Respondus and other similar webcam monitoring tools discriminate against students of color, invade the privacy of students' home learning environments, foster a lack of trust and mutual respect between faculty and students, and are plainly inhumane and degrading when some students choose to pee themselves rather than get flagged for cheating.
A common retort from faculty and administration is that Respondus and similar tools are necessary to combat rampant cheating during the pandemic. Indeed, some course assessments have seen increased violations of academic integrity during this pandemic, and we agree that these present challenges to the faculty that teach these courses. There are additional legitimate challenges for faculty to retool their curriculum and assessments during this pandemic, with no extra compensation and no extra time.
Namely, many faculty work like the Texas power grid - we operate at capacity, and some would say over-capacity even before this pandemic began; the slightest stress on our system of time management causes a cascade of failures (and in the case of the Texas power grid real harm, tragedy, and loss of life). We don't have the spare capacity to adequately adjust our curricula and assessments, and many faculty also have young children in virtual school at home or to provide caregiving for. It's the stuff of anxiety-driven nightmares.
However, some faculty are simply privileged to be ignorant of the inequities in the use of Respondus and similar tools. Other overworked faculty are aware of its limitations, but weigh the trade offs in investing their time to switch assessments away from Respondus, and decide equity is not a relatively high enough priority. Still others are simply at a loss on how to retool assessments in classes with >50 students; oftentimes alternative assessments require more effort in preparation and grading, and more contact hours which do not scale easily with no corresponding increase in the number of faculty, teaching assistants and learning assistants. Some term faculty are forced to use Respondus to maintain consistent standards across multi-section courses with multiple instructors. We simply don't have the spare capacity to adjust.
So, rather than ban Respondus outright, administrations permit its use; it is "convenient", an easy hi-tech "solution" in challenging times. In fact, many institutions are upgrading and renewing Respondus contracts to avoid compromising the academic freedom of faculty. Higher ed administrations are anticipating that the fraction of courses offered virtually online after the pandemic will remain significantly elevated compared to the "before times"; online courses are a perceived driver of revenue growth and student demand, regardless or whether or not this is in the best interests of the student academic preparation. The pandemic has given the perception that this trend in higher education towards more online courses has abruptly accelerated because of the pandemic. Thus we are using student revenue, and in the case of public institutions taxpayer dollars, to pay a private, for-profit company for the privilege of discrimination.
However, in my opinion, I don't think faculty should have the "academic freedom" to discriminate against their students of color, the "academic freedom" to invade their privacy, nor the "academic freedom" to inhumanely degrade their students. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard. To take the logic of using Respondus to its absurd extreme, imagine if the administration of colleges could require faculty to use Respondus to monitor the faculty, to ensure that we are lecturing from home at the times we are supposed to be, monitoring us for our job performance. I imagine then that Respondus would quickly go away and stop discriminating against and unnecessarily stressing our students.
Instead, let's reset the relationship between students and faculty. Let's question the assumptions that lead to the use of Respondus and similar tools this pandemic. Instead, let's foster trust and mutual respect rather than adversity with our students. I recall the honor code of my undergrad institution "No member of the Caltech community shall take unfair advantage of any other member of the Caltech community." That foundation of trust, instilled in all incoming students at orientation, set the tone of the relationship between faculty and students from the start. We had take home exams as the norm in the late 90s, no webcams required (and the internet was there, but still new then). Yes, some students will still take unfair advantage of that trust, and there needs to be checks and balances in place for genuine violations of academic integrity as are the norm at all institutions. Also, Caltech is a unique institution with its small enrollment, high contact hours, challenging student assessments, and selective admissions, with its own additional well-known institutional shortcomings; not everything can scale.
Faculty can retool our assessments, if given the time, compensation, and spare capacity to do so. As it is, academic curricula and assessments are overdue for an overhaul in the modern era of google search. If an exam question can be answered with googling for the answer, are you really assessing learning? In some circumstances, you are instead assessing memorization. There can and should be new goals for learning and assessment that go beyond memorization. Let's re-evaluate our foundational assumptions of our courses - what do we want our students to take away from the courses, and how can we redesign assessments for those goals in the current learning environment? Instead of using technology to "innovate" surveillance, let's use technology to innovate assessment, to customize student assessments, provide more contact hours or make better use of limited contact hours, and to assist in grading. Let's talk to each other about what has worked and hasn't worked well in our online classes over the past year. Let's ask administrators for the time, and spare capacity, which means hiring more faculty, to invest in our course development.
Think of the stressful situations imposed on our students when some are driven to deny themselves the use of a toilet to answer a multiple choice question. Have we no humanity?
In response to
student concerns, the University of Illinois recently agreed to stop
using online proctoring after Summer 2021. Let's work with our colleagues to join them.
Here are some anecdotal quotes and resources compiled by a colleague of mine:
"We as students understand the need to uphold
academic integrity and the legitimacy of the university, however, there
has to be a better way," ….The protection of our data and privacy
should always come first." in No More Proctorio, Inside HIgherEd, February 1, 2021, https://www.theverge.
“Students argue that the testing systems have made them afraid to
click too much or rest their eyes for fear they’ll be branded as cheats.
Some students also said they’ve wept with stress or urinated at their
desks because they were forbidden from leaving
their screens.” And “At the software’s core, he said, “the most clear value conveyed to students is ‘We don’t trust you.’ ” in Cheating-detection companies made millions during the pandemic. Now students are fighting back.” The Washington Post, November 12, 2020, https://www.
“It’s become clear to me that algorithmic proctoring is a modern surveillance technology that reinforces white supremacy, sexism, ableism, and transphobia. The use of these tools is an invasion of students’ privacy and, often, a civil rights violation.”, Shea Swaugerin Software that monitors students during tests perpetuates inequality and violates their privacy, MIT Technology Review, August 7, 2020
“No student should be forced to make the choice to either hand over their biometric data and be surveilled continuously or to fail their class.”
Proctoring Apps Subject Students to Unnecessary Surveillance, by JASON KELLEY AND LINDSAY OLIVER, August 20, 2020“Yes, it's quite possible that students working at home in an online setting could cheat on assignments in ways they may not in a face-to-face setting. [...] There are two ways to respond: Being OK with this, or setting up a mini-surveillance state. The first option is the simpler of the two and so that's what you should go with. Trust students more, and give them more grace and lenience, than you normally do – even more than you are comfortable with. You might be surprised how they respond.” Robert Talbert, Mastery Grading and Academic Honesty, July 20, 2020
“It’s in moments of crisis that you’re most likely
to sacrifice your civil rights,” she said. “But the problem is that once
you sacrifice them, it’s hard to get them back.” In The
Surveilled Student, The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 15,
2021, https://www.chronicle.
