policy was indeed violated, and the student agrees.
MA.3.3 The committee determines that the policy was indeed violated, and the student disagrees. The student account suspension remains in effect and the student is directed to address any further appeals to the Department Head. At this point it is the Head who mediates between the Committee and the student. If the case is particularly unresolvable, the Head may choose to make a referral to the Associate Dean (Academic). The Department will retain complete records of the incident until its final resolution because the College and/or other Authority may order a copy of them for their review of the case.
In outcomes MA.1 and MA.3.1, the case is summarily dropped with no official record of the incident being kept. In outcomes MA.2 and MA.3.2, the student and the staff member(s) will sign a Lab Policy Violation Report Form which states that the student admits that they (in the generalized singular sense of a student) violated the policy and that they reaffirm that they will comply with the policy in the future. The student is advised that any further violations of the lab policy will automatically be considered a MAJOR offense. The form and record of the incident will be officially retained by the Department for use in any subsequent disciplinary action. The information pertaining to the incident may be forwarded to a third party if other campus policies and regulation or laws so require. The student is assessed a $20 account reinstatement fee. The account will remain suspended for approximately 6 working days from the day the form is signed. Receipt of the $20 fee by the Department will be required before the account is reinstated.
In addition, in all cases of MAJOR offenses, the Department Head will be notified and advised by the staff as to the nature of the offense. Using the spirit of the guidelines given in [1] (and presented here in a lightly edited and summarized manner), the Department Head will decide if the offense is one or more of:
Academic Dishonesty where the intended and/or actual result of the offense resulted in the possibility that the student received or aided other students to receive academic gain or advantage through theft; plagiarism; misrepresentation; ghost writing; cheating; concocting results; distortion of the truth; passing off an expression of another's ideas as their own; resubmission of previously submitted material for course credit; etc.,
Other Academic Offense where a student is responsible for giving false or misleading academic information; forgery or falsification of records; unauthorized removal, damaging, rendering useless or destruction of laboratory material or equipment; hindering or depriving access by others to University resources; interference with the orderly conduct of classes, lectures or laboratories; interference with the freedom of others to communicate, discuss or explore ideas; interference with the ability of others to reasonably use University facilities; interference with freedom from discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion; unjustified invasion of privacy of others private space or material; certain incidents of illegal activity, or
Non-Academic offense which may involve incidents of illegal activity; student pranks; damage or threats to University resources, property, data, transmissions or information.
It should be noted that because the charge is MAJOR, the Department Head will automatically conclude that, at a minimum, by repeated and/or serious Lab Policy violations either:
the offender's "actions deprive other members of the University of their opportunity to have access to ... laboratories" [1] and thus will be considered an "Other Academic Offense" or
the offender's actions threaten the integrity, usability, and/or safety of the laboratory as University property and thus will be considered a "Non-Academic offense" [1].
Based in the Department Head's classification of the offense, the associated penalties may be resolved at one or more of the following levels: Course, Department, College, University, Campus Authority, or Legal Authority. Depending on the nature of the offense, proceeding at more than one level simultaneously may be desirable or necessary. As a specific example, just as the theft of a key to acquire an advance copy of an exam from an office has both a criminal and academic nature, accessing a professor's exam files by unauthorized access to their computer account also has a criminal and academic nature.
It is also felt at the University level that not all new students understand the seriousness of academic and non-academic offenses and therefore this document along with the laboratory policy are indications of the fact that "The main purpose of the University is to encourage and facilitate the pursuit of knowledge and scholarship. The attainment of this purpose requires the individual integrity of all scholars. Cheating [and more generally, all offenses] in whatever form is ultimately destructive of the values of the University and discouraging to the majority of students who pursue their studies honestly. The University thus states that it demands scholarly integrity from all its members and it will impose sanctions on those who directly or indirectly contribute to the weakening of this integrity" [1].
In cases of academic dishonesty at the course level, the instructor has the authority to impose grading penalties commensurate with the offense(s) that has occurred. If the offense(s) occurred in connection with a majority of the course value, then an instructor may be in a position to assign a failing grade. If the instructor feels that assigning lower grades on the affected course component is not sufficient, they must then bring the case to the College Committee on Academic Dishonesty to have a greater penalty imposed. In addition to course penalties, Academic dishonesty can be penalized at the Department level by the Department Head ordering an account suspension of longer than the mandatory 6 working days applied to MAJOR offenses. If the Department Head feels that term or permanent suspension is most appropriate, the College Committee on Academic Dishonesty will be presented with the case.
