PRESIDENT’S PAGE
GIANCARLO DA-RÉ President
president@msumcmaster.ca 905.525.9140 x23885
For almost a year now, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced students into a new normal of academic study. Our education is far removed from the campus at which we all intended to be this year. And while some positives will ultimately be gleaned from this experience, we have also been challenged with a new problem, the use of proctoring software. McMaster University’s use of Respondus to monitor students during academic assessments has revealed a host of worries. To start, there are issues of equity in owning the technology sufficient to use it. Once installed, students have reported damages to their personal equipment, along with the need to completely wipe their operating systems because of the software. Yet, the greatest threat Respondus poses to students goes beyond the costs to upgrade or repair computers. It
msu_mcmaster msumcmaster.ca text “MSU” to 71441
is the fact that students are effectively being compelled, without being able to provide informed consent, to submit themselves to an intrusive and sometimes demeaning mode of monitoring. Simultaneously, the use of Respondus is forcing students to give-up personal and biometric data to a third-party company. The storage, security, and integrity of that information are all in serious question. The MSU has been raising these concerns to the University since the beginning of the fall term. While I appreciate McMaster’s willingness to maintain communication with student leaders, there continues to be unanswered questions regarding the use of proctoring software. The FAQ released in the fall did not address student concerns on the issues of privacy and data control. Though I am aware that a second FAQ is in progress, these questions have been consistent since the early fall and have yet to receive adequate responses. In light of this, the Student Representative Assembly (SRA) has taken the step of formally denouncing McMaster’s use of Respondus. The complete text of the SRA motion speaks to students’ continued frustration and the University’s lack of transparency on this topic. The motion can be found on the SRA Facebook page and website. What also lacks in the University’s implementation of Respondus is communication to students as to how proctoring software is vetted, or if a vetting process is even required in the
The President’s Page is a space sponsored and used by the McMaster Students Union (MSU) Board of Directors (BoD) to communicate with the student body. It functions to highlight the Board’s projects, goals, and agenda for the year, as well as the general happenings of the MSU.
first place! I am aware of at least one instance wherein proctoring software other than Respondus was used in a course without a vetting process. These are not choices that should be left up to individual instructor opinion, as I do not view the monitoring of students to be within the realm of academic freedom. Rather, a codified process should be required prior to an instructor selecting and/or utilizing proctoring software in their class. Under the current system, students feel incapable of providing informed consent. Many feel a compelled obligation to submit to these programs, lest they face academic penalty. To add to the issue, it remains unclear what happens if a student refuses to use Respondus. While I have heard encouraging stories of instructors providing alternative options for students, many people are unaware that asking for an alternative is even an option in the first place. Even more alarming are reports of students experiencing intimidation from instructors, upon raising concerns regarding assessments. Some students have been threatened by instructors with academic integrity violations, should a student report accessibility and/or privacy issues with Respondus or the improper directions of instructors. This problem is not unique to McMaster, as the term ‘academic bullying’ has surfaced across the province. Conversely, I am equally disappointed to learn of instances in which students harassed their instructors, as it related to proctoring discussions.
GIANCARLO DA-RÉ President
GRAEME NOBLE
VP (Administration)
Neither of these scenarios are in line with the values of integrity and respect students and instructors should have for one another. Students should be able to voice concerns, but instructors should also be free of harassment in their work environment. So, why use proctoring software at all? At the heart of the matter is the University’s need to ensure academic integrity within the remote learning / testing environment. I think students can appreciate that logic and I can certainly understand McMaster’s need to minimize academic dishonesty. Academic integrity is important. But the choice between ensuring academic integrity or eliminating the use of invasive proctoring software is a false dichotomy. The path forward necessitates greater consideration of alternative modes of assessment that respects students’ rights to privacy, while also facilitating effective learning. Other universities have demonstrated that Respondus is not the only option; viable alternatives already exist. These problems affect all of us, so our approach to solutions should be unified as well. That means involving students in the discussion and building trust through transparency and collaboration. In our brave new online academic world, which seems likely to continue for the foreseeable future, we need creative teaching and learning strategies that continue to uphold the values of academic integrity - but not at the cost of privacy and accountability.
RYAN TSE
VP (Education)
JESSICA ANDERSON VP (Finance)