Big Update: The Ohio "Room Scan" Case

Plus, the media blows it again. Plus, a note and solution from a reader.

Issue 188

To join the 2,934 smart people who subscribe to “The Cheat Sheet,” enter your e-mail address below:

If you enjoy “The Cheat Sheet,” please consider joining the 11 amazing people who are chipping in a few bucks a month via Patreon. And to those who are, thank you!

---

Ogletree vs Cleveland State, Ohio “Room Scan” Case - Major Update

It took me a little while to get it in my hands.

But there’s a major update on the federal case from August in which a student at Cleveland State University sued the school for violating his fourth amendment rights during a “room scan” conducted before a proctored, online exam.

If you’re not familiar with it, here’s a Special Edition summary I wrote at the time.

I’ll put aside for now how badly the media messed this up and how it seems that, after putting it on front pages nationwide, no one followed up to see what actually happened.

Here’s the update.

In the final order from the Judge, the “room scan” ban will apply only to the single student who challenged it. That’s it.

From the December order:

the question becomes whether a remedy that extends beyond Mr. Ogletree is necessary to provide him the relief to which he is entitled. It is not.

And

the Court determines that a remedy that extends to other students would be overly broad and is unnecessary to provide Mr. Ogletree the relief to which he is entitled.

And

the Court limits this declaration to Mr. Ogletree as the party-in-interest who brought suit against Cleveland State.

Which means that, from the Judge’s order:

the Court permanently enjoins Cleveland State, in connection with any exam, test, or other assessment, from subjecting Mr. Ogletree to a room scan that is administered without offering a reasonable alternative or, alternatively, without his express consent.

Just him.

And the school is blocked from scanning his room only if they fail to offer a reasonable alternative. Or without his approval, which we may presume they will not get. But the “reasonable alternative” seems big. If they offer one, they can scan even his room.

But the news is that “room scans” were not banned. Not nationally, not in Ohio, not at Cleveland State - not even for the student who sued, provided he’s offered a reasonable alternative. They never were.

After all the hype and hyperventilation, it’s difficult to imagine a resolution with a softer whimper.

To be clear, the Judge did rule that the room scan - as it was done by Cleveland State - was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In case you’ve forgotten, jump over to the summary of the case to see that no one should ever do “room scans” the way CSU did - no one. And the school has already said it altered its policy.

From the Court:

the Court concludes that the Fourth Amendment applies to the virtual room scans Cleveland State uses.

The ones Cleveland State uses - which they say they don’t anymore.

The Court did say also that it was possible that other students could be impacted by the ruling - that they could sue as well. But to succeed they’d likely need to have a case that is extremely similar to this one, which, again is borderline impossible given how badly CSU messed up the first time.

Moreover, recall that a major factor in the student’s favor was that the school did not require “room scans.” And because they did not, the school could not later claim they were a valuable, necessary tool in protecting test integrity. In other words, had CSU simply required remote proctoring and “room scans” for every remote test, and enforced such a policy, it’s very possible that this case would have gone differently.

But even that, it seems, doesn’t matter much. At the end, the impact is amazingly limited.

Moreover, even this ruling may not stick. The State of Ohio, defending the university, has already appealed.

Here is the Final Order.

The Media and the Ohio Case

I could not put this off for that long, obviously. And I promise to make this brief.

By and large, the press really blew this. Even and especially the education press.

When the initial ruling came down, the one that declared that the way Cleveland State conducted “room scans” during a proctored online exam unconstitutional, nearly every media outlet ran the story. It was everywhere.

Most, I’d wager 90%, said that “room scans” themselves were unconstitutional, or banned. This was never true.

I wrote at the time, in calling out one particularly heinous example of deliberate misinformation (see Issue 149), that I sprinkle in some understanding of trying to cover the issue in August, as breaking news. It was a complex case and easy to get wrong.

But I cannot excuse and do not understand why no single news outlet followed up. The final order limiting the ruling to one lone student was filed six weeks ago. It took me forever to get it, but I am not a card-carrying journalist on this beat. I had to beg and be persistent.

Had NPR or the New York Times - or any of the hundreds of news outlets that covered the initial story - asked, I am sure they would have received it right away. In fact, they probably have access the court records directly, which I do not. All they had to do is look.

The only outlet I can find that covered the real impact and outcome of this case with the final order was Bloomberg Law. Good for them. Everyone else - and especially those that heralded the case as a major victory or focus on education as a coverage area - should be embarrassed. I am for them.

A Reader Writes In

A reader of “The Cheat Sheet” sent an e-mail the other day with a note and link to an anti-cheating product she’s developed.

She wrote:

I have over 30 years of experience teaching community college biology classes that serve as a gateway to the allied health fields (pre-med, pharmacy, nursing etc.). During this time I have seen almost every type of cheating imaginable. I have devoted many years to preventing as much cheating as possible because in my opinion students are the victims. 

I agree, students are victims of cheating. Schools and others too, but absolutely students.

She continued:

I have surveyed and talked with thousands of students over many years and it is clear to me that most students don't like other students to cheat and they don't like to be tempted to cheat.

Makes sense.

Continuing:

I also designed a simple inexpensive reusable folders that can eliminate copying, one of the most common and nefarious forms of cheating (students that copy learn absolutely nothing and other students have their intellectual property stolen). My website testcovers.com explains the product and provides the results of a survey and student comments.

Good deal. I left the link in, should you be interested.

I enjoy hearing feedback about “The Cheat Sheet” and/or news or comments related to academic integrity. Should you have news or thoughts to share with me or with other readers, please reach out. A reply e-mail reaches me.