Return to Answer

In your case there was no proof of wrongdoing and you were not punished. You shouldn't see that as a failure to apply a "beyond reasonable doubt" or other standard of proof. It's a success, the system worked. Generally speaking there should not be a standard of proof for students to even raise concerns, because if there were then students would be unable to get help establishing the evidence when they genuinely have been wronged.

In your case there was no proof of wrongdoing and you were not punished. You shouldn't see that as a failure to apply a "beyond reasonable doubt" or other standard of proof. It's a success, the system worked. Generally speaking there should not be a standard of proof for students to even raise concerns, because if there were then students would be unable to get help establishing the evidence when they genuinely have been wronged. At this stage of proceedings it's an inquisitorial not an adversarial system. Even in a serious case that moves to an adversarial venue, the student is not the prosecuting attorney and isn't responsible for proving the case.

Be wary of confirmation and selection biases, and be sure to remember in future that your past experiences now include this case, which was settled to your satisfaction. There doesn't need to be a cast-iron case against you before you're even asked for your account of what happened. Are you really saying that in past cases where you raised concerns of cheating that in the end were not proved, that you should not even have been permitted to raise the concern for further investigation until you'd assembled a convincing proof? A student is not the right person to have to put their sleuthing shoes on and assemble all the evidence in the case: your chair is.

In your case there was no proof of wrongdoing and you were not punished. You shouldn't see that as a failure to apply a "beyond reasonable doubt" or other standard or proof. Generally speaking there should not be a standard of proof for students to even raise concerns, because if there were then students would be unable to get help establishing the evidence when they genuinely have been wronged.

Be wary of confirmation and selection biases, and be sure to remember in future that your past experiences now include this case, which was settled to your satisfaction. There doesn't need to be a cast-iron case against you before you're even asked for your account of what happened. Are you really saying that in past cases where you raised concerns of cheating that in the end were not proved, that you should not even have been permitted to raise the concern for further investigation until you'd assembled a convincing proof? And that's with you in a position of some authority and with access to the student's work. A student is not the right person to have to put their sleuthing shoes on and assemble all the evidence in the case: your chair is.

In your case there was no proof of wrongdoing and you were not punished. You shouldn't see that as a failure to apply a "beyond reasonable doubt" or other standard of proof. It's a success, the system worked. Generally speaking there should not be a standard of proof for students to even raise concerns, because if there were then students would be unable to get help establishing the evidence when they genuinely have been wronged.

From past experiences (with cheating) I know that students almost always win ... [we should require] the students to prove that the professor indeed acted in a problematic way

Be wary of confirmation and selection biases, and be sure to remember in future that your past experiences now include this case, which was settled to your satisfaction. There doesn't need to be a cast-iron case against you before you're even asked for your account of what happened. Are you really saying that in past cases where you raised concerns of cheating that in the end were not proved, that you should not even have been permitted to raise the concern for further investigation until you'd assembled a convincing proof? A student is not the right person to have to put their sleuthing shoes on and assemble all the evidence in the case: your chair is.

In your case there was no proof of wrongdoing and you were not punished. You shouldn't see that as a failure to apply a "beyond reasonable doubt" or other standard or proof. Generally speaking there should not be a standard of proof for students to even raise concerns, because if there were then students would be unable to get help establishing the evidence when they genuinely have been wronged.