Sydney Martinez, Campus Carrier news editor

During the 2024-2025 school year, Provost David Slade charged a subcommittee of the academic council with reviewing the current Academic Integrity Violations and Appeals policy to offer students and faculty a more nuanced approach, according to a document summarizing the charge. The academic integrity committee has made a proposal that is now under review by the academic council.

“What I did was task an ad hoc committee of the academic council last year to review our current policy and design a policy that maintains high standards while offering a more educational, supportive and transparent approach to handling integrity violations,” Slade said.

Slade asked the committee to submit a report of their assessment of the current policy and suggestions for changes along with steps to amend the revision. The report was finalized this past April.

“We’re in the process of engaging the report and preparing it for presentation to the Academic Council this fall,” Slade said. “That will happen either in October or November.”

The current policy says that if a student has violated the academic integrity policy, faculty should notify the provost’s office in writing after they have spoken with the student and chosen a sanction, if any is chosen at all. The student can choose to appeal the decision made by the faculty member after it has been reviewed by the provost. 

Slade said the current policy is high stakes, which led him to charge an ad hoc committee on Academic Council with three goals: reducing the high-stakes nature of reporting, expanding the range of sanctions and clarifying the appeals process for students. 

“Right now, we treat all incidents the same,” Slade said. “Whether it is a misunderstanding or it is a gross act of cheating, the policy treats them the same.”

Slade said he has two hopes for this project, which would give faculty more autonomy in handling academic dishonesty as well as a clearer policy for students.

“One is that, yes, we will have a clearer, more flexible, more supportive and educational policy that will improve how we handle [academic integrity issues] both for students and faculty,” Slade said. “But the second big goal is that we’ll use this opportunity to have some good campus discussion about academic honesty, in just the importance of what this core value of trust is between faculty and students around academic work.”

The academic council includes two student representatives, whose role is to give a student’s perspective on possible academic changes. Kaylin Rezek, vice president of administration on the Student Government Association (SGA), was one of the students appointed to the academic council.

“My role is to listen, give any input on possible academic changes, possible changes with the academic council specifically,” Rezek said. “The vice president of administrations takes notes, gets all the information [from the meetings] and then shares that information with the student body at our [SGA] meetings. I bring the information from academic council [meetings] to share with students so they’re in the know about what changes are going on with all academics, and then I work with students to hear feedback.”

Rezek said that the student representatives are a core part of the academic council when it comes to making decisions that impact the education of students at Berry. 

“The role of students on the council is so important because I don’t believe the faculty and staff should be making decisions for students without that input,” Rezek said. 

Though artificial intelligence (AI) was not a primary motive in Slade’s decision to make this charge, it is still being considered as part of the possible changes. Slade said that the incorporation of AI tools should be factored in discussion about academic integrity, particularly regarding plagiarism or their inappropriate use.

“The charge is not exclusively about the use of AI, but it should at least account for and take into consideration how the use of AI tools might impact academic integrity,” Slade said. “I think [AI] has layered on complications for both faculty and students about academic integrity.”

Berry partnered with the American Association of Colleges and of Universities Institute to come up with recommendations on AI-related integrity issues for the possible policy update. Professors currently determine their own AI policy, which must be explicitly stated in their course syllabi.

“As things start to ramp up [with AI], I know there’s a lot of conversation on what is allowed and what’s not,” Rezek said. “Right now, it’s up to professors, faculty and staff to decide what they deem necessary for their class.”

The current policy review and suggested changes are only recommendations until the academic council makes a final decision on the revision. Slade said the review process will begin with a presentation in October or November of this year, but the official policy revision probably will not be decided upon until spring of this school year.

“We have to make a motion on what the policy should be and then have two meetings where we process that and have feedback and then eventually vote on it,” Slade said. “We will improve [the suggested changes] and have a vote that will happen at some point this year.”

Slade said that he is least interested in giving students sanctions, but rather giving them a learning opportunity.

“I’m most interested in students learning to value integrity for themselves and put it into practice,” Slade said. “When there are incidents [of academic dishonesty], that they can grow from that. Sometimes they have to be held accountable, but to do that in a way that’s responsive to what the situation actually is.”