Most people embrace the principles of fairness in theory. The golden rule of ‘treat others as you would like to be treated’ likely accounts for this, however it is not uncommon for decision-makers to act unfairly. Why is this? 

Consider the following anonymized scenario developed from a conglomeration of case data. Details have been changed to protect identifying information.

Emily receives an email from her Department Chair with the following: “Your professor has brought to my attention that you may have used generative AI for your final assignment. Please come to my office in two days time to discuss. Please see UVic’s Academic Integrity Policy linked here.” 

In the two days that she nervously waits, Emily wonders how to prepare. She really can’t imagine why her assignment has been brought into question. She feels intimidated, so she doesn’t ask for more details. She’s worried she’ll get in more trouble for asking. She is embarrassed too, so she doesn’t ask anyone for support. 

During the meeting, the Chair points to the passages that concern him. He prompts Emily to explain why her paper was flagged with “multiple AI detectors”. He presses her to explain how her writing is more sophisticated in this assignment than in her previous assignments. The Chair shows her that he has compared this assignment to her others and, in his opinion, it looks like a different author wrote them. Emily maintains she did nothing wrong, because, in truth, she didn’t use AI to write the assignment. She hasn’t had the time to digest the information the Chair is showing her and she cannot come up with coherent answers on the spot. She’s nervous. She knows what she is saying sounds unconvincing, because she doesn’t have anything to back it up. Emily leaves the meeting feeling overloaded and wishing she could have explained herself better. She didn’t cheat, but it seems like a forgone conclusion now. She knows that it must be a big misunderstanding, but feels like if she speaks out about the unfairness, it will seem accusatory and may worsen the situation. In the end, she stays quiet as the Chair holds her fate in his hands. 

Based on the professor’s allegations and the fact that he received no logical explanation from Emily, the Chair decides that a fail is warranted.

In this scenario, Emily struggled to articulate a compelling defence under time pressure. This is not because she did something wrong — remember, she did not actually infringe the policy. Her unconvincing defence and ultimate guilty finding were caused largely by an unfair process. The Chair did not provide her meaningful details of the allegations, did not specify exactly what portion of the policy he thinks she broke, and did not acknowledge the vast power differential at play. In fact, he utilized his institutional power to pressure her to respond in the moment, which did not afford Emily a fair opportunity to participate in the process. 

The Chair has denied Emily the opportunity to bring into question the validity of the AI detectors, provide meaningful counter evidence, and seek support appropriate to the seriousness of the allegations. Although these types of scenarios may arise from oversight or overwork, reliance on evidence elicited from an “ambush” is unjust and improper. In sum, the Chair’s decision is wrong and Emily feels deeply aggrieved.  

This scenario is not uncommon at UVic. As such, I wish to underscore the necessity of ensuring students subject to misconduct decisions are not treated like Emily and are instead given a proper opportunity to participate in the process. 

At UVic, a misconduct meeting is often a blend of two concepts. On one hand, a meeting is an interrogation, where information is solicited by asking a student to attend and answer questions. And simultaneously, it is hearing (or trial), where the decision-maker is tasked with balancing both sides of the story and coming to a decision. This is where the student has the chance to explain how the allegations are wrong, or how the situation isn’t how it seems on the surface.

Extrapolate further to the world outside of the University and apply this scenario to the court system. Imagine your distress, if you were brought to a criminal trial with no (or very little) foreknowledge of the allegations. This is your only chance to defend yourself and you don’t even know what you are alleged to have done. This method, as you can imagine, may save time, but would likely result in the judge getting it wrong. At a minimum, you would feel that the process was deeply unfair. 

The right to participate in a decision making process and tell your side of the story is essential to a fair and just process. Even if a student has committed an act of academic misconduct in actuality, they must be afforded the right to participate. Because without, the process loses both legitimacy and integrity. 

In theory, students who experience an unfair process can appeal to a higher authority. In reality, appeal timelines can be prohibitive and the effort required by the student immense. It also requires an additional decision-maker(s) to review. In fact, once the student has been subject to an injustice, the damage is often already done. Distrust, anger, and disillusionment amongst students treated unfairly is common — and an appeal weeks later does little to heal these wounds. 

Misconduct meetings (both interrogation and hearing) take place all around UVic — may it be within the academic departments, residence, or within student support units. Regardless of the setting, whenever a student is subject to a decision as to if they infringed a policy, they must be provided the opportunity to meaningfully participate. To do otherwise, is an injustice.