Presentation to the 2022 International Conference: Academic Integrity in the Law School - Past Experience, Current Challenges, and Future Perspectives. Funded by The Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) and the Centre for Innovation and Research in Legal Education at the University of Leeds. My paper argued that similarities could be drawn between the way that Sports Federations apply anti-doping regulations.

1. Kris Lines
Should we be flipping students,
not just classrooms?
Applying sport’s anti-doping principles to Academic Offences.

2. Background
o Senior Lecturer - Law
o College Academic Offences Officer (BSS)
o 8 departments (@foundation / UG / PG / PGRes / Exec)
o Previously active researcher in Sports Law, particularly
technological doping, negligence, discrimination.
*views are the author’s and not necessarily the institutions…

3. Outline…
- Why Law Schools should be careful of legalistic AO policies?
- My (desk-based) research into 121 UK University AO regulations
- Lessons that we can learn from recent sporting practices

4. The Problem
o Growth and drivers of academic integrity practices
Skills & Post-16 Education Act 2022 s 26
BUT, Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) guidance on essay
mills, ‘Contracting to Cheat in Higher Education (2nd edn)’
seems to pivot towards educating and working in
partnership with students, rather than their previous
strategies of prevention and deterrence: ‘educate’
‘promote’ ‘encourage’

5. Analysis
During lock-down, I reviewed 121 UK Universities listed in the 2020 Guardian Good University Guide.
- Desk research
- Publicly available resources (some were only 2019 regulations rather than 20/21)
- Some universities adopted legalistic approach / others a more ‘plain English’ translation
- Coded the data in relation to 8x key topic areas:
- Type of charge / offence
- Amnesty provision
- Whistleblowing provision
- Retrospective investigation
- Intentional / Unintentional (strict liability)
- Differentiation between minor offences and reduced penalties
- Early guilty plea
- Whether students could receive mitigation for early guilty pleas

7. Strict Liability?
Assessment offences
You have committed and/or have been adjudged by an education establishment
to have committed a deliberate assessment offence, which amounts to
plagiarism or cheating, in order to gain an advantage for you or others.
The SRA will therefore consider any information available to it and take into account all relevant matters. These will
include but are not limited to the criminal and other conduct or behaviour set out in rules 3 and 4 below.
Rule 4: Other conduct and behaviour
4.i Table 2 sets out non-exhaustive examples of the types of conduct or behaviour that the SRA will take into account
when assessing your character and suitability.

8. Philosophy
 Editing the regulatory provisions on University AO policies
(to balance the inherent harshness of the current regime)
NOT:
 ‘soft’ on offences
 Turning a blind-eye
 Incentivising bad behaviour
 Allowing offenders to escape consequences
 Reducing academic standards

9. Strict Liability?
All but one university (Reading) operated a strict liability policy for plagiarism offences.
Clarity over whether an offence ‘needed’ / ‘should’ be declared? X
Should there be a difference between Yr1 and Final Year students?
Do our AO policies incentivise students to move universities rather than stay for PG Study?

10. Why Sport?
Both sectors have:
1) Honour codes / integrity regulations
2) Rigorous enforcement and detection mechanisms
3) Predominantly reactive regulation
4) Well funded (smart) cheats evade detection while the predominantly (less
able) and more desperate offenders are caught
5) Potential conflicts of interest between performance and profit

11. Recent Sporting Reviews:

12. Three Areas:
o Amnesties and Historical offences
o Amnesties and information-gathering
o Retrospective investigations
o Diverting from offences
o Education / Rehabilitation courses
o Vulnerable populations
o Reduced sanctions
o Early guilty pleas
o Intelligence-led reductions

13. Amnesties & Historical Offences

14. Amnesties / Intelligence gathering?
None of the university regulations reviewed explicitly allow the possibility of an amnesty (even theoretically) for
the disclosure of offences, without a specific student having first being prosecuted for them.
The more underground, unethical, or unlawful the activity, the harder it will be to get accurate
intelligence because of the fear of any consequences that might occur from providing it.
Trade-off:
- discovering new knowledge
- compromises needed to enable this.
“Individuals asked to cooperate with the CIRC were under no obligation to participate in the
process and several people including riders, scientists, ex-riders or former UCI staff members
refused to be interviewed by the CIRC. The Commission also had no coercive measures against
people who may have lied during their interview.” (CIRC, 2015: 19)

15. Retrospective Action?
Could a university retrospectively investigate graduate work after new information has come to light?
Fifty-four universities explicitly allow an investigation to be opened into graduate awards, although interestingly,
Nottingham Trent University has the most restrictive Statute of Limitations in this area and seems to only allow this
investigation to be up to one year after the conferment date.
If nobody is caught committing an offence, does this represent a success of the investigation process?
Or in fact, a damning failure?
(WADA)’s Statute of Limitations - Article 17 (World Anti-Doping Code, 2019), allows (indeed, arguably encourages)
athlete samples to be re-tested for up to 10 years.

