{"id":6395,"date":"2026-09-16T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-09-16T13:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.imaginarygardens.org\/?p=6395"},"modified":"2026-09-14T09:32:13","modified_gmt":"2026-09-14T13:32:13","slug":"yuja-verity-the-truth-behind-pellissippi-proctoring","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.imaginarygardens.org\/index.php\/2026\/09\/16\/yuja-verity-the-truth-behind-pellissippi-proctoring\/","title":{"rendered":"Yuja Verity: The Truth Behind Pellissippi Proctoring"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
By Jacob Hunley, Special to the Journal<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

When we first learned to write argumentative essays, many of us were given the topic of whether security cameras should be allowed in school classrooms. At the time, the topic was highly divisive, and privacy advocates pushed to reject the premise of surveillance inside the classroom. Now, Pellissippi State Community College has cameras inside of classrooms in multiple buildings across the campus system. However, the push for surveillance in academic settings has not stopped with the classroom. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Imagine that your instructor walked into your home and demanded to see every angle of your bedroom, then sat down and watched you complete your assignments. You\u2019d be horrified and probably call the police. However, when this same situation occurs through mandatory online proctoring, we are told to just click \u201cagree.\u201d Pellissippi State\u2019s recent adoption of  YuJa Verity \u2014 an AI-powered proctoring service known for invasive room scans and AI behavioral examination \u2014 has significant legal, ethical, and privacy concerns that mark an alarming shift in the relationship between the college and the student body. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Not everyone is able to take an online exam in privacy, or even in their own homes. | Matheus Bertelli (Pexels)

