Timeline for A student who asked me to write a rec letter seems to have committed academic dishonesty in my class, what do I do?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 17, 2020 at 6:42 | comment | added | cag51♦ | Well, I think it would be unethical to "not mention" a major incident of proven academic misconduct. Normally, one would simply tell the student "in light of this, it's probably best for you to seek another recommender." The trouble here is that the letter is due in 48 hours, so it's unlikely that another recommender can be found. Hence, my suggestion to give the a student who confesses the option of either (a) no letter, or (b) a mixed letter that mentions the incident (personally, I think either of these is better for the student than a glowing letter that gets rescinded after the trial). | |
| Dec 17, 2020 at 6:11 | comment | added | TravisJ | As for the third bullet at the end (cheater confesses and write a letter reflecting the incident), if you cannot write a positive letter of rec it is (somewhat) unethical the write a letter of rec. Agreeing to write the letter implies it will be positive (how positive and personal obviously vary), but unless you plan to convey some aspect of what they did here in a positive light you should not mention it. | |
| Dec 17, 2020 at 5:07 | comment | added | cag51♦ | Hmmm....I do not see how; if a cheater doubles down and is convicted, the professor will tell the school that they are revoking their letter due to the student's academic dishonesty....it is hard to think of a more serious penalty (indeed, the seriousness of this penalty is why I am so convinced that OP should consider all other options, including meeting with the student, before committing to the "send-now-and-rescind-if-convicted" plan that many commenters seem to favor). | |
| Dec 17, 2020 at 4:39 | comment | added | eps | Ironically this answer would penalize a cheater who came clean and reward a cheater who doubled down. | |
| Dec 15, 2020 at 18:12 | comment | added | cag51♦ | @Brian - fair enough, I removed the Zoom reference (not sure why it matters so much to you, but I agree, no need to specify a particular software). As for "step 2", I am going to stick by my answer there; I never once referred a case to the dean without first meeting with the student (usually, these meetings went well, and we were able to agree on a grade-related penalty + official warning [in case it happened again in a different class] rather than referring the matter to a formal trial...though I recognize OP may have less discretion depending on their local rules). | |
| Dec 15, 2020 at 17:57 | history | edited | cag51♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Dec 15, 2020 at 13:17 | comment | added | Brian Drake | -1 for the Zoom reference. It doesn't even need to be a video call. Just say "urgent, important call". Even better, remove step 2 entirely. I think the answer itself, plus the comments above, provide compelling reasons to do so. | |
| Dec 15, 2020 at 6:38 | history | edited | cag51♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 445 characters in body
|
| Dec 15, 2020 at 3:15 | comment | added | cag51♦ | @Araucaria: First, I would ask you not to make personal attacks. I certainly do not think it is fair to say that I have "no regard for the well being or mental health of the student." Second, while situations like this are always stressful for the accused, the alternative is saying "I submitted a glowing recommendation as you requested, but I will revoke it if you are convicted" - to me, that seems just as stressful, and it does not allow the student to consider other options (though I admit their options are limited). Finally, if you disagree with my answer, you are welcome to write your own. | |
| Dec 15, 2020 at 2:53 | comment | added | user96809 | In addition, you don't seem to have any regard for the well being or mental health of the student. You would need some considerable justification for putting them in this Russian roulette situation. Having read everything you've written here, as it currently stands, I would strongly recommend against a student putting you down as a referee. | |
| Dec 15, 2020 at 2:50 | comment | added | user96809 | You say " if A is innocent, affording them the opportunity to make this substitution (and lower the stakes of their trial) would be fairest" <-- You are strongly implying that even though A may be innocent, you would not only be willing to subject them to the risk of unjustly being found guilty, but you would a) also be happy for them, although innocent, to be forced to resort to their second, and therefore likely less favourable referee and b) be happy to subject them to blackmail (back off and don't protest your innocence or maybe get a bad recommendation or be unjustly found guilty). | |
| Dec 14, 2020 at 22:28 | comment | added | nara | I just want to add to what R..GitHubSTOPHELPINGICE pointed out again about #2: The student might be completely innocent (and frankly, no matter how certain you think your suspicions are, as long as it's not proven or confessed, A is innocent and the suspicions MUST NOT negatively impact the letter you write for them and your help with their application!). Keep in mind that many students already go through a lot applying for grad schools. In this situation, even having that conversation with them in the nicest way might be detrimental to their mental health (as well as their career). | |
| Dec 14, 2020 at 22:18 | comment | added | nara | If you go with #2 (which I think is not a good option at all), I think it'd only make sense if you fully write the letter without letting the suspicion affect how positive the letter is. Have that positive letter ready, assuming complete innocence, then talk to A. Unless something dramatic (e.g. confession to cheating) happens, don't modify the letter (unless you want to make it even more positive). I'm saying this because the reaction of A to the "confrontation", which almost certainly would take place in very poor conditions unfair to A, might leave a negative impression on you. | |
| Dec 14, 2020 at 20:20 | comment | added | cag51♦ | We're getting into the weeds a bit; the point was simply that A should be informed of the allegation so they can choose how to proceed. But to the question: my thought was that such a letter might already exist. For example, some schools accept an optional, fourth letter -- promoting this to the "third" letter might be doable; OP would only have to ask that additional copies be uploaded (even this is a significant request on short notice, but I would probably agree unless I legitimately didn't have time on that day). | |
| Dec 14, 2020 at 19:53 | comment | added | Gregor Thomas | "A may have another recommender they can easily substitute for the OP". On ~36 hours notice?? That seems highly unlikely. Do you write letters on such short notice? I would require a very compelling explanation of why the notice was so short before agreeing to do so. | |
| Dec 14, 2020 at 18:48 | comment | added | cag51♦ | Thanks for the comments. While I share your concerns about "rushing the process," I think the most important thing is to let A decide how to proceed. For example, A may have another recommender they can easily substitute for the OP; if A is innocent, affording them the opportunity to make this substitution (and lower the stakes of their trial) would be fairest. Still, I added a paragraph to my answer that warns against going too far in this meeting and creating an "abusive dynamic"; that is a legitimate concern. | |
| Dec 14, 2020 at 18:41 | history | edited | cag51♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 569 characters in body
|
| Dec 14, 2020 at 16:04 | comment | added | R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE | I disagree strongly with doing #2 before writing the letter. It's rusing a process and creating an extremely stressful (I would say abusive) dynamic over the urgency of the timing for the letter. Send the letter as promised, presuming innocence as you should, and follow the normal schedule for investigation. You can rescind the letter later if needed. | |
| Dec 14, 2020 at 13:49 | comment | added | Tripartio | Very tough situation, but I think "consider doing #2 ASAP" best covers the bases of moral responsibility. Great answer. | |
| Dec 14, 2020 at 7:25 | history | answered | cag51♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |