On October 6, President Audrey Bilger sent an email to the student body regarding the formation of a new ad hoc committee on academic misconduct, stating, “The committee will review the college’s current policies and procedures and recommend reforms that provide greater consistency, clarity, equity, and efficiency in how academic misconduct cases are addressed.”
The committee, which was formed with approval from the Committee on Academic Policy and Planning (CAPP), will examine how academic misconduct cases are adjudicated by Reed’s student-led Judicial Board (J-Board) and faculty-led Administrative Committee (AdComm). The review comes amid concerns about the growing number of academic misconduct cases and the length of time students may spend navigating the adjudication process.
Currently, the responsibility for adjudicating academic misconduct is shared between J-Board and AdComm. According to Billiger’s statement, differences in the two bodies’ availability, procedures, and practices can lead to cases being handled differently depending on when they arise.
One concern for the committee is the gap between the college’s governance documents and how cases are handled in practice. According to Suzy Renn, co-chair of the committee, governance documents designate J-Board as the primary body responsible for adjudicating academic misconduct, with AdComm handling cases as needed. However, because of the timing of cases, faculty on AdComm have handled the majority of cases in some years. Last year, J-Board was required to work during the summer session to accommodate cases.
The committee will begin by examining the substantive differences between the two bodies’ processes, which have operated largely in parallel with little communication between them. Determining how those differences affect the handling of cases will be a central part of the committee’s initial work.
The review will also consider whether Reed should consolidate the adjudication process into a single body. While the college’s current governance documents establish J-Board as the primary adjudicator, the committee may consider changes to the division of responsibility between J-Board and AdComm.
Any restructuring could raise questions about the role of students in adjudicating academic misconduct. Whether students will retain their current level of involvement, and whether J-Board’s authority could change, remain open questions to consider with input from the campus community.
The committee has emphasized that it will seek broad input as it develops recommendations. It anticipates using familiar methods of community engagement, including listening sessions and surveys, and may collaborate with the Student Committee on Academic Planning (SCAPP) on tabling to gather student perspectives.
The timeline for the review remains uncertain. Although CAPP initially suggested that the committee might bring forward a full proposal during the spring term, the committee reconsidered that timeline after its first meeting and determined that it might be overly ambitious.
The committee's stated goal is to establish a process that is more consistent, transparent, and timely, while maintaining appropriate roles for students, faculty, and staff. Its work will include reviewing relevant governance documents, including the Faculty Code, Judicial Board Code, and Community Constitution, and considering how existing policies should respond to evolving challenges to academic integrity.
Although the review comes amid growing concern about rising academic misconduct cases related to the use of artificial intelligence, the committee’s primary focus is on policy and procedure rather than directly preventing academic misconduct. The committee does not view the adjudication process as the appropriate means for curbing misconduct. Instead, it aims to ensure that cases are handled through a clear, equitable, and workable process for everyone involved.
For students accused of academic misconduct, potential changes could affect how cases are assigned, how procedures are communicated, and how long adjudication takes. However, the committee has not yet proposed specific reforms, and the extent to which students’ roles or the existing structure might change remains undetermined.