Report: Academic Board - November 14, 2024

To the Governing Council,
University of Toronto,

Your Board reports that it held a meeting on November 14, 2024 at 3:10 p.m. with the following members present:

PRESENT: Douglas McDougall (Chair), Donald Ainslie (Vice Chair), Trevor Young (Vice President and Provost), Scott Mabury (Vice President, Operations & Real Estate Partnerships), Nicholas Rule (Vice-Provost, Academic Programs), Tala  Alsaid Suliman, Catherine Amara, Robert Austin, Glen Bandiera*,  Joshua Barker, Sheila Batacharya, Jordan Bear*, Bensiyon Benhabib*, Susan Bondy, Heather Boon,  Daniel Bowyer, Laurent Bozec, Gabriella Brasileiro Santos, Christian Caron*, Catherine Chandler-Crichlow*, Carol Chin, Dinesh Christendat, Shai Cohen, Robert Cooper, Paul Downes, Markus Dubber,  Jessica Eylon*, Monique Flaccavento, Robert Gazzale, Ankita Goyat, Jason Harlow, Zachary Hawes,  Alex Hernandez, Sarosh Jamal,  Ehab James, M. Shone Joos, Rita Kandel, Audrey Karlinsky,  Gretchen Kerr, Elaine Khoo, Jeannie Kim, Tys Klumpenhouwer, Lisa Kramer, Robert Kyle, Mark Lautens, Joanne  McNamara*, Libbie Mills*, John Oesch, Jesse Pasternak, Maya Povhe*, Lisa Robinson, Rob Simon, Naomi Steenhof, Adam Stinchcombe, Kevin Temple, Edwin Thomas, William Verreault*, Erica Walker, Charmaine Williams, Suzanne Wood, Zimmerman, David Zingg

*participated remotely via Zoom

REGRETS: Ramona Alaggia, Larry Alford, Kayra Balikci, Zoraida Beekhoo, Christine Burke, Adalsteinn Brown, Christine Burke, Jutta Brunnee, Pier Bryden, Albert Cheng, Ryan Cortez, Lorne Costello, Tarun Dewan, Lisa Dolovich, Liam Dravid, Annabelle Dravid, Joseph Flessa, Alexandra Gillespie, William Gough, Antoinette Handley, Kelly Hannah-Moffat, Jason Harlow, Walid Houry, Charles Jia, Linda Johnston, Charlie Keil, Marcus Law, Dave Lehto, Jeff Lennon, Robert Levit, Yee Fun Lo, Amy Mann, Ryan McClelland, Irene Morra, Javed Mostafa, Eha Naylor, David Palmer, Anuradha Prakki, Matt Ratto, Karen Reid, Jonathan Rose, Karin Ruhlandt, Rosa Saverino, Laura Simone, Suresh Sivanandam, Markus Stock, Robyn Stremler, Sali Tagliamonte, Laura Tam, Sergio Tenenbaum, Morgaine van Beers, Joseph Wong, Christopher Yip

SECRETARIAT: Miranda Edwards (Acting Secretary to the Academic Board), Timothy Harlick (Assistant Secretary to the Governing Council)

IN ATTENDANCE: Tia Alkak, Karen Bellinger, Liz Church, Emma del Junco, Samantha Huang, Chris Lang, Jia Li, David Luck, Stephanie Machado Fernandes, Susan McCahan, Lachmi Singh, Archana Sridhar
 

Pursuant to section 38 of By-Law Number 2,
consideration of item 10 took place in camera.

OPEN SESSION

1. Chair’s Remarks
    
   The Chair, Professor Douglas McDougall, began by welcoming the Board’s new Presidential Assessor, Professor Nicholas Rule (Vice-Provost, Academic Programs), who had stepped into the position previously held by Professor Susan McCahan. The Chair thanked Professor McCahan for her service to the Board over the past several years and congratulated her on her new role as Associate Vice-President & Vice-Provost, Digital Strategies.
   
   The Chair shared information about the 2024 elections for Governing Council and Academic Board. He referred members to the Elections webpage and noted that upcoming information sessions would be held across all three campuses. The Chair encouraged members to share information about the elections and the importance of university governance among their peers.  

2. Report of the Vice President and Provost
   
   Professor Trevor Young reported to the Board on the University’s new graduate student funding program. The Provost began by remarking that graduate students were the lifeblood of the academy and that, as such, the University was firmly committed to supporting these individuals particularly amid the Toronto cost of living crisis. To that end, the Provost announced that the University would be increasing base funding for all PhD and SJD students to $40,000 per year including tuition. He noted that this was a substantial increase from the previous lowest base amount of $25,000 per year and that the University was hoping to further increase this amount in the future. The Provost explained to the Board that he considered this to be the first step in a long-term effort to improve graduate student support, and he expected that the University’s future President would be aligned with this goal.

