Unisa set to finally act against more than 1,500 students charged with exam cheating

The university says March is the month for disciplinary hearings, but one affected student says she has not received notice of the proceedings.

Unisa set to finally act against more than 1,500 students charged with exam cheating

At least 1,500 suspended University of South Africa (Unisa) students will face disciplinary hearings in March for cheating and dishonesty during exams.

Because of their suspensions, some students on the verge of completing their studies have not been able to graduate, obtain their qualifications and find jobs.

A Unisa student can be suspended for two years depending on the seriousness of the offence.

This comes after Daily Maverick learnt that the affected students wrote to Unisa management on 22 February 2024 complaining about discrepancies in the way the university was handling their cases.

They alleged in their letter that Unisa was using a blanket approach to the matter – charging students who had committed different offences under the same provisions, but then being inconsistent in issuing its rulings.

A similar correspondence, which is undated, was also allegedly sent by the Student Representative Council (SRC) to management detailing allegations that the dean of students, Dr Olwethu Sipuka, had refused to deal with their grievances.

Daily Maverick reported in January that suspended students were concerned about administrative bungles and delays in finalising their hearings.

An affected student, who asked to remain anonymous, said a total of 1,541 students had been begging for their suspension to be lifted.

She said they had found out that Unisa had on 10 February retracted suspensions of certain students who were facing the same allegations and had instead issued them with warning letters.

But Unisa indicated on Wednesday, 28 February, that the Student Disciplinary Office was in the process of issuing notices of disciplinary hearings to students, and the hearings were set to start in March.

The affected student, however, told Daily Maverick on Thursday, 29 February, that she had not received any notice to attend a hearing.

Concerning the allegations of a blanket approach and inconsistencies, Unisa said there were processes and platforms in place for engagement with various student structures.

“Where matters are raised in these structures or through any form of correspondence, the university engages with the student structures through appropriate internal channels and these engagements are confined to those spaces,” Unisa said.

Student demands

In their letter to management on 22 February, affected students wrote that they wished to place on record that it had come to their attention that the office of the registrar, which is currently occupied by Professor Moloko Sepota in an acting capacity, had charged students with exactly the same charges, irrespective of the level of plagiarism involved.

Sepota is acting in the position after Unisa fired Professor Steward Mothata following a fall-out with the university council and Unisa vice-chancellor Professor Puleng LenkaBula.

The charges include that students contravened the Student Disciplinary Code “Chapter 3”, which deals with misconduct.

Under this chapter, the affected students state that they were found to have breached three rules:

• 1.2: A student refusing or failing to comply with a lawful instruction or request of an authorised Unisa employee;
• 1.18: A student making a false declaration in order to benefit or prejudice Unisa or benefit another student; and
• 1.20: A student intentionally or negligently tendering or presenting a document to a Unisa employee, which he or she knows or ought to reasonably know to be false or a forgery that will cause prejudice to the administrative, financial or academic interests of the university.

The letter states that the code binds the Student Disciplinary Committee (SDC) to the rules of administration law and natural justice, its principles and precedents.

“The Registrar has failed to apply its past decisions in charging students with the same transgression. It is submitted [sic] since 2023, every student has been found guilty of contravening Chapter 3 – Rule 1.2, 1.18 [and] 1.20, of the Student Disciplinary Code and suspend students,” the letter reads.

The letter states that students learnt that the SDC sent out dishonesty reports on 7 and 8 February to those studying Law of Delict module PVL 3703 who were implicated in cheating.

These reports, the letter states, outlined their transgressions relating to similar answers found in their exam scripts.

These students, the letter states, had “disciplinary pending” on their records since last year’s second semester exams.

“On 9 February 2024 the registrar recalled all disciplinary reports from student mailboxes. On 10 February 2024 the registrar sent thousands of PVL3703 students with pending disciplinary hearings warning letters stating that ‘students may accept the evidence provided, the students will be allowed to re-register the module and/or reject the evidence the students will be required to undergo a formal disciplinary hearing’.”

Students indicated in the letter that they were also aware of warning letters sent out to students, who had duly performed – meaning recorded receiving a DP – for different modules between 10 and 22 February.

“In the interest of natural justice and constitutional right to equality, our right has been infringed. In light of the foregoing, we demand as we hereby do, that students who have completed their degrees be allowed to graduate,” the letter reads.

However, a student with knowledge of the matter indicated that Unisa had never responded to their letter.

The process

Unisa said 1,541 students had been suspended based on the merits of each case and the process was applied fairly and consistently.

In some cases, Unisa said the Student Disciplinary Office issued students with warning letters in line with the policy on academic integrity for minor offences.

This policy, Unisa said, prescribes different types of corrective measures to be applied for formative and summative academic integrity transgressions.

Such measures include encouraging students to re-register for the module before the closing date of the official registration period. DM