16. Suspended or Diverted Sentences

17. Education / Awareness courses?
Not everybody who plagiarises is a deliberate cheat.
Sport adopts a strict liability approach to doping for two main reasons:
- avoids the difficulty in having to prove intent;
- and to ensure a level playing field for all athletes
If someone tests positive, their results are stripped, however a ban does not
necessarily occur if the panel feels that there has not been ‘fault’
This was perhaps the area where there was the most deviation in practice. Some Universities (nineteen) operated a
system of differentiation between year groups (particularly the first term, or Levels 3-4), while twenty-nine
institutions implemented a formal opportunity to receive Awareness Training in lieu of / integral to the penalty.
Does this suspended punishment = poor academic practice, OR an offence?

18. Education / Awareness courses?
Police speed awareness courses - offered to low-level offenders who have exceeded
speed limits (typically by up to 10% +9mph). The rationale behind these courses is one of
re-education and reflection, rather than punishment. Instead of receiving penalty points
and a fine, a motorist can elect to undertake this training. To deter frequent offenders,
this offer is only available once within a three-year period.
The same logic could equally be applied to academic offences where the violation in
question is:
- comparatively minor,
- a first-time offence and/or the student is new to academia

19. Vulnerable Populations?
While some academic offences might be unintentional, others may be more deliberate.
HOWEVER, in my experience, this decision could also be due in a large part to personal or family stressors that
could/should have been dealt with as exceptional circumstances if these have been disclosed by the student prior
to submission.
Diverting them at this point from the formal disciplinary process to receive appropriate help from specialist
welfare advisors would help them from being caught up in a punitive system that may make things even worse.
Social Justice questions?

20. ‘Substantial Assistance’

21. (Early) Guilty Plea?
While many universities outlined what would happen procedurally if a student admitted the charge, for the majority
of institutions, there did not seem to be any advantage or recognition to the student doing so, other than avoiding a
formal hearing? Only thirty-two universities explicitly suggested that this was a factor that could be taken into
account in mitigation.
Is there any incentive to plead guilty? X
“Where an Athlete … voluntarily admits the commission of an anti-doping rule violation
before having received notice of a Sample collection … and that admission is the only
reliable evidence of the violation at the time of admission, then the period of Ineligibility
may be reduced, but not below one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise
applicable.”
[WADA Code, 2021 [10.7.2]

22. Snitches get stitches reduced sanctions
Linked to the previous question, only three universities suggested a student could explicitly receive any credit or
mitigation if they assisted with investigations.
“An Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility for an anti-doping rule violation may, …
suspend a part of the period of Ineligibility imposed in an individual case where the Athlete or other Person has
provided Substantial Assistance to an Anti-Doping Organization, criminal authority or professional disciplinary
body…
... The extent to which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended shall be based on the
seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation committed by the Athlete or other Person and the significance of the
Substantial Assistance provided by the Athlete or other Person to the effort to eliminate doping in sport. No more
than three-quarters of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended…”
[WADA Code, 2021 [10.7]

23. Compare…
To whom it may concern,
I am writing this email to you today as I wish
to bring to your attention that XXXXXXXX
has falsely submitted coursework to your
university which had actually been written by
an essay-writing site.
Please find evidence of this attached to this
email, along with two receipts.
I disagree strongly with this type of behaviour
and I feel it is unfair that they should be
allowed to get away with this…
AOO: Was this a joke or was this happening
across multiple students?
Student: I have told the truth, this was a
joke. In WhatsApp many students discuss
during the 24 hour exams. I’m just joking in
this chat.
AOO: Do you have any evidence of these
multiple people?
Student: If I tell you, will it reduce my
collusion or commissioning?

24. Substantial ‘Assistance’…?

25. Conclusions

26. Conclusion
 As we become more legalistic in the AO regulations, I worry that we are ‘prosecuting’ weaker and more vulnerable
students as they are easier to catch!
 This is becoming particularly important with the SRA ‘Fit and Proper’ test
 Universities (and Law Schools) should therefore consider a wider range of tools, including: Intelligence-gathering,
rehabilitative / education strategies, and incentivised penalties
 Happy to chat further if anyone is interested…

27. You may now wake up the person next to you...

28. QUESTIONS?
Twitter: @KrisLines Email: k.lines@aston.ac.uk