3. Review of Academic Programs and Units

   1. Follow-Up Reports on Reviews
      
      At the invitation of the Chair, Professor Catherine Amara, Chair of the Committee on Academic Policy & Programs (AP&P), informed the Board that the Committee had received one follow-up report for the UTSC Specialist in Paramedicine (Joint Program with Centennial College).
      
      At its meeting of October 24, 2023, AP&P requested a one-year follow-up report regarding the program’s acclimation to its new home in the UTSC Department of Health and Society, student readiness and support programs, student workload, EDI initiatives, the communication of program requirements, and the alignment of coursework and training offered at UTSC with that of Centennial College. At its meeting of October 22, 2024, the Committee heard that several steps had been taken to address the above-noted issues. Professor Amara referred Board members to the materials provided for further details.
      
      Professor Amara confirmed that AP&P was satisfied with the follow-up report and had found no issues of concern to be brought forward to the Academic Board. No further follow-up reports were requested.
      
      In response to a question regarding the University’s partnership programs with colleges, Professor Nicholas Rule noted that the University was committed to ensuring academic continuity for its students amid current financial pressures within the college sector. Professor Rule emphasized that the University had robust Memoranda of Agreements in place with each college. In addition, each course offered within a joint program was considered a University of Toronto course, subject to the same quality assurance as all other University courses. If a student was unable to continue a program of study due to course changes, that situation would be managed under the University of Toronto Policy on Academic Continuity, ensuring students would be offered reasonable pathways to meet their program requirements and complete their degree.
      
      Professor Rule noted that the University’s five joint programs (three UTSC-Centennial College programs and two UTM-Sheridan College programs) leverage those colleges’ strengths in providing important benefits to students - such as the UTM-Sheridan College joint program that allows students access to Sheridan’s art studio facilities. Professor Young supported Professor Rule’s remarks and further emphasized the recent remarkable achievements of UTSC’s Department of Health and Society. He noted that the Department was undertaking an exciting vision for a suite of health professional programs based in experiential learning. These were important programs for the Toronto community and Scarborough, in particular.
       

   2. Semi-Annual Report on the review of Academic Units and Programs
      
      At the invitation of the Chair, Professor Catherine Amara reported to the Board that nine external reviews were received and reviewed by AP&P at its meeting on October 22, 2024. There were seven Decanal Reviews commissioned by Deans under the University of Toronto Quality Assurance Process (UTQAP) and two Provostial Reviews:​​​​

Provostial Reviews:
Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering
Lawrence Bloomberg School of Nursing and its programs

Decanal UTQAP Reviews:
Faculty of Arts & Science:

Department of Cell & Systems Biology and its programs
Christianity & Culture and Christianity & Education programs (housed in St. Michael’s College)
Ethics, Society & Law program (housed in Trinity College)
Department of Slavic Languages & Literatures and its programs

University of Toronto Mississauga:
Department of English & Drama and its programs
Department of Language Studies and its programs
Department of Visual Studies and its programs

Professor Amara informed the Board that the Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs had examined the review reports to identify both new and recurring themes including the high calibre of student talent, the impressive scholarship of faculty members, the connections between units and their surrounding communities, and EDI initiatives. The reviews identified opportunities for academic units to further strengthen and leverage coordination, interdisciplinary connections, student supports, and EDI.

Professor Amara reported that after a thorough discussion of each of the reviews, AP&P found no issues of concern to be brought forward to the Board and did not request any follow-up reports

In response to a member’s question, Professor Nicholas Rule confirmed that the Tri-Campus Review of 2021 recommended that program reviewers consult with the relevant graduate chairs during their reviews of undergraduate programs and acknowledged that this had not been clearly addressed in the reports with respect to the three UTM programs.

As the question had been received in advance, Professor Rule informed the Board that he had conducted inquiries and was able to report that there were specific reasons why graduate chairs has not been conducted for these particular reviews. For two of the programs, graduate chairs were not consulted because they were joint programs with colleges. The third program was housed in an “Omnibus Department” where program faculty had appointments in at least five different graduate departments, which made comprehensive consultation unfeasible. Professor Rule noted that some graduate chairs had been consulted, although this had not been specified in the report. Professor Rule informed the Board that, under University policy, the Commissioning Officer of a review has authority to determine the consultation participants and schedule in a way that helps reviewers best undertake their assessment.

