Lukács decision a blow to academic integrity: Pettigrew
Professor protested PhD of student who failed exam
Photo courtesy of steakpinball on Flickr
Gábor Lukács’s case against the University of Manitoba has been dismissed. The mathematics professor took his school to court over the awarding of a PhD to a student who had failed a required exam. The court has ruled that Lukács does not have legal standing in the case.
The ruling, which suggests that professors have few options when it comes to challenging decisions made by deans, is a setback to those fighting for academic integrity in Canada.
Lukács made national news when he challenged the U of M for awarding a PhD to a student who had failed a comprehensive exam and, it later turned out, had not completed all the required coursework. Normally, such a student would have had to leave the program, but because the student later produced documentation related to “exam anxiety” the normal requirements for the degree were waived and the student graduated — despite the concerns that had been raised.
I have been critical of the university since the news of the case broke last year, and repeatedly found their arguments in their own defence to be unconvincing. More importantly, though, the Lukács case demonstrates the extent to which professors at Canadian universities are remarkably powerless to defend the academic principles we need them to defend.
In this case, the dean made a decision to award a degree to a student who, by all accounts, including those of the university’s own spokespeople and the judge in the court case, had not met the ordinary requirements set out in the university’s regulations. No one unfamiliar with the details of the situation could object that the university had gone too far, because they didn’t know the details. Anyone who did know what was going on couldn’t say anything about it because the university considers that a violation of the student’s right to privacy.
And if a morally courageous professor complains anyway, as Lukács did, the university can invoke its confidentiality policies and suspend him without pay, in essence imposing a massive fine. If he tries to fight in court, he’s told it’s none of his business. In short, if a professor believes a degree has been unjustly awarded, there’s not much he can do about it.
All of this matters immensely because if professors can’t fight for academic integrity when they disagree with a dean or other administrator, who’s left to do it? There are still some white hats in the stables of university leadership, to be sure, but administrators are increasingly corporate-style executives whose attention tends to focus more and more heavily on things like fiscal management and branding. Students, some of whom may care, come and go over just a few years and neither see the big problems nor have time to fight the big fights.
Professors, for the most part, still care deeply about profound intellectual values. They couldn’t have come this far if they didn’t. But when administrators make academic decisions despite the judgements of the scholars closest to students, and when they can hide behind confidentiality policies and legal maneuverings, the future of academic integrity in this country does not look bright.
There’s something missing in all of the accounts of the awarding of the PhD in this case. Normally, one is not permitted to embark upon a dissertation – a project that can take 2-3 years, until one has successfully passed one’s comprehensive exams. A dissertation committee is then struck, usually involving 2-3 faculty members from within the university. After the completed dissertation has been reviewed by internal and external scholars in the field, the candidate must usually pass a university oral defence. There are many ways of accommodating people who have exam trouble at the comprehensive exam stage. For instance, several options are normally available – sit down exam, week-long take-home exam, etc. Passing the comprehensive is just the precursor for undertaking the research project that leads to the dissertation. So – something’s missing in the accounts of this case. You don’t just pass the comps and get the doctorate.
I don’t really agree that there is necessarily anything wrong with awarding a degree to someone if the requirements have been waived for valid reasons. If the person in question produced novel work in his thesis research and successfully defended his thesis, than the fact that he has some sort of extreme anxiety that led to him failing an exam should be looked at through the correct avenues at the school. It’s actually reassuring that the school took the case seriously, deliberated over it, and ultimately made their decision instead of just strictly going by the book and not considering the situation of this person. I would hope all universities would handle this so well.
“Exam anxiety” is hardly a valid reason to fail to complete a comprehensive exam much less fail to complete required coursework. I get nervous around exams too. This decision devalues the degree considerably.
