I had the opportunity to work with a group of undergraduate business students over the weekend, and the subject of Ryerson’s Chris Avenir arose. He is the Facebook group administrator who is bearing the brunt of student collaboration on an individual chemistry assignment.

If there was any support for Ryerson’s position (that Chris enabled cheating), it was not voiced in the room; I suspect it was absent because fellow students “get” how silly it is to treat Facebook collaboration as anything more serious than a library study group. Those on the “inside” won’t argue that, and would be discouraged from doing so, especially in that room.

Outside the room, in the cold March light of day, let’s ask the question:

Is it cheating because they were cheating, or is it cheating because they (and Chris as the administrator) got caught?

Argue whether or not the falling tree makes a noise, but I think that the public group’s description puts Ryerson in the tough position of having to turn a blind eye when there is evidence that the rules (or, at least instructor directives) have been breached. Students have to take responsibility for keeping the collaboration secretive. Study groups don’t take place within earshot of the instructor!

Earlier this year, I was working with another group of twenty-somethings. One of the crew shared with me a story that equates. On an unnamed highway in Western Canada, he was driving in a line of cars behind a police car. The police car was driving about 10 km/hr above the posted speed limit. Highway drivers in Canada know that the understood highway limit is up to 20 km/hr over the speed limit. Confident in this knowledge, our friend pulled out and passed the police officer, making sure to remain slightly under the understood limit.

Did he get pulled over?

Of course he did… and the officer rightly questioned his capacity for good judgement.

Some mutual understandings can counter explicit rules, but when dealing with people in authority (school administration, police officers, etc.), be careful how openly you flaunt the rule bending. If the Facebook group description had not talked about “sharing answers” and stuck to “discussing problems,” it may have allowed Ryerson administrators to keep a blind eye, and not have to turn one.

Tagged as: cheating, Chris Avenir, Facebook, In-group/out-group

• July 2010
• June 2010
• May 2010
• April 2010
• March 2010
• February 2010
• January 2010
• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• July 2009
• June 2009
• May 2009
• April 2009
• March 2009
• February 2009
• January 2009
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008