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.