The Faculty Senate on Thursday received an update from the Academic Integrity Working Group (AIWG) on its multi-year proctoring pilot and broader study of academic integrity issues at Stanford.

President Jonathan Levin also discussed a letter published by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) this week. “I don’t disagree with the sentiments in that letter,” Levin said. “In general, I prefer not to sign open letters. I think it’s good practice at a university for people to formulate and express their own views.”

Levin noted that he and Provost Jenny Martinez have shared their views regarding government overreach and the need for universities to engage with legitimate criticism, which has been covered widely by national media.

“To be clear, I do believe in working together with a broad array of peer institutions on actions to advance higher education,” Levin said. “We’re doing that in many ways, in small groups with the [Association of American Universities] and other organizations, including just last week, filing a second successful lawsuit related to cuts in federal funding.”

Levin added that he foresees many opportunities to collaborate in greater depth in coming months.

Brian Conrad, professor of mathematics, asked the provost about the university’s plans regarding the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) consideration of using free speech rankings by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) to determine grant eligibility.

Martinez responded that while Stanford was rated positively in recent FIRE rankings, and free speech and academic freedom are at the core of the mission of the university, she thinks research grants should be awarded based on scientific merit.

While FIRE has suggested that academic freedom protections be contractually protected, “Stanford has treated the procedures that are outlined in the 1974 Statement on Academic Freedom as binding on university administration, and so we don’t believe that it’s necessary to do something in addition to what is already on the books for us,” she continued, adding that Stanford would review its policies if NIH requirements changed. 

Martinez also endorsed FIRE’s recent statement that academic freedom protections must be viewpoint-neutral, must not impose ideological or political litmus tests, and must not penalize institutions for protected speech or scholarship by its scholars or students. “I agree very much with that,” she said.

Proctoring and academic integrity 

The AIWG was formed in winter 2024 following updates to the Honor Code and Fundamental Standard, which lifted the ban on proctoring and ended the obligation for students to report academic misconduct by other students.

The AIWG was charged with studying Stanford’s academic landscape to identify the scope of academic dishonesty, including its root causes and its relationship to teaching practices. The AIWG is also overseeing a multi-year pilot study of equitable proctoring practices. 

The pilot, which is expected to take two to four years, launched in spring 2024 with seven courses and has since grown to 28 courses, said AIWG Faculty Co-Chair Jennifer Schwartz Poehlmann, a senior lecturer in chemistry. Currently, all proctoring at Stanford is limited to this pilot.

To support the pilot, the university created a Centralized Testing Center (CTC) for students requiring accommodations, conducted campus-wide surveys, and held students and faculty listening sessions. Proctoring guidelines have also been updated based on feedback received thus far.

Student co-chair Xavier Millan said practices like verifying IDs and asking students to secure belongings before exams are already being encouraged. Seating charts have also helped proctors to observe students during exams and to raise any questions with students after the exam has ended.

The AIWG is also working on protocols for special cases, such as accommodations through the Office of Accessible Education (which supports approximately 15% of undergraduates), traveling student-athletes, and off-campus students. 

“We cannot just blanket say we’re going to proctor everybody now, because we’re still identifying cases that might necessitate more thought,” Poehlmann said. “And so this really steady approach has been incredibly useful to making sure it happens.”

AIWG plans to expand proctoring in its second year and will continue evaluating  whether the benefits of proctoring outweigh the risks, including bias. It’s also studying how academic integrity intersects with emerging technologies such as generative AI.

The AIWG’s review of the academic landscape found that students dislike seeing others cheat but don’t want to report on others, Millan said. There are also various stressors that contribute to poor decision-making, the AIWG found.

“Students actually want more guidance on what specific courses allow or disallow in their courses, especially when it comes to AI, and students often have a different sense of what faculty might [have] on this issue, so having as much clarity on that is important so everyone knows what is expected of them,” Millan said.

Ongoing faculty-student conversations are needed to agree on academic integrity standards, Poehlmann said, and the AIWG will lead joint faculty-student listening sessions in the fall.

Michael Tomz, the William Bennett Munro Professor in Political Science in the School of Humanities and Sciences and senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, asked how the AIWG plans to objectively measure its impact.

Past reports of Honor Code violations were very rare since students were reluctant to report others, Poehlmann said. This has made it difficult to get reliable statistics on cheating, so AIWG is analyzing pre- and post-exam survey data.

James Ferrell, professor of chemical and systems biology and of biochemistry at Stanford Medicine, asked if there is a university-wide effort to look into academic integrity issues at the level of research and publication. 

As the AIWG broadens its focus groups and listening sessions, Poehlmann said it plans to involve graduate students in conversations and training that can support ethics and research. Steven Goodman, professor of epidemiology and population health and of medicine (primary care and population health) at Stanford Medicine, said he hopes the AIWG can collaborate with a task force he is co-leading to address the same issues.

Graduate Student Council Representative Artem Arzyn raised concerns about proctoring biases against certain demographics of students. Millan said that AIWG’s proctor training includes scenarios designed to address and mitigate bias.

Dan Edelstein, the William H. Bonsall Professor in French in the School of Humanities and Sciences, asked about efforts to include more faculty from writing-based disciplines in the pilot.

Poehlmann said the AIWG has already been speaking with foreign language faculty, who face unique logistical challenges because of how frequently they administer tests. The AIWG is also interested in incorporating discussions on academic integrity into the Civic, Liberal, and Global Education (COLLEGE) first-year requirement, she said. 

The senate adjourned to executive session following the presentation. 

In memory

Senators also heard a memorial resolution for Dr. Saul Rosenberg, the Maureen Lyles D’Ambrogio Professor, Emeritus, who died Sept. 5, 2022, at 95 years old. Rosenberg revolutionized cancer care by combining radiation and chemotherapy to treat Hodgkin lymphoma.