<p>AMB@005 Concerning the problems with academic due process, by many schools standards on plagerism the prof has a perfect right to flunk the student and to advise other echelons of the problem. But its a standard practice to clarify what the prof can do (flunk and refer) and what is the venue of administration and other entities such as student ethics boards. </p>
<p>But in implications of… "As stated in the syllabus, “No form of dishonesty is acceptable. I will promptly and publicly fail and humiliate anyone caught lying, cheating, or stealing. That includes academic dishonesty, copyright violations, software piracy, or any other form of dishonesty.” (CC)…are very disturbing. It’s one matter to refer students to proper channels for disciplinary action. But “I will promptly and publically fail and humilate anyone caught lying stealing…” does seem to indicate he intended to act independently of channels. Otherwise the would have been no need to use the “I” phrasing. In his choice of words alone there is some indication of a desire for unilateral authority. </p>
<p>And anyway the whole approach was very ill considered. Profs may be powerful figures on campus but are vulnerable to allegations. Especially if it appears to some that they are targeting students. Tactically it’s much more pragamatic to ensure other elements of the college are also involved in decisions which could bring the ire of student groups or their families (or lawyers). </p>
<p>It’s very possible the prof in question was either very naive about collegiate politics, or so arrogant to assume he was invulnerable to the potential consequences.</p>