A few years ago I was sitting in the cafeteria at my university, having lunch by myself, when a group of students at the next table began having a pretty loud discussion that was easy to overhear. The main attraction was a fellow who was bragging about how he had nearly flunked out of his faculty, haw haw haw; but his father knew the Dean, haw, haw, haw, and went to have a talk with the Dean, haw, haw, haw, and thanks to his father’s intervention, the student was reinstated and allowed to continue his studies, haw haw haw. And his friends were sitting around him, laughing, too, haw, haw, haw, and I sat at my table and quietly saw red. If I’d had his name, I’d have gone to university administration myself and reported the conversation to the appropriate committee.
The point is, there are some serious abuses of the appeals system such as the one I’ve just described, so I’m not going to get upset over a student who appeals through the formal process and has the supporting medical and psychological documentation to prove his disability. Face it: this Ph.D. candidate did not abuse the system. He went through the proper administrative channels and was supported by the disabilities office, and his case was sustained by a committee in his own department. This isn’t a problem.
I’m not prepared to be skeptical of a student’s legitimate request for accommodation, especially since this formal appeals process is available to any student who needs and requests it. I think that our time and energy is better spent on disciplining people who flagrantly manipulate the system than on harassing students who can provide confirmation of legitimate physical and emotional disabilities and make formal appeals using the formal process. I’m also concerned that the backlash against the Ph.D. student in question might impact negatively on any other student appealing on the grounds of disability and create a negative climate towards disabilities within the university.
I think the bigger question here is why wasn’t the student accommodated *before* he took the comprehensive exams? One reason: he didn’t ask for the help he needed until after the fact. Where’s the personal responsibility that all students are supposed to uphold? I’m a fellow PhD student (different university) who has a learning disability. All graduate students have the responsibility to ask for academic and personal help when it’s needed through proper documentation and ongoing consultation. While I don’t agree that this professor is entirely in the right (and clearly the courts don’t either), I do think that the student needs to take some responsibility here. He shouldn’t be receiving his PhD.
Josh, what I don’t quite understand is how this person could get to the thesis stage without passing the comps. Normally, you are not considered a candidate for a doctorate, and thus allowed to do your thesis research, until you pass the comps. In some universities, you must then defend your thesis proposal at the departmental level. Finally, you must defend the completed thesis at an oral defence, at the university level, with an external examiner present. Lots more chances to be come anxious!
Plus, I don’t think we’ve heard everything about the exams themselves. I have students with medical certificates who are allowed double-time for exams. For my own comps, I chose the option of a 3-day take-home. Doubling or tripling that for someone with a medically certified disability should be ample accommodation. So, I think we are not getting the entire story.
I believe this case speaks to an underlying issue with granting special exemptions to students with learning disabilities. Is it permissible to grant exemptions if you are exempting them from core components of their degree? I mean, it is one thing to give a student extra time or breaks during an exam (as is the common remedy in my experience), but part of getting a PhD is demonstrating a certain breadth and depth of knowledge. Would we be comfortable exempting a doctor from his/her exams?
Almost all the commentators entirely miss the main issue: degrees are granted by Senate, not Deans. In this case, the administrators waived the requirements and substituted courses AND lied to Senate to get the degree approved by the U of M Senate. That is the main legal issue here because provincial legislation dictates that Senate has final authority. If Senators are lied to then there can be no proper awarding of the degree. Given that Manitoba provincial courts don’t understand the unique governance systems of universities, there is no doubt that this case will have to be fought outside the province at a higher level.
This is failure of accountability structures at Universities. Universities are exempt from the corporations act as they have no shareholders. Yet they claim to be completely exempt from public scrutiny. The only check against this unfettered power is conscientious professors who are failsafes at the governance level. If they have no standing then universities are immune from any regulatory regime of any note – like a post secondary Enron…scary stuff people…the only other alternative is faculty associations which seem to be completely redundant or afraid to enter the fray…
snap out of it Rob. “exam anxiety” at Ph.D. level, you got to be kidding me! How the hell this person got a B.A. to begin with????