In cases of other academic offenses and non-academic offenses, the Department head may order a suspension of the account longer than the mandatory 6 working days applied to MAJOR offenses. If the Department head feels that a term or permanent suspension is most appropriate, the Associate Dean (Academic) will be presented with the case. The Associate Dean (Academic) may choose to support the Department Head in the proposed duration of account suspension or may choose to forward the case to the Council Committee on Academic Offenses in the case of an other academic offense or to the "Board for Student Discipline" in the case of a non-academic offense.
In cases where facilities are damaged or threatened or persons are injured, harassed or threatened, Security Services may be called to intervene by anyone involved with or observing the incident. They will then conduct their own separate investigation in conjunction with the "Board for Student Discipline". The Department will support and facilitate their investigation including provision of any evidence they require.
In cases of a sexual harassment complaint by an individual, the case will be referred to the Sexual Harassment Office. They will then conduct their own separate mediation and investigation as specified in [3]. The Department will support and facilitate their investigation including provision of any evidence they require.
In cases where laws are broken, Legal Authorities may be called to intervene by anyone involved with or observing the incident. They will conduct their own separate investigation. The Department will support and facilitate their investigation including provision of any evidence they require.
The following set of possible outcomes at the College and University levels were taken from [1]. They have been lightly edited for the purposes of this document. These outcomes, as listed here, are not to be used as the actual set of possible outcomes. They are listed here simply for information purposes only. For exact wording, refer to [1], and refer to the Office of the Registrar for any further clarification.
The College Committee on Academic Dishonesty, after reviewing any case forwarded to it, may
dismiss the case or assess one or more of the following penalties
censure or reprimand the student(s)
assign a mark of zero for the assignment, test, or examination involved in a case of dishonesty
assign failure or cancellation of credit for any course in respect of which the offense was committed; or
refer the case to the Council Committee on Academic Offenses. If the Council Committee remits the case back for decision, the College committee shall hear the matter and then either dismiss the case or impose one of the above penalties.
The Council Committee on Academic Offenses, after reviewing any case forwarded to it may
dismiss the case or assess one or more of the following penalties
officially censure the student
award any of the penalties available to a College Committee
assess a fine and/or require restitution for damage
suspend the student for any period
expel the student, or
refer the matter for legal action, or
refer the matter for legal action and assess any of the penalties above.
The Board for Student Discipline, after reviewing any case forwarded to it, and after consulting with the Advisory Committee to the University Security Services, may
dismiss the matter completely or assess one or more of the following penalties
require restitution for damage to property either monetary or otherwise,
impose fines,
evict from residence,
officially censure the student
suspend student(s) for periods of less than one year,
suspend student(s) for any period,
expel student(s)
refer the matter over for legal action.
The Department of Security Services has a very broad mandate with a wide range of punitive options available to it. The set of possible outcomes, as a result of their investigations, is not available to the author at this time. However, interested individuals should contact the Department of Security Services.
In cases of Sexual Harassment, the Sexual Harassment Officer has a predefined set of procedures to follow and the possible outcomes from those procedures are defined in the Campus Policy on Sexual Harassment [2].
In addition to the Department level appeal process defined in this policy, the student can appeal courses of action and resolutions as specified in [1]. As well, at any time, the student may consult with and receive advice from the University's Student Services Office (Vera Pezer, VP).
The Department hopes that these proposed procedures appear fair and equitable to both the student and the lab staff. As well, the Department hopes that they will encourage compliance with the Lab Policy.
The structure of these procedures separates the lab-based penalties from academic, non-academic, and legal penalties as they are separate issues. Lab-based penalties are for violations of the Lab Policy whereas other penalties are for violations of other regulations and laws. It is important as well, that students are made aware of the other procedures and penalties that may apply, beyond the Department level, to any incident involving the violation of the Department's Lab Policy.
These procedures also recognizes the unproductive effort exerted by staff in order to resolve Lab Policy violations. Reinstatement fees, although not even at cost recovery levels, are important as deterrents. Escalating account suspension durations imposes increasing costs (in the form of academic inconvenience) for abusing a flat fee resource. This is necessary to rapidly curb abusive action.
University of Saskatchewan University Council & College Regulations on Examinations and Student Grievances, Appeals & Discipline Regulations available in the online course calendar.
The University of Saskatchewan's Policy on Discrimination and Harassment available from University of Saskatchewan Discrimination and Harassment Services.
University Copyright Compliance - Software Licenses available from the Office of the University Secretary.
Written by Brian ven der Buhs, October 1995; reformatted by Ken Sailor, August 2008.
