Integrity Is No One’s Job – Until It’s Too Late

No One Owns Integrity — And That’s the Problem

Thanks to The Cheat Sheet — a sharp, must-read Substack covering the evolving world of academic integrity — I came across two notable job postings that quietly mark a larger shift.

Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) is hiring an Associate Dean and Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity. It’s a senior leadership position, charged not only with overseeing the university’s conduct and honor systems but also with collecting and reporting monthly data to the Dean of Student Advocacy and other campus stakeholders. It’s a serious role, with a clear mandate and real accountability.

Around the same time, Harvard College posted an opening for an Associate Dean of Academic Integrity and Student Conduct. The position is meant to serve as a senior resource for faculty and administrators, guiding policy, overseeing disciplinary processes, and shaping the university’s approach to academic integrity.

What’s striking about these roles isn’t just that they exist — it’s that they are so rare.

In most organizations where learning, testing, and certification happen — from corporations to online course platforms — integrity isn’t anyone’s full-time responsibility. It’s typically folded into the duties of those managing logistics: learning management systems, compliance checklists, or assessment pipelines. The same people responsible for hitting completion goals are also tasked with ensuring the legitimacy of those completions. That’s not just an overloaded job description; it’s a systemic conflict of interest.

Despite the high stakes, integrity is often treated like hygiene — presumed to be present until a scandal proves otherwise. When operational metrics like speed and scale dominate, integrity tends to be the first value compromised. It’s an afterthought rather than a governing principle.

This stands in contrast to other areas of organizational risk. As privacy concerns escalated, institutions responded by creating dedicated privacy officer roles — professionals with real authority and independence, whose job it is to challenge business-as-usual when it conflicts with data protection norms. That shift was driven by growing regulatory pressure and reputational risk. And it worked.

Training and credentialing systems now face a similar moment.

Across sectors — education, healthcare, construction, finance — regulators are increasing their scrutiny. Standards for verification are tightening. The expectation is no longer that providers simply offer training; they must demonstrate that learning is real, assessments are fair, and credentials are defensible. Failure to do so can have serious consequences. Ernst & Young, for example, was fined $100 million after a widespread ethics exam cheating scandal — exacerbated by what investigators described as a lack of internal accountability.

What these new roles at VCU and Harvard reflect isn’t just a campus-level development — it signals a broader shift in how institutions approach integrity as a strategic priority. Institutions are beginning to recognize that integrity deserves ownership. Not just as a value in mission statements, but as a dedicated function — with someone whose primary job is to defend it, ensure its visibility, and report on its status.

This doesn’t just apply to academia. Any organization delivering training at scale — especially where regulation or public trust is involved — should consider assigning responsibility for learning integrity to a distinct role, separate from program delivery. Independent oversight, transparent data reporting, and clear accountability aren’t luxuries; they’re safeguards.

As The Cheat Sheet put it: “Your budget is your policy.” If no one is paid to protect integrity, then it’s no one’s job. And if it’s no one’s job, it’s vulnerable — especially when it matters most.