<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

As a public community college, Pellissippi State is a state actor and bound by the US Constitution. Requiring students to surrender their Fourth Amendment rights to complete their assignments crosses both a legal and ethical red line. In addition to posing a serious legal liability, Verity poses a severe privacy risk and may disproportionately affect students with disabilities or less fortunate living situations or arrangements. As a student body, we should ensure that our rights to both privacy and equality are upheld.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When we investigate the legality of mandating invasive remote proctoring software, the precedent already exists: the Constitution\u2019s protections do not end at the school gates and, in 2022, a federal court ruled in Ogletree v. Cleveland State that 360-degree room scans conducted by a public university were considered an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The court found that students have a reasonable expectation of privacy within their homes, which is not outweighed by the need of the university to ensure academic integrity. The court noted that multiple alternative methods of ensuring integrity, such as final papers or projects, weighed in favor of Ogletree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beyond the legalities, the implementation of 360-degree room scans, as well as AI behavioral examinations, imposes a severe privacy tax on the student body. Not all students have equal access to a personal space where they can take exams without interruption. A quiet, private room is a luxury, not a guarantee, and we are effectively penalizing our most economically vulnerable students due to their living situations. Students from wealthier backgrounds can easily access a secure environment for proctored examinations, free from interruption or potential flags. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, students who live in shared spaces, multi-generational homes, or trailers face significant hurdles in ensuring a private testing environment. The algorithms used by  YuJa flag suspicious activity based on environmental factors, meaning that students can be flagged for cheating because a roommate or family member walks by in the background. Unfortunately, this concern is a common reality amongst our student body. When I asked students on campus about remote proctoring and their living arrangements, multiple students expressed concerns about being flagged by the software due to their living situations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One student, who wished to remain anonymous, worried that they would be flagged for cheating, as they are currently couch surfing and don\u2019t have access to a private room. Another student, also speaking under anonymity, must share their bedroom with another resident, and they share similar concerns. Given that these arrangements may cause false positives, we should ensure that students have an option to test somewhere besides their homes if necessary. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Webcam on a black background | Jakub Zerdzicki (Pexels)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Algorithm bias further compounds the privacy tax imposed on students.  YuJa Verity\u2019s AI is designed to flag suspicious behavior. However, can we trust AI algorithms to judge human behavior, which is far from objective fact? Unfortunately, AI is insufficient for the task \u2014 while an algorithm may determine that looking away from the screen is suspicious, this behavior may be completely normal for students suffering from a variety of disabilities, such as neurodivergent traits, tics, or even regular students simply trying to gather their thoughts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ironically, knowledge of this surveillance may further exacerbate students\u2019 anxiety, leading to more suspicious behavior being flagged by the AI algorithm. We should not allow software that is so prone to mistakes and systemic bias to determine whether a student is engaged in academic dishonesty, as it currently encourages false positives. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps the largest issue with the implementation of  YuJa Verity is the high likelihood that the software failed to deter significant amounts of academic dishonesty. It is widely rumored within the student body that it is remarkably simple to defeat the software\u2019s AI detection. It is alleged that utilizing the blind spots of your webcam’s field of view, you can easily exploit offscreen devices or materials without flagging the AI detection. As far as the AI is concerned, you are merely observing your exam on your device screen. This is backed up by Caveon, an examination security firm. Caveon states that \u201cProctors struggle to detect covert communication devices, AI use, and proxy test-takers \u2014 especially in remote testing environments.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, when Caveon auditors attempted to cheat on both in-person and remote proctoring services, \u201c90% completed tasks undetected or were merely warned.\u201d Such a high level of cheating demonstrates what is known as \u201csecurity theatre,\u201d the illusion of security that isn\u2019t actually present. Security theatre gives a false sense of security that is detrimental to exam security. Instructors may be lulled into a false sense of security by seeing no flags, even if the student is secretly using their phone throughout the exam. Essentially, we are imposing a severe privacy tax on honest students, whilst those who were previously cheating can continue to do so unimpeded. When surveillance is so ineffective in its sole purpose, the intrusion of our privacy is unacceptable. We should exercise our rights to privacy, as it protects us from both algorithmic bias and the privacy tax imposed by AI-based proctoring. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, it falls upon the administration to justify the intrusion into our homes. Our student body is subjected to a massive, legally dubious privacy tax for software that falls significantly short of its purpose to stop cheating. I urge the college to reconsider its reliance on remote proctoring software for examinations that could be conducted in class or in the testing center. Additionally, when a test is unable to be taken in the classroom, students should always have the choice to take it in the testing center, and classes that mandate remote proctoring should be noted as such. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you have similar concerns regarding remote proctoring, I encourage you to express your concerns to both the Student Government and the college directly. We as a college must ensure that the rights and privacy of students are protected, especially within the sanctuary of their own homes.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Jacob Hunley, Special to the Journal When we first learned to write argumentative essays, many of us were given the topic of whether security cameras should be allowed in…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":6403,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_EventAllDay":false,"_EventTimezone":"","_EventStartDate":"","_EventEndDate":"","_EventStartDateUTC":"","_EventEndDateUTC":"","_EventShowMap":false,"_EventShowMapLink":false,"_EventURL":"","_EventCost":"","_EventCostDescription":"","_EventCurrencySymbol":"","_EventCurrencyCode":"","_EventCurrencyPosition":"","_EventDateTimeSeparator":"","_EventTimeRangeSeparator":"","_EventOrganizerID":[],"_EventVenueID":[],"_OrganizerEmail":"","_OrganizerPhone":"","_OrganizerWebsite":"","_VenueAddress":"","_VenueCity":"","_VenueCountry":"","_VenueProvince":"","_VenueState":"","_VenueZip":"","_VenuePhone":"","_VenueURL":"","_VenueStateProvince":"","_VenueLat":"","_VenueLng":"","_VenueShowMap":false,"_VenueShowMapLink":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"series":[],"class_list":["post-6395","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-opinion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.imaginarygardens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6395","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.imaginarygardens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.imaginarygardens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.imaginarygardens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.imaginarygardens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6395"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.imaginarygardens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6395\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6449,"href":"https:\/\/www.imaginarygardens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6395\/revisions\/6449"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.imaginarygardens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6403"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.imaginarygardens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6395"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.imaginarygardens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6395"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.imaginarygardens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6395"},{"taxonomy":"series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.imaginarygardens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series?post=6395"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}