Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
Minutes of the Departmental Meeting on November 27, 2007
Present: T. Arbel, B. Boulet, L. Chen, J. Clark, M. Coates, J. Cooperstock, D. Davies, F. Ferrie, K. Fraser, F. Galiana, D. Giannacopoulos, W. Gross, V. Hayward, K. Johnson, G. Joos, A. Kirk, F. Labeau, E. Lotayef, D. Lowther, P. Menon, Z. Mi, S. Musallam, B.T. Ooi, D. Plant, M. Rabbat, G. Roberts, M. Rochette, R. Rose, C. Serban, T. Szkopek, J. Webb, A. Wojciechowska, S.C. Wong, Z. Zilic. F. Nabki, N. Kolment.
Regrets: R. Abhari, M. El Gamal, M. Levine, L. McKenna, I. Shih
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 pm.
1. Approval of the Agenda: D. Plant asked if there were any additions to the agenda – none. D. Plant asked for a motion to adopt the agenda. F. Labeau, K. Fraser seconded. Carried.
2. Approval of the Minutes (October 30, 2007): A. Kirk, seconded by K. Fraser. Carried.
3. Remarks from the Chair:
Given that we have a full agenda today I have only a few brief remarks.
Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for their efforts in preparing and participating in the CEAB visit earlier this month. The comments I received were very positive, but of course we will have to wait until June 2008 to learn of the final decision. Recognizing that many people contributed, I would like to single out Mrs. Prema Menon for her efforts. The committee was amazed at how much praise Prema received from students, professional staff, and academic staff – bravo Prema and thank you!
I would also like to offer some congratulatory remarks:
1) Ramesh Abhari: Mr. Asanee Suntives received the prestigious Intel's best student paper award at the IEEE Electrical Performance and Electronic Packaging (EPEP) Conference in Atlanta. Asanee is a Ph.D. student supervised by Ramesh Abhari.
2) Ramesh Abhari and Mourad El-Gamal: As well, at the at the IEEE Electrical Performance and Electronic Packaging (EPEP) Conference, Mr. Darryl Kostka received IBM's EIP tool usage award, for outstanding problem solving using IBM interconnect simulation tool. Darryl is a master's student co-supervised by Prof. Mourad El-Gamal and Professor Abhari.
3) On behalf of the Department I would like to congratulate Professor Vincent Hayward for having been elected a Fellow of the IEEE for the following citation: for contributions to robot manipulator programming and the development of haptics interface technology. Congratulations Vincent!
Finally, regarding item #4 of the agenda, working with the departmental leadership team, the Dean’s office, and the office of the Dean of Students, we have included this item in the agenda given interest and concerns that have been expressed with respect to the issue of academic integrity in recent months. As we are all aware an ad hoc Faculty Committee has been established to review the processes and to make recommendations, if necessary, to the appropriate University bodies with oversight of the matter. The purpose of this item is to allow us all move ahead constructively on the concerns that have been expressed on the issue – it is not on the agenda to provide an opportunity to revisit past cases.
4. Academic Integrity and Student Cheating:
a) Discussion on Procedures for Academic Integrity - Jim Clark (Associate Dean/Academic)
J. Clark went over the Faculty of Engineering’s Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Integrity and explained that it was put together by the Dean to review policies and procedures involved in the review of the academic conduct of students, and not to review the conduct of the faculty. It is composed of Jim Clark (ECE, Chair), Lisa Bornstein (Urban Planning), Francisco Galiana (ECE), Richard Munz (Chemical Eng), and Alberto Mann (student, VP Academic EUS). The plan of action for this committee is to review university documents to understand the statutes of the University, meet with each department to give the overview, discuss the issues and gather information and feedback. Once this is done they will meet with the Associate Dean, Student Affairs of the Faculty and get current information to understand the issues of the Faculty. They will also meet with the Dean of Students, and the Dean of GPSO or their delegates. They will distil from these meetings the major issues and will make recommendations and suggestions for improving policies and procedures regarding review of student academic conduct both to the Faculty and the University.