At this point, the Chair recognized Professor Susan McCahan, to thank her again for all the work she had done as the Board’s former Presidential Assessor in reviewing academic programs over many years. He also noted that her work and contributions in this field would continue via her role on the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance.

4. Annual Report: Provost’s Annual Report on Cases of Academic Discipline (2023-2024)
   
   Professor Heather Boon (Vice-Provost, Faculty & Academic Life) delivered this Annual Report to the Board and began by summarizing key observations. Overall, the number of academic offense cases continued to decline from pandemic-era levels. In 2020, there were approximately 2,000 offences; in 2021, there were approximately 3,668 offences; and in 2023, there were, once again, approximately 2,000 offences. Professor Boon noted that this trend had been expected.
   
   Professor Boon noted that the number of offences committed by UTM students was higher than those of other divisions. These higher numbers were a result of increased reporting after UTM made efforts to increase awareness about academic integrity among faculty. UTM also undertook measures over the past year to clear a significant backlog of cases, reducing the number of open cases from 905 to approximately 300.
   
   The timely resolution of cases has been a University-wide priority and Professor Boon informed the Board that, going forward, the Report on Academic Integrity would include statistics on the percentage of cases resolved in three months or less. She noted that, in 2023, approximately 75% of cases were resolved within six months.
   
   Professor Boon reported to the Board that the Provost had asked her to undertake a review of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters (CBAM). This review was recommended in the 2023 Annual Report of the Office of the Ombudsperson. It was observed that the current Code sufficiently addressed the various methods of committing academic offences; however, it did not sufficiently address the volume of cases. Under the current Code, all cases required a Tribunal which had led to a lengthy process and Tribunal wait times for even minor cases. Professor Boon noted that the CBAM review had begun with an initial consultation phase which was currently underway. Following consultations, a working group would develop proposed changes to be shared with the community for additional feedback. Final proposed changes would be presented to Academic Board for approval.
   
   In an effort to reduce the number of cases in the queue for a Tribunal hearing, Professor Boon informed the Board of a pilot project “abeyance program” that the University had run in 2023. The University identified cases where a student was accused of an academic offence, had not been registered at the University for one or more consecutive terms (excluding summer term), and had not been responsive to the University’s efforts to contact them. These cases were put in abeyance until the student decided to re-register at the University. Professor Boon explained that, if a student with an abeyance case decided to return to the University, the case would automatically come out of abeyance and be addressed through the regular process before the student would be allowed to continue their studies. This system was applied only for less serious offences; for example, a first offence of plagiarism.
   
   Professor Boon reported that the pilot program was considered a success. It was carried out across the University’s three largest divisions – the Faculty of Arts and Science, UTM, and UTSC. In 2023, 242 cases were put in abeyance. This allowed the University to prioritize and expedite cases where students were actively engaged in and responsive to the academic integrity process and were also still attending the university. The results were significant savings of resources such as staff time, faculty time, and legal fees. As a result of the pilot program’s success, the abeyance system was rolled out to all divisions for the 2024-25 academic year.
   
   Professor Boon informed the Board that the number of Tribunal cases which take multiple hearing days to be resolved has more than doubled. This was due to the increased complexity of cases and a greater number of cases being contested. Professor Boon told the Board it was her opinion that this was a signal that the right kinds of cases were advancing to the Tribunal stage, thanks to the new abeyance program.
   
   In response to a member’s question, Professor Boon confirmed that there was no time limit on how long a case could remain in abeyance. The member asked a follow-up question as to whether such a policy could be challenged under law. Professor Boon responded that she was unable to provide an answer but could inquire into the matter further.
   
   A member noted that, if a case remained in abeyance for many years, it could become increasingly difficult for students to defend against their actions or for the University to speak to the original allegations. Professor Boon explained that all evidence and background investigations were contained in the original file and could be referred to. She acknowledged there might be challenges in addressing some extremely old cases and re-iterated that cases could only be put into abeyance if they were relatively minor offences.
   
   Professor Boon informed the Board that, in further efforts to reduce case backlogs, the University had also introduced a new “traffic ticket model.” This model offered students an expedited option to admit guilt and accept the penalty rather than engage in the lengthier Tribunal process. Professor Boon noted that the system appeared to be working well and that many students chose to accept the expedited option. Under this traffic ticket model, there was sometimes a lesser penalty administered when students chose the expedited option. If a student were to dispute the charges and proceed to the Tribunal, the penalties could be greater, at the discretion of the Tribunal. However, a student who could prove their innocence to the Tribunal might be able to obtain a clean academic record. Professor Boon emphasized that the University always made it clear to students that they were fully entitled to due process. In response to a member’s concerns about the “traffic ticket model”, Professor Boon emphasized that while these new processes aim to improve efficiency, the University's commitment to fairness, integrity, and due process remains paramount as core principles of the University.
   
