4 ms·
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 some
by 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 agoI 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.