My friend, an international student, took an English/Writing (ENWR) class in Fall 2013. Due to the overwhelmingly difficult process of adapting to life at the University and in America, she didn’t do well on her first paper. Alarmed by the grade, she spent much more time writing and proofreading her second paper. She was very proud of her work, before her instructor accused her of plagiarism because of the sudden improvement in her work. After some argument, the instructor began to actually check the citations in the paper. Despite not finding any evidence of actual plagiarism, because of a minor mistake made in the citation style, the instructor gave her a very low grade, claiming that the paper was badly-written.
My friend didn’t report this to the Honor Committee. After hearing the story, many of her fellow international students (myself included) felt angry, but did not know what to do. One year later, Honor’s discussion on the disproportionate reporting rate of international students reminds me of this story, and the statistics draw my attention.
There seems to be a view that international students are more likely to cheat than their American peers. However, this assumption is invalid and oversimplified, because these two groups are not examined under the same circumstances. International students are not equipped with the knowledge and experience necessary to identify academic plagiarism, which their American peers have gained in high school. Furthermore, international students who are more likely to self-segregate and speak their native languages are more isolated from the University community than many American peers. Because their alienation makes them stand out from their peers, international students are more likely to be identified and reported.
There are two common interpretations of news about the disproportionate reporting rate of international students. The first is that international students must be more likely to commit academic fraud. However, a higher report rate does not necessarily indicate a higher rate of fraud, because the whole University community seriously under-reports to the Honor Committee.
The second interpretation is based on the popular adage, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” If international students choose to come to the University, they should be regulated by the rules set by this institution, so international students have no right to feel troubled by disproportionate reporting rates.
While this claim seems straightforward, it contains a false assumption. International students are not just resources for advertising diversity on Grounds or objects to be governed by arbitrary rules. Their interests must be properly represented and their needs adequately addressed. Their slower and more difficult adaptation process is beyond their control; therefore the University must respond to their concern about this perceived unfairness and promote their well-being.
With the low reporting rate in general, the higher rate of reporting minority students reflects the unwillingness of students to report people whom they identify as similar to them. Therefore, instead of international students being over-reported, the unfairness of the system originates from under-reporting of students of a majority race.
There are two possible solutions: the Honor Committee can seek to reduce the rate of international students being reported to a level equal to that of the general student body, or to increase the report rate for the whole University community, so that every offender has an equal chance of being reported. The first solution is obviously absurd — therefore the second way is more reasonable. To increase the reporting rate, single-sanction will be inadequate, which is well-argued in the Cavalier Daily Managing Board’s recent editorial.
Some argue that given the recent introduction of the Informed Retraction policy, there is no need to abolish the single sanction, as an accused student has one chance to return to the community after being convicted. However, as international students are facing more serious consequences from being convicted under single sanction — such as the high cost of additional travel — they are more likely to admit to the offense than to take the chance at trial.
The tendency of international students to avoid risk provides them with strong incentives to learn about the honor system and avoid honor offenses. However, as they find their group facing a disproportionate threat of being reported and observe the distrust of and even discrimination against themselves, the current system seems very discouraging. Abolishing the single sanction will be one step forward, but more action is needed.
Sasha Wan is a Viewpoint Writer.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | YesterdayOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 2 days agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAmid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