   Professor Boon explained that, in response to changes in technology, the use of unauthorized aids was increasing, while plagiarism – historically, the most common type of offence – was decreasing. Significant resources and energy have been channelled into educating students and faculty about policies regarding the use of unauthorized aids, while also encouraging students to make use of support programs when feeling stressed or overwhelmed.
   
   In response to concerns regarding the effects of AI on faculty pedagogy, Professor McCahan informed the Board that, in her role leading the Task Force on Artificial Intelligence, she had made presentations to Faculty to raise awareness of the many teaching supports that were available to help faculty redevelop assessments and grading in light of AI advancements. Professor McCahan stated that she had made between sixty to seventy presentations and would deliver her presentation to any University division that requested one. Professor Boon also noted that AI technology would be part of students’ everyday lives and that the University was making progress in supporting faculty to train students in using technology appropriately. The Provost further added that UTM was currently leading the way among divisions in providing support for Faculty in this context.
   
   In response to a member’s question, Professor Boon stated that her office did not track demographic data of students who commit academic integrity offences. She noted that the University delivered orientation sessions and training modules so that all students have been provided with the same information regarding academic integrity. As a follow-up question, the member asked if language barriers for international students were taken into consideration when creating these modules. Professor Boon responded that all University of Toronto students must meet minimum English language competency requirements upon admittance to the University, so language barriers have not been a considered factor. As a follow-up, a member suggested that more demographic data could be collected and Professor Boon confirmed that this feedback would be taken into account. 
   
   A member asked if any data had been collected regarding the increased workload requirements of faculty members to monitor and manage academic integrity issues and to what extent faculty were changing their pedagogy and assessment processes as a result. Professor Boon responded that she did not have data on this issue but reiterated that the overall number of academic offence cases remained stable and was, therefore, not an increasing problem; rather, the nature of offences had shifted in response to technological changes. The Provost commented to the Board that the introduction of the abeyance system, the traffic ticket model, and the ongoing review of the CBAM were all new initiatives that would potentially address some of this burden on faculty. The Provost further emphasized that, as an institutional leader in AI, the University should embrace the challenge of finding the best use of AI and other technology in an educational context.
   
   A member suggested that the initial faculty-and-student interaction that occurs immediately after an offence allegation might be taken into consideration in the evidence-gathering process. Professor Boon encouraged members to submit this type of feedback to the CBAM review working group and suggested that the Chair could circulate the consultation website link to members.

CONSENT AGENDA
 

The Board proceeded with the Consent Agenda.

On a motion duly moved, seconded, and carried

YOUR BOARD APPROVED

THAT the consent agenda be adopted and that Item 5, the Report of the Previous Meeting, be approved.

5. Report of the Previous Meeting: Report Number 252 – October 10, 2024
   
   Report Number 252, from the meeting of October 10, 2024 was approved.
6. Business Arising from the Report of the Previous Meeting
   
   
   There was no business arising from the report of the previous meeting.
7. Items for Information

Members received the following items for information:

1. Semi-Annual Report: Academic Appeals Committee, Individual Cases, Fall 2024
2. Semi-Annual Report: University Tribunal, Individual Cases, Fall 2024
3. Report Number 226 of the Committee on Academic Policy and Programs – October 22, 2024
4. Report Number 214 of the Planning and Budget Committee – October 23, 2024
5. Report Number 310 of the Agenda Committee – November 5, 2024
6. Membership of the Advisory Committee on the University of Toronto Library System for 2024-2025
    

END OF CONSENT AGENDA

8. Date of the Next Meeting: January 30, 2025, 3:10 - 5:10 p.m.
   
   The Chair confirmed that the next meeting of the Board would be held on January 30, 2025 at 3:10 p.m.

9. Other Business
   
   No items of other business were raised

THE BOARD MOVED IN CAMERA.

IN CAMERA AGENDA

10. Appointment of Two Assistant Secretaries for the University Tribunal
    
    On motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
    
    YOUR BOARD APPROVED
    
    THAT Ms. Jia Li be appointed Assistant Secretary of the University Tribunal effective November 14, 2024
    
    And  
    
    Be It Resolved: 
    THAT Ms. Christina Amodio be appointed Assistant Secretary of the University Tribunal effective November 14, 2024.

The Board returned to Open Session.