Subject/Object

Steven Chabot

Student accused of cheating through Facebook at Ryerson University: Impliations for Libraries

No Comments »

Cheating on Facebook?

This has been all over the news here in Toronto, but I have not read about it in any of my feeds yet, which is weird given the rush to get libraries on Facebook.

chris_150.jpgHere is the story. Chris Avenir, a first year engineering student at Ryerson University, was charged with 147 counts of academic misconduct because he was the administrator of a Facebook study group for a chemistry class. The 147 stems from the fact that the group had that many students in it when the administration found out about it.

The school argues that, because the site of the group said “If you request to join, please use the forms to discuss/post solutions to the chemistry assignments. Please input your solutions if they are not already posted,” and the 10 percent assignments were to be done individually, then he was soliciting cheating. Students and others argue that Facebook is only a virtual meeting place and is just the same as forming a face-to-face study group, which the university has implicitly allowed in similar circumstances as this.

The administration argues that cheating is cheating, regardless of where it happens. “This is being painted as a generational issue and it’s not,” said James Norrie, director of the Toronto university’s School of Information Technology. “We are not a bunch of old farts who are afraid of technology.”

Two Questions

First, should the student be expelled, considering 1. He did not start the group, but only took over its administration after a time; 2. No actual answers to any of the questions were posted, and it is my understanding that each student received a different assignment, so in actuality exact answers couldn’t have been posted anyway. 3. 147 counts? Just because there were that many in the group? Come on.

The second question is whether we should consider this cheating at all, or, does the defense of “it is only a virtual study group” hold up? Don’t have an answer, because I don’t know the motivation of every student, particularly Chris Avenir, and he should not be held accountable for the misconduct of every student. He didn’t “facilitate” cheating, like some college movie where the frat house steals the exam. If any one facilitated something it was Facebook itself.

Implications for Libraries

Some colleagues of mine at school were discussing the implications for libraries setting up a presence on Facebook. Should the school set up policies on virtual collaboration before hand (we thought that he was not guilty unless they has specified so before hand). What about the library setting up a Facebook group: is it important for us us to make sure that no dishonesty goes on in the forums? Do we need to establish explicit policy before hand?

If so, is it important for us to make sure no dishonesty goes on in our physical space? I think this must happen every day. So why is there a difference when we are somewhat responsible for the virtual space we set up? What is the theoretical difference between the two?

Update: If you want to rally for the student, ChrisDidntCheat.com

We Know What Library 2.0 Is and Is Not, Part 2

1 Comment »

Updating my post on Michael Casey and Laura Savastinuk’s recent statement on Library 2.0. A blog I have just discovered, the Proletarian Librarian (adding another to The ‘X’ Librarian trend), has some comments on the Library 2.0 post as well.

An insightful addition to the discussion:

I’m all for finding out what our users want and how they want to get it. I’m also for attempting to guide our users towards quality materials and services and I’m afraid that often Library 2.0 chastises librarians who hold this belief.

I don’t think this chastising is unique to Library 2.0, but it does crop up in a lot of the rhetoric so-called progressive librarians make and have made against so-called conservative librarians. We’ve heard it before in the Reader’s Advisory movement of the 1980′s: who are we to say what reading is good and bad. And now, who are we to say what information outlets are good and bad. We should, as they argue, give them what they want.

I wrote a recent essay examining which is more democratic, the imperative of the library to inform and educate its citizenry, or to give them the materials they request, because they have paid for them. It is a difficult balance to walk–I don’t know if my essay came up with a sufficient answer. Will post it later.