These public summaries are meant to better inform the University student body about the workings of the Honor System in regard to the major issues brought forth at Honor trials.  These summaries are in no way meant or permitted to be used as a system of precedent, binding or otherwise.  Per the Honor Committee’s By-laws Public Summaries are not relevant evidence at Honor trials.  Each case reported to the Honor Committee is judged independently on the specific facts of that case at each stage of the adjudicative process.

Fall 2011 Public Summaries

P.S. 11-K

A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of stealing by a student and a community member.  The Accused Student did not attend his scheduled trial. According to the Honor Committee By-laws, the Accused Student was deemed to have left the University admitting guilt.  

P.S. 11-L

A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of cheating on his first and second exams in a Commerce class.  The case was reported by another student in that class.

The Community argued that during both exams, the Accused Student’s actions of constant looking around indicated that he was cheating from the students around him. The Accused Student argued that his lack of preparedness for the exams caused him to “blank” on the exams and consequently look around the room.

A panel of randomly-selected students voted to acquit the Accused Student on the basis of act and knowledge.

P.S. 11-M

A student in the Graduate School of Business Administration was accused of lying and misrepresenting his adherence to time limits during two take-home, electronic exams. The case was reported by two professors.

The Community argued that the time limit guidelines of the exams were straightforward, well communicated to all students, constituted an Honor offense as laid out in each course’s guidelines, and that the physical evidence, together with inconsistent statements by the Accused Student during the investigation and trial, were evidence of both lying and cheating. The Accused Student argued that he was unaware that a violation of the time limit would constitute a violation of the Honor Code and that he did not exceed the total time limit, only the contiguous element of it.

A panel of randomly-selected students voted to convict the Accused Student.

P.S. 11-N

A student in the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences was accused of cheating by copying another student’s work.  The case was reported by the head professor of the class.

The Community argued that a reasonable student should have known that by submitting someone else’s work, he was cheating and therefore committing a violation of the Honor Code. The Accused Student argued that since collaboration was allowed in this particular class, and that since he fully participated in completing the assignment, that cheating did not occur and that he was allowed to use the completed assignment as his own submission. The Accused Student also argued that the Honor Code was not clearly delineated in class nor on the course syllabus, and therefore the level of collaboration and expectations for work submission were not clear, so he could not know that his act was considered an Honor violation.

A panel of randomly-selected students voted to acquit the Accused Student on the basis of act and knowledge.

P.S. 11-O

A student in the McIntire School of Commerce was accused of cheating on a presentation. The case was reported by another student.

The Community argued that although the Accused Student had submitted a complete conscientious retraction, it was not made in good faith and therefore was not valid. The