Hi all,

 

Some of the comments here struck me as a bit abstract and timeless, perhaps because of a case we've just had here.

 

“A student who didn't make use of all available support is not going to be able to successfully challenge an academic misconduct finding on the basis of disability.    A student who genuinely was under-supported might be able to make a case that this factor should be taken into account when determining the penalty.”

 

“This is a key issue, mitigating misconduct based on disability would be discriminatory and not in the interest of integrity and academic standards.”

 

When any student faces an accusation, the question will be whether she has had the information and support that is reasonable in the circumstances to put her in a position to know what is expected and how to avoid committing an academic offence (not necessarily involving dishonesty). The argument will be made that with a strict liability offence where intent does not arise this is immaterial. On the other hand the impact of finding an offence in a course like ours with a professional qualification element where the student didn't understand what was expected, arguably the offending behaviour was simply poor practice and there was no indication of dishonesty could be disproportionately severe where student has had a short time to learn and it has become apparent that the support offered was not sufficient. If the situation arises with a final year undergraduate student or postgraduate who could reasonably be expected to have learnt from experience and had full use of the support mechanisms, it's entirely different.

 

[I wasn't clear in what sense Steven used the word 'mitigating', but I presume this referred to finding no offence on the basis of disability.]

 

“Our University is in the process of reviewing reasonable adjustments to extensions for work for students with disabilities. This aims to streamline the process of gaining reasonable extensions for assessed work. The helps support students in completing their academic work, rather than mitigating academic misconduct or giving them a blank cheque to get extensions.”  

 

Allowing students extra time on occasions may be beneficial, but if they are repeatedly taking extra time it can create an extra burden, because extra time for the current work is always eating up the time available for the next piece of work which cannot be done in time! The academic year remains the same length, and if some students with disabilities are always having to use the summer resit period they cannot use it the same way as other students. This particularly bites on tier 4 students, given the other constraints they are under.

 

Best wishes,

 

Paul

 

 

Dr Paul Hubert

Student Adviser

Kent Law School

Eliot College

University of Kent

Canterbury CT2 7NS

(01227 82) 4373