Meeting & Agendas

Mervin Jones called the meeting to order after confirming a quorum was present. Members were welcomed, and the committee prepared to review the agenda. 

The committee reviewed meeting minutes from May 8, 2026. The minutes were approved. 

Antonio Ramirez provided an update on the ongoing revision of the Academic Integrity Administrative Rule (AR). The revised AR is expected to return to ASAC in August following additional stakeholder feedback. A key proposed change would allow instructional deans to review academic integrity appeal requests before they are forwarded to an appeal panel. Currently, all appeals proceed to a panel regardless of supporting documentation. The proposed revision would introduce an initial review step to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to move forward.

Antonio Ramirez initiated a discussion on the balance between academic freedom, student rights, and academic integrity. Some of the key points discussed included examples of grading practices that raise concerns about fairness and consistency while still falling under academic freedom protections and a proposal to host a faculty convocation or campus discussion on academic integrity, academic freedom, and compassionate accountability. The committee held discussions and shared various feedback. Some members emphasized the importance of balancing compassion with accountability while maintaining academic standards. They also suggested providing training for faculty and staff on handling difficult conversations. Concerns were raised regarding grading practices that focus too heavily on technical errors. Additionally, Antonio pointed out the limitations in addressing practices that, while they may fall within the realm of academic freedom, still raise concerns. Lastly, the committee agreed to continue discussing these topics.

 Antonio Ramirez led a discussion on improving the collection and analysis of academic integrity data across the college. He noted that while assumptions exist about where misconduct occurs, current data is limited across modality, discipline, appeals, and reporting practices. Charlene Buckley noted that Maxient provides strong reporting capabilities when cases are fully documented and closed. Patricia Zuniga clarified that Maxient is a reporting tool, not the process itself, and highlighted missing documentation in some SRR submissions, including findings, sanctions, and appeal information. Antonio proposed developing a faculty survey to better understand reporting practices, workload, and appeal experiences. The committee supported reviewing a draft survey before distribution. Antonio will gather suggested questions and present a draft at a future meeting. 

The attendees were thanked for participating, and the meeting was adjourned. 
Meeting Adjourned: 11:55 am