Contract cheating – where a third party completes work for a student who then passes it off as their own – poses clear risks to academic integrity worldwide. But there is another aspect of the practice that is often overlooked: contract cheating exposes students to blackmail. That, in turn, creates national security risks.
The Australian government and the higher education sector are concerned that contract cheating undermines academic standards and jeopardises the global brand of Australian higher education. The Australian Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) estimates that contract cheating may involve up to eight per cent of students.
In response, a 2020 amendment to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 made it an offence to provide or advertise commercial academic cheating in higher education, and increased the powers of TEQSA to combat the practice. TEQSA is also working with international counterparts to shut down the multi-billion-dollar global operations that offer contract cheating services.
But what about students who committed contract cheating in the past and obtained their degrees by presenting the work of others as their own?
Risks of extortion
The vast majority of contract cheating seems to be generated by commercial sites operating online, also known as “essay mills”. The sites collect and store users’ data, which is sufficient enough to identify the student and prove that the services were engaged and delivered. That information could then be used to blackmail the student at any point in their degree or beyond, especially if it fell into the hands of third parties, which may include organised crime groups and state actors.
Consider the plight of a student who used the services of a contract cheating website, graduated and some years later found themselves in a position where they work with sensitive information. If that person is approached by a blackmailer acting on behalf of an organised crime syndicate, a commercial competitor or a foreign nation demanding their cooperation to prevent the disclosure of evidence of that cheating, the person is in a predicament.
Ordinarily, there would be an expectation, and a legal duty in certain cases, to report the blackmailer’s demand to the employer. However, the disclosure of cheating may hold devastating consequences for the employee. Contract cheating goes to the heart of the employment relationship. It would mean that the degree that formed the basis of the employment agreement was obtained dishonestly and, in many cases, fraudulently. The information creates an ethical and possibly legal dilemma for the employer.
If the information is disclosed to the university concerned, it could lead to a revocation of the degree. If the person is accredited by a professional body, that body will probably reconsider the accreditation even where the degree is not revoked. Disclosure of the information may therefore be career-ending. Where relevant, it may also have an impact on the person’s legal right to remain in the country as it affects their visa status from a good character and points-based perspective.
These potential consequences can be exploited by a foreign adversary to coerce “cooperation” in accessing state or commercial secrets or manipulating conduct.
The Protective Security Policy Framework
A blackmailer’s leverage is particularly significant in cases where their target works in the Australian Public Service. Pursuant to the Australian Government’s Protective Security Policy Framework (PSPF), “all Australian Government agencies are required to undertake employment screening for all new personnel” and undertake follow-up routine screenings thereafter. PSPF security clearance vetting establishes the integrity of persons who will access classified information in the Australian Public Service. A disclosure by a candidate that they engaged in contract cheating would raise serious questions about the person’s integrity. Integrity in a security context is defined as: “a range of character traits that indicate the individual is able to protect Australian Government resources. These character traits are: honesty, trustworthiness, maturity, tolerance, resilience and loyalty.”
An existing security clearance or the ability to obtain one is essential for any civil servant whose role or position requires access to security-classified resources. Security vetting of defence workforce personnel has particular relevance, with the signing of the AU$368 billion AUKUS submarine deal holding the prospect of a large wave of permanent migration to meet skills needs. Some of the relevant qualifications may have involved contract cheating.
Concern about successfully navigating and retaining security clearance at the appropriate level may lead to candidates withholding information about past contract cheating. That, in turn, results in vulnerabilities that can be exploited from an intelligence point of view and pose a threat to Australia’s national security and that of its partners.
Towards solutions
The issue is not easily solved. Solutions will need to be multifaceted and collaborative. Calls have been made for universities to publicly decline to act on anonymous tip-offs and to refuse to take action where blackmailing has taken place. However, universities face potential reputational and integrity risks should they ignore evidence that a qualification was obtained dishonestly.
For employers, the problem is equally difficult. How should they respond and do they have an ethical duty to disclose the information to universities and accreditation bodies? How should accreditation bodies act if they receive information from a blackmailer? Is this risk currently appropriately considered when security clearances are undertaken? How will evidence of cheating be handled if it is declared at a later stage by a person with security clearance? Should an amnesty scheme be considered? If so, what are fair and reasonable principles to apply to those accessing security-classified resources?
TEQSA is taking steps to prevent new cases of contract cheating. However, an urgent discussion is also needed about appropriate responses to contract cheating blackmailing. Given the suspected scale of student engagement in contract cheating in the past, Australia may have major vulnerabilities that require urgent attention.
