3 ms·

The most disturbing thing of all is that they just let the threats of reprisals slide like that. They can do what they want about the cheaters, but the students

The most disturbing thing of all is that they just let the threats of reprisals slide like that. They can do what they want about the cheaters, but the students making the threats should have faced immediate expulsion. It's the worst kind of corruption, because all other forms of corruption hinges on everyone staying silent and playing along. Anyone who espouses the "snitches get stitches" attitude needs to be socially ostracized, because they are a menace wherever they go, whether in academia, industry or public office.

sircastor 4y ago
From the article, those threats were Sent to the school’s judicial review: > If it has a crying face emoji does it mean the threats weren’t serious? I don’t know, wasn’t going to take any chances. > I won’t repeat the email exchange with the student who had to be contacted by judicial affairs.
- strix_varius 4y ago
  Later, it clarifies that the student who made two clear threats to the supposed “snitch” got “a second chance.” This was the worst decision in a series of somewhat-too-lenient decisions. I would not want to teach at, study at, or send my kids to school at an institution that lacks a zero-tolerance policy for such threats.
  - sircastor 4y ago
    I think we’re dealing with a few separate concerns here: 1) do the students who cheated get a chance to resolve their behavior in the course - that is, can they still pass this class? 2) What does the university do to these students as a response? This is an administrative action rather than a course-level action, and why the author had to fill out forms. 3) A separate administrative response is given for threatening behavior. The consequences for this are different than for cheating. There are potential legal ramifications associated with this. I think in this case the author was saying he gave this student a second chance (the second syllabus) while also submitting to the other two authorities in the matter.

sircastor 4y ago

From the article, those threats were Sent to the school’s judicial review: > If it has a crying face emoji does it mean the threats weren’t serious? I don’t know, wasn’t going to take any chances. > I won’t repeat the email exchange with the student who had to be contacted by judicial affairs.

strix_varius 4y ago
Later, it clarifies that the student who made two clear threats to the supposed “snitch” got “a second chance.” This was the worst decision in a series of somewhat-too-lenient decisions. I would not want to teach at, study at, or send my kids to school at an institution that lacks a zero-tolerance policy for such threats.
- sircastor 4y ago
  I think we’re dealing with a few separate concerns here: 1) do the students who cheated get a chance to resolve their behavior in the course - that is, can they still pass this class? 2) What does the university do to these students as a response? This is an administrative action rather than a course-level action, and why the author had to fill out forms. 3) A separate administrative response is given for threatening behavior. The consequences for this are different than for cheating. There are potential legal ramifications associated with this. I think in this case the author was saying he gave this student a second chance (the second syllabus) while also submitting to the other two authorities in the matter.