With the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and remote learning, academic integrity has become a key issue for many Universities. Remote learning has lent itself to easier ways to access notes during tests, as well as other forms of cheating that have become more accessible during online testing.
Recently, a case came forward in the Northern District Court of Ohio’s Eastern Division that put to question the constitutionality of room scans during remote testing. .
In the case, student Aaron Ogletree was suing Cleveland State University, for using the student's camera on their personal computers to scan during and before an online exam. The purpose of the scans is to ensure academic integrity during proctored exams.
Ogletree was a chemistry student taking fully remote classes due to not being able to attend in person because of various health issues. Within his syllabus for that class, the Professor included a policy that gave proctors of exams the ability to make students show their surroundings, screen, and or work area at any point during the exam. Ogletree disputed this policy and got it removed from the professor’s syllabus.
Yet, on the date of his exam, a proctor notified Ogletree beforehand that he would be required to show them a scan of his room. Ogletree disputed this and was still required to perform the room scan.d. The room scan recordings are saved to an online database with faculty having the ability to view the scans after.
Cleveland State’s Remote Testing Policies do not require or recommend a room scan. It leaves practices during testing “To the faculty member’s discretion to implement.” But the school does use online proctoring tools such as Respondus, and Honorlock that require a room scan in their instructions.
As a university, Cleveland State still has a responsibility to have protocols regarding cheating to ensure their credibility as an educational institution is maintained. Ensuring academic integrity has become much harder in remote settings which has led to the increased use of proctoring services such as Respondus that administer room scans and proctoring to ensure academic integrity.
Ogletree brought this case forward, alleging that his rights were violated under the Fourth Amendment. In response, Cleveland State contested whether virtual room scans qualify as a “search,” within the way it is used in the Fourth Amendment.
How is the Term “Search,” Used in the Fourth Amendment?
Under the Fourth Amendment, a search occurs “when the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable.”
Ogletree argued that room scans violate “a subjective expectation of privacy in their houses, and especially in their bedrooms, and society recognizes that expectation as reasonable,” under the Fourth Amendment.
To this point, the court agreed that this expectation of privacy is one that is reasonable as room scans occur in private places usually that would not be entered without a warrant or direct invitation.
Upon an examination of the different arguments made by Ogletree and Cleveland State, the court concluded that rooms scans were unconstitutional under the Fourth amendment. This decision comes as a landmark decision, with it being the first in the nation to protect students from room scans during remote testing.
The Judge noted that this decision is in line with established precedent of an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the home, citing the case of Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961)
Digital privacy advocates have taken this decision as a victory, in what they have noted as a battle since remote learning became more common, against the invasive and excessive collection of “students’ biometric and other personal data,” by test proctoring services.
Digital Privacy in Remote Learning
These issues arose primarily from the Covid 19 pandemic which increased the use of test proctoring systems as remote learning was necessary. Digital privacy and privacy rights advocates went as far as to file a complaint with the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia in 2020, claiming that test proctoring services has “forced many students to trade away their privacy rights in order to meet their academic obligations.”
The problems that digital privacy advocates have brought up do not just concern room scans, but sensitive personal information, and harmful algorithms. Digital advocacy groups like, Baneproctoring.com, have also brought up the issue that proctoring services have experienced difficulties in their algorithms being able to recognize students of color, affecting their ability to participate in high stakes tests that are proctored through eproctoring services.
Digital advocacy also comes at a time when the issue of personal security and privacy have become a very prominent problem across social media platforms due to their ability to share personal user data to advertising companies.
With U.S district court Judge J. Philip Calabrese ruling in Ogletree’s favor, student privacy rights can be defended on a similar basis across the state, paving the way for future rulings on privacy rights to come.
As a law firm that has represented many students through disciplinary actions, we urge you to find an attorney if you are facing similar issues. Finding a student attorney will help ensure that you get the best outcome possible in your case and are fully aware of the legal process you may be facing.