J. Cooperstock asked who reassesses the merit of the grades that go directly to the Faculty. J. Clark responded that a reread of student work is not a review of student conduct. Associate Dean S. Ghoshal stated that the student has a right to an impartial review of the grade other than by a professor. G. Joos interjected with a request to go back to the agenda. A discussion ensued with the professors wanting some feedback when grades have been changed or if the student requests a reread at least the professor should know. F. Galiana requested that it would be helpful if comments and suggestions were to be put in writing and given to the Ad Hoc Committee. J. Cooperstock asked how it is that a re-reader can possibly change the grade, if a student’s software doesn’t work, a TA verifies that it doesn’t work, and the professor verifies that it doesn’t work. J. Clark replied that the re-reader may have a different opinion and that a reread is subject to interpretation. D. Plant requested that the meeting go back to the agenda topic. F. Labeau asked if the process is different for graduate courses. B. Boulet suggested that all the information be gathered and made into a set of procedures for everyone to follow easily. L. Chen requested that there should be a document summarizing the Rights and Responsibilities of professors. F. Galiana called the Handbook the “Green Book” and asked to have more comments and suggestions sent to him or the Ad hoc Committee.
b) Overview of McGill University Policies and Procedures on Academic Integrity for Undergraduate Students - Subhasis Ghoshal (Associate Dean/Student Affairs)
Associate Dean S. Ghoshal made a presentation (attached).
After his presentation there were a few questions. L. Chen asked if there was any feedback given to the professor after the student was interviewed and if the duty of the professor stopped once the complaint was given to the Associate Dean. S. Ghoshal stated that the student has the right to confidentiality and thus professors cannot be provided feedback. The professor is requested to submit 2 potential final grades (one assuming a grade of 0 on the work in question and the other assuming no penalty), or the course mark distribution. The student has the right to appeal 7 days from the decision. T. Szkopek asked how does the professor prove intent with plagiarism. S. Ghoshal responded that the professor does not need to prove intent. He should discuss the evidence with the disciplinary officer and he would present the evidence to the student and require a thorough rebuttal from the student why there are identical answers,. The student bears the burden of proving that there was no intent to deceive. J. Cooperstock stated that his observation about intent – in theory it is good but most electrical engineers work on feedback, which they do not receive after the assessment of plagiarism. For example two student’s codes are identical and the program cannot execute. Is it intent or mitigating circumstances? Associate Dean S. Ghoshal explained that the reason professors are not given feedback is because it is a university policy to respect the right of the student. He remarked that he will take note of the feedback point and bring it to the Ad Hoc Committee when they meet. Associate Dean S. Ghoshal also explained that he would take the allegations from the professor and ask the students why the situation shouldn’t be considered plagiarism. Based on the students response, a valid decision will be made and this is only after every detail is checked. J. Cooperstock asked if the decision of the disciplinary officer was final and Associate Dean S. Ghoshal answered yes. F. Nabki asked who would pull the pin on the student finally and would there be probation. Associate Dean S. Ghoshal explained that the disciplinary officer has the final say and the probation would be for the rest of the student’s stay at McGill. F. Ferrie asked what would happen if the disciplinary officer does not have the technical expertise. The Associate Dean answered that if the disciplinary officer felt that a specific expertise was needed, permission from the Dean of Students to get someone who has the expertise may be granted. F. Labeau asked how the Faculty compares in numbers and the answer from the Associate Dean was typically proportionate to the student population. J. Cooperstock asked what the expertise of the Associate Dean was and he responded that he had the expertise for the decisions that he made. J. Cooperstock wanted to know what the Faculty policy on medical excuses was. Associate Dean S. Ghoshal responded that it is covered in the “Handbook on Students Rights and Responsibilities”. He also stated that he uses his judgment on students claims and he is empowered to make decisions. J. Cooperstock asked if a student missed classes because of a gastro could the disciplinary officer raise his grade by removing late submission. Associate Dean S. Ghoshal explained the steps in handling such a case and also explained how he would handle it. D. Plant interjected that individual cases could not be discussed. J. Cooperstock stated that in practice we respect these principles or is it a farce – is the theory respected or not. T. Arbel asked when does the disciplinary officer handle issues of penalties for missed assignments and would he override a professor decision. Associate Dean S. Ghoshal responded that only when the student makes a legitimate case that he has been treated unfairly in terms of late submission penalties and made a complaint does the disciplinary officer step in and he could override a decision made by the professor. L. Chen requested that the rights and responsibilities of the professors regarding late assignments be made known and wanted to know what power they had as professors. Associate Dean S. Ghoshal answered that professors have all the rights to give a penalty on late assignments and he only takes this up only if the student has a substantive case, then he may ask that the penalty be dropped. Associate Dean S. Ghoshal also mentioned that the Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Integrity is a great forum to discuss such these problems. B. Ooi stated that when someone cheats and gets off scot-free this is definitely wrong. Associate Dean S. Ghoshal mentioned that there are valid reasons sometimes for students to get exonerated and he takes every allegation of misconduct very seriously both for the students and the professors. B. Ooi recommended that in this 21st century there should be more disciplinary officers to handle the increase in the offences such as death threats on professors and more. F. Labeau inquired if there was any point in bringing a plagiarism case to the attention of the Associate Dean, if the evidence was less than compelling. Associate Dean S. Ghoshal asked that the evidence and the allegation be brought to him by the professor as there is much value in the student going through the disciplinary process and is the process is educational to the student in terms of knowing the importance placed on academic integrity. F. Nabki mentioned that it was of great importance for the professors to report these matters. Associate Dean S. Ghoshal agreed that letting off students was not a good thing but more discussion is needed and suggested that comments be sent to the Ad Hoc Committee in writing.
c) Discussion on Academic Integrity and Students - Linda Jacobs Starkey (Associate Dean of Students)
Associate Dean L. Jacobs Starkey made a presentation (attached).
After her presentation there were a few questions. J. Cooperstock asked if in Art. 49, without a summary hearing, a review of a decision is possible or whether a case be reopened. Associate Dean Jacobs Starkey responded that once a disciplinary decision is made (Article 54) the matter is closed and only the student could ask to reopen the issue, by requesting a full hearing by the Committee on Student Discipline. F. Ferrie stated that there is no quality assurance. Associate Dean Jacobs Starkey replied that there is training for Disciplinary Officers, and the quality control in the CSD hearing is done by herself or the Dean of Students, as they manage the exchange of documents and view the evidence as secretary to the proceedings. Associate Dean Ghoshal added that every case starts with the Dean of Students Office and they closely monitor the decisions made. F. Nabki asked if the law prevented us to change Art 91. Associate Dean Jacobs Starkey responded that the possibility of disclosing information is being reviewed, in an effort to balance ‘strictest confidence’ with persons having “legitimate interest” in the matter. At this time, Art. 91 and the privacy laws mean decisions cannot be shared with instructors.
9. Other Business:
D. Plant stated that due to time constraints he wanted to modify the agenda to bring items 5-8 forward at our next meeting in December.
- D. Plant mentioned that there will be an Open House and that all of the Department should have received the email from Prof. R. Abhari. He also mentioned that the Department Holiday Party will be on December 14 at 4pm.
J. Cooperstock stated that to wrap up item # 4 D. Plant responded to the comments he made at September’s meeting. He then asked D. Plant - “By whom in the "senior administration" were you instructed to have no further interaction with respect to the particular case? D. Plant responded - No comment.
J. Cooperstock asked D. Plant “Why did this instruction preclude you from letting me know earlier that you were unable to play any role in the case?” D. Plant suggested that he ask the senior administration about this.
J. Cooperstock continued “Very well, could you tell me who in the senior administration I should ask?” D. Plant told Professor Cooperstock that he would get back to him. J. Cooperstock thanked Professor Plant for his transparency in this matter.
D. Plant asked for a motion to close the meeting.
Motion to adjourn: F. Labeau, seconded by R. Rose at 4:46 pm. Carried.
D. Davies, Secretary