06/05/2025

Summer Series Pre-Blog 2. Understanding evidence

by Greer Murphy and Wanda Moore

The Summer Series of webinars continues the blog takeover with the second pre-webinar blog. The presenters for Workshop 2: Understanding Evidence on June 13 discuss some key questions to get you thinking about their session.

What do you find most exciting/ challenging/ interesting about understanding evidence and investigations within academic integrity work? Has your answer shifted over the years? If so, how? If not, why not?

WANDA: Interesting- We meet with every student reported for a violation of academic integrity, This initial meeting is scheduled with the student to discuss the accusation and the judiciary’s policies & procedures, “what happens next” and to answer any questions they may have at that time. Prior to the meeting, the student receives a copy of the accusation and supporting documentation/evidence submitted by the reporting faculty/staff.  During my early years in academic judiciary -what I found most interesting was the student’s perception of “the evidence”. The student and I are looking at the “same” evidence, however it was though one was looking at apples and the other was looking at oranges. During my judiciary early years, it appeared the student spent most of the initial meeting making excuses or seeking advice for excuses – which one sounded best to present to a hearing. My response to these earlier interactions has shifted over the years. Advancement in discussing academic integrity in the classroom and an update to our website with detailed information related to our policies and procedures, student FAQs and judiciary flowchart – allows a clearer understanding of the process and expectations. When students are better informed of the course expectations, judiciary process and possible outcome, they approach “evidence” with better decision making skills. Students come to initial meetings prepared with questions to make the best decision for their judiciary case.

Challenging – When the reporting faculty/staff relies on the judiciary staff to investigate information (the accusation and accuracy of submitted documentation). My response to these early challenges in my judiciary role has shifted over the years. We have updated our guidelines on the website (FAQ’s), partnered with CELT – resources & trainings (ie: new faculty and trends & best practices) and continue to have the support of the University administrators.

GREER: There is so much to it! I came to integrity work from a faculty (faculty-like) background in teaching and learning, so evidence and investigations was the part I was least familiar with before starting my previous role (where I focused mostly on education, outreach). Reading, listening, and learning a lot from my colleagues in non-academic conduct and student affairs was integral to my success in that position, as well as my ability to successfully transition to my current role (which oversees case management, resolution, and reporting more directly) at UC Santa Cruz. As I am fond of telling anyone who’ll listen, I’ve learned everything I needed to know about standards of evidence from conduct folks. I am truly in their debt.

I wouldn’t say my answer has changed much over the years. Even with the challenges of emergency remote instruction during the height of the pandemic, and of course now the brave new world of generative artificial intelligence, basic ‘bread and butter’ principles of procedural fairness and making good, materially supported decisions haven’t changed – genAI may represent a difference of degree in these respects, but not (to me) of kind.

What do you think folks new(er) to understanding evidence and investigations in academic integrity work might have misconceptions about/ most need or want to know?

WANDA: A belief that “I have to do it all”…..False! Establishing partnerships with university offices, department/programs and administrators is key to maintaining “best practices”.   If we have a questions about a technical evidence – we reach out to DoIT. To make sure that we are within our guidelines with University’s practices/mission, we reach out to University Counsel.  Tools to update faculty on AI trends and reporting, we reach out to our faculty learning center. These are just a few of the many partnerships that we have established over the years…and they continue to grow. We are a campus of partnerships!

GREER: I’ll be honest – putting into practice what given standards of evidence mean and look like (preponderance, more likely than not; clear and convincing, highly more likely than not; or something else) felt hard for me at first. I thought, what does “50% plus a feather” or “51%” even mean?! What counts as a mitigating (or for that matter, aggravating) factor? Who gets to decide?

In the years since, developing the ability to make tough choices, reach a threshold of comfort and confidence deciding what (or who) seems more credible in a given situation, and appreciating the history and values behind why an institution selects one standard of evidence versus another has been integral to my success.

I think any misconceptions that those of us new to the work might hold will depend a lot on where and how we came to integrity work – someone coming from a student affairs background might need to build sensitivity to faculty perspectives (why it can feel really hard to “confront” a student about suspected cheating, for example), whereas someone coming from a faculty background might need to better understand student affairs folks’ professional priorities (why procedural fairness and care for the system can sometimes mean applying consequences). But we don’t have to view this as antagonistic … on the contrary, I’ve come to understand resolution and reporting work within academic integrity as community building at its finest. Holding space for each others’ views, communicating with transparency and kindness, making decisions with consistency and the end in mind, and documenting, documenting along the way is what evidence and investigation is all about!

