If next fall a professor believes that you have cheated, don’t expect a presumption of innocence.

In the new revised cheating policy, all the professor has to do is conclude that “it is  probably more true than not true” that you’re in the wrong. Before, professors needed to feel much more sure that there was cheating before there could be any kind of punishment.

This subjective method completely tips the scale in favor of the professor. 

And while professors can get away with only being more certain than not that a student cheated — that being all they need to make a claim — once a student needs to appeal a decision, they are held to a much higher standard.

A students’ options at that point are: a) prove the professor did not follow reporting protocol, b) make the case that there was insufficient evidence, c) argue for a lighter sanction or d) provide new evidence proving his or her innocence.

The original standard, however arbitrary it may be, still shares a similar problem with the new revision: Administrators still need to find a way to define what would satisfy as sufficient evidence. In that sense, you should hope you have the support of the newly required student representative on your hearing panel. 

Still, the new code doesn’t account much for an increase in technology used with assignments. Undeniably, technology makes it easier to cheat because an exam or a full homework assignment is simply an email away.

Whether the number of students who receive punishment for cheating will change with the new policy remains to be seen. About one quarter of students accused during the last fiscal year under the old policy were given either a reduced or failing grade. Only nine of 425 violations did not result in a penalty.

The impetus of this revision initiative was the rise in violations from 100 in 2006 to 325 last year and 455 the year before. Yet there still seems to be a lack of a uniform standard among colleges. For example, last year, 66 percent of violations came from the College of Engineering — known fairly widely by students for its rampant cheating — while some colleges didn’t even hit violations in the double digits.  

Professor opinion varies greatly. By giving professors the freedom to make snap decisions based on what they feel is more true than not, we are muffling the students’ voices and putting a stranglehold on their ability to defend themselves. Appealing these kinds of cases can be difficult, especially when they are casually dismissed because of the belief that professors have the final say.

Clarifying our university’s stance on academic integrity is extremely necessary at a large public institution such as ours, especially given its rocky history with ethics on the top level. If it’s easier for students to be accused of cheating, the number of reported cheaters could increase, making our university seem like it has less integrity, when it really may be just an increase in falsely accused cheaters. But giving professors the ability to make it easier to accuse students of cheating will not help with academic integrity issues — it will only make it easier for a student to get the short end of the stick if accused of cheating.