By: Sidikie Elvis Fornah
To the Esteemed Senate and Leadership of the University of Makeni (UNIMAK),
It is with deep concern and a profound respect for the principles of academic integrity that I address you today regarding the recent decision by the University of Makeni to revoke degrees awarded to certain graduates. Reports indicate these revocations stem from allegations that these individuals falsified their degree classifications specifically, upgrading results from Second Class Lower (2:2) to Second Class Upper (2:1) in applications for scholarships in China, which they did not ultimately secure.
Let me state unequivocally: the act of falsifying academic records, whether for scholarships, employment, or any other purpose, is a grave offense. Such dishonesty is unlawful, morally reprehensible, and fundamentally undermines the trust and credibility that are cornerstones of higher education. The University’s stance against such malpractice is commendable and necessary.
However, it is precisely because of my commitment to upholding these same values that I feel compelled to appeal the University’s chosen response the revocation of these degrees. While the students’ actions warrant condemnation, the subsequent revocation raises significant concerns about proportionality, the scope of university jurisdiction, and the potential for establishing a dangerous precedent.
The Crucial Distinction: Valid Award vs. Post-Graduation Misuse
Degrees are awarded based on the successful completion of rigorous academic programs, assessed through examinations, coursework, and adherence to institutional regulations during the period of study. In this instance, the graduates in question had already successfully completed their programs and were awarded their degrees by UNIMAK. The public notices do not suggest that these degrees were obtained dishonestly, through fraud, plagiarism, or impersonation, during their tenure at UNIMAK.
The misconduct alleged occurred after graduation, when these individuals purportedly misrepresented their qualifications externally. While this is a serious breach of integrity directed at other institutions (the scholarship providers), it does not retroactively invalidate the original degree earned through legitimate academic effort and assessment by UNIMAK.
Interrogating the Boundaries of Academic Integrity and University Authority
UNIMAK’s public notice stated: “The University regards this conduct as a very serious breach of academic integrity. Acts of dishonesty of this nature undermine the value of truth, accountability, and professionalism that UNIMAK stands for, and they damage the trust the University enjoys with its national and international partners.”
This rationale prompts fundamental questions regarding the scope and limits of academic integrity and university jurisdiction:
1. When does the duty of academic integrity end? Is it confined solely to the period of study and examination, or does it extend indefinitely into a graduate’s private and professional life?
2. Does post-graduation misrepresentation invalidate a valid degree? If a graduate misrepresents their degree classification years later, does this constitute a breach of integrity owed to the university that warrants revocation?
3. What is the scope of the University’s disciplinary power post-graduation? UNIMAK’s own Student Handbook. prescribes expulsion for forgery and impersonation actions applicable to enrolled students. “DISCIPLINARY MATTERS AND STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT: All Students must abide by the UNIMAK rules and regulations contained in the Student Handbook. Failure to do so will result in Disciplinary action. UNIMAK sets a very high standard for student behavior: criminal activity, cultism, fraternities, and immoral activity are not allowed in UNIMAK and students MAY be disciplined for off campus behavior.” Once individuals have lawfully graduated, this direct disciplinary authority through expulsion ceases. Revoking a degree retrospectively based on post-graduation actions moves beyond established academic discipline into uncharted territory.
The Perilous Precedent and the Specter of Overreach
Allowing degree revocation for post-graduation misuse of a validly awarded credential sets a perilous precedent. The world is filled with individuals who engage in various forms of dishonesty, from the petty theft of office supplies (the proverbial ‘ink thieves’) to significant workplace misconduct by numerous workers who hold university degrees. Indeed, consider public figures, such as politicians, who may have gained their qualifications through questionable means or later engage in actions that damage public trust. If a politician is found to have forged academic credentials years ago, are their universities automatically obligated to revoke degrees solely to ‘protect trust’? Typically, the consequences are political or professional sanctions by relevant bodies, not academic revocation if the degree itself was legitimately earned and assessed.
Must UNIMAK police every aspect of a graduate’s life from their job performance to their social conduct to maintain its reputation? This approach risks transforming degrees from certifications of academic achievement into conditional licenses perpetually subject to the university’s judgment of a graduate’s later behavior, potentially leading to arbitrary decisions and undue anxiety for alumni. Furthermore, the dishonesty in this case was directed at foreign scholarship bodies, not at the integrity of UNIMAK’s examination system or award process. UNIMAK’s original degree records and the integrity of its academic processes were not compromised at the source.
Analogy: Internal Compromise vs. External Misuse
To clarify by analogy: if a student gained admission into UNIMAK with a fake WASSCE result, revocation would be justified because the fraud tainted the entire academic process from the start. However, should the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) revoke all of that student’s other genuine WASSCE papers simply because one was fake? Clearly not. By parity of reasoning, UNIMAK may justifiably revoke a degree only where its own academic process was fundamentally compromised during the award, not for misconduct that occurs after graduation.
Examining UNIMAK’s Own Framework and Stated Policy
A common clause found on academic documents, such as the UNIMAK transcript mentioned (“Any alteration to this document renders it invalid”), typically invalidates the altered copy itself, not the underlying, originally awarded degree. It does not grant the university the authority to revoke the original qualification based solely on the existence of a subsequently tampered document.
Crucially, the public notices issued by UNIMAK appear to cite no specific policy or legal basis for revoking degrees based on post-graduation misconduct. This suggests the University may have acted based on a perceived need to maintain relationships, perhaps with its Chinese partners, rather than established precedent or regulation. The statement that “the Senate had no option but to act firmly” also raises concerns about due process, potentially suggesting the affected graduates were not accorded sufficient opportunity to present their case fully before such a drastic action was taken.
Our Plea to UNIMAK
We urge the University Senate and leadership to reconsider this decision. While the condemnation of academic fraud is essential, the method of response must be sound, just, and legally/policy-based.
Instead of revocation, UNIMAK could consider:
• Formally clarifying the correct degree classifications to the relevant scholarship bodies.
• Reinforcing its policies on credential verification and alumni conduct.
• Engaging its alumni on the importance of ethical representation and integrity.
Let UNIMAK’s response be a testament to rigorous justice and clear jurisdictional boundaries, rather than an overreach that undermines the value of its own hard-earned qualifications and the trust its graduates place in them. Upholding the principle that degrees are awarded for academic merit achieved during study, while condemning post-graduation misconduct through appropriate means, will strengthen UNIMAK’s standing in the long run.
We appeal to the University’s wisdom and commitment to fairness to review this matter and, if possible, rescind the revocations, opting instead for measures that address the misconduct without invalidating legitimate academic achievements.
Disclaimer: This opinion piece is based solely on publicly circulated notices and information. The reflections are expressed strictly in my capacity as a member of the public and must not be construed as legal advice to any party concerned.