What are you most hoping folks will come to your webinar session prepared to talk about?

WANDA: GenAI has brought us to another level and even greater challenges with evidence and investigation. Whether it is the standard “clear & convincing” or there is “preponderance of the  evidence” … how do we assist colleagues in navigating and achieving a fair judiciary process amongst the murkiness of generative AI?  We want to be clear on evidence and better equipped to address matters before they escalate beyond the university/institutional level. Case in point – U of M student expelled and taking the matter to higher level/court saying the school “expelled him over unfair AI allegations” – filing a lawsuit against the school for violating his due process and a defamation suit against his professors” (Gerezgiher, 2025). Are you prepared to face these challenges? 

GREER: I hope folks feel free to bring their full selves – feelings and all – to this session. From the pre-reads we’ve selected, particularly Long (1985), which offers excellent historical perspective and McMurtrie (2024), which provides a solid current overview of how North American higher education navigates evidence, investigations, and responsibility finding decisions, there’s a lot of factual information to cover. But I think we risk doing ourselves and our students, not to mention other stakeholders in society a real disservice if we try to skip too quickly past the emotional labor of reporting and resolution. Acknowledging our emotions without getting bogged down in them seems crucial to calibrating for why the public doesn’t always understand integrity work, how conversations with campus colleagues can go off track so quickly, or even what communication strategies we can pursue to reach compromise (if not consensus) in the end. Guilt, shame, defensiveness, identity, belonging, fear … they’re all with us. Gerezgiher (2025) encapsulates many of these themes … to me, that’s a big part of where the heightened “death penalty” and “unfair” allegations rhetoric comes from (because how can an allegation made in good faith, in and of itself, be unfair?). Even if we don’t end up talking about it together on June 13, I’d like us to keep thinking about this part of the work after our session is over.

What are you most hoping folks will take away from your webinar session? Why?

WANDA: Academic integrity “work” is rewarding. You may encounter challenges within your institution, but at the same time there is a support system within your institution. Building partnerships strengthens your department. Breaking new ground in this field and within your institution requires “work.” However, once you see the outcome of your work – data analysis , student/faculty feedback, program development, best practices in place … all of that is truly rewarding.

GREER: Solidarity, validation, and hope! This work can be time-consuming. Goodness knows it was never easy, and the challenges, complications, and public scrutiny brought by the proliferation of genAI haven’t made it any easier. But together, we (the royal “we” from across higher education, anyone and everyone whose jobs touch integrity work in some way) can do hard things. Let’s keep at it, friends.

Get ready for Workshop 2: Understanding evidence (Friday June 13 12pm EST)

While not all integrity work involves reporting or deciding cases, being fluent in the ‘language’ of adjudication (and familiar with its history in U.S. higher education) is an invaluable skill-set. Join us to talk about standards of evidence and investigations–in the age of ‘the other’ AI, or really, at any time.

Pre-reading for Workshop #2:

Long (1985), The Standard of Proof in Student Disciplinary Cases

Recommended further readings: 

Gerezgiher (2025), A Death Penalty: Ph.D. Student Says U of M Expelled Him Over Unfair AI Allegation

McMurtrie (2024), A Brief Guide to How Colleges Adjudicate Plagiarism Cases

Greer Murphy, EdD came to integrity work from a background in applied linguistics, teaching and learning, and writing program administration, and currently serves on ICAI's Board of Directors as Vice President for Strategy and Membership. Professionally, Greer directs the Academic Integrity Office at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Wanda M. Moore, MS is the inaugural Academic Integrity Officer at Stony Brook University (2006- present). She serves as the Hearing Officer of the Academic Judiciary Committee and serves on various academic and university committees in the role of advocate, expert, and educator; Specializing in design of formal methods for evaluating compliance with policies and procedures, committee responsibilities, best practices, and academic standards.

The authors' views are their own.

Thank you for being a member of ICAI. Not a member of ICAI yet? Check out the benefits of membership and consider joining us by visiting our membership page. Be part of something great!