A second stab at establishing an anti-cheating policy is working its way through campus committees at Chico State University.

For more than a year a committee of students and faculty at Chico State has been working on a policy supporting academic honesty and promising a range of sanctions against students in plagiarism and cheating cases.

On April 6 an earlier draft of the document went before the Academic Senate an advisory board of faculty, students, staff and administrators that makes recommendations to the university president.

Criticisms and comments were made, and ultimately the Senate decided to return the proposal to committee for further massage.

This week the re-worked proposal went before a senate committee that reviews educational programs and policies.

The new proposal contains many of the same ideas, but no longer requires faculty members to take specific actions against cheating. Instead it makes recommendations about the sort of things the faculty could do.

At the heart of the proposal is a one-sentence "Academic Integrity Statement."

"The faculty, staff and students at CSU, Chico are committed to a culture of honesty in which members of the community accept responsibility to uphold academic integrity in all they say, write and create," says the statement.

Where individuals have cheated the instructor in the course may "impose appropriate academic sanctions for violations, which may range from assigning a zero or "F" grade on an assignment to an "F" in the course."

It also says the university may also impose penalties that can include "expulsion, suspension, probation, withdrawal of a degree."

After spending nearly an hour and a half working over specific language in the draft, Gayle Hutchinson, who chairs the Educational Policies and Programs Committee, and also heads the campus department of physical education and exercise science, sought a "consensus" of the panel to send the document on to the full senate next week.

While the committee members apparently agreed with the idea of sending the proposal forward, at least one, political science Professor Paul Persons, made it clear that didn't mean he was entirely in favor of the proposal.

Earlier in the meeting Persons had questioned the lengths to which the faculty was being asked to go in informing students about the topic of academic cheating, and then monitoring student behavior to prevent cheating.

"I believe in treating students like adults," said Persons.

He suggested giving students the opportunity to cheat "and when they cheat we bust them" might be a more effective deterrent.

"I don't believe in pampering students and they should be treated as adults. If they cheat, they should be punished," said Persons.

He went on to say law enforcement officers regularly use sting operations to catch those trying to buy drugs or solicit prostitution, and cheating could be treated the same way at the university.

He also said he wanted a "full debate" before the senate on topics related to confidentiality in dealing with cheats, and the right of students to be represented by attorneys when they face an accusation of cheating.

Wendy Diamond, a member of the committee who works in the campus library, said her understanding is the right to counsel is a matter that has to be decided by the chancellor of the California State University system, and is beyond campus control.

The academic honesty proposal will go before the campus senate at its meeting next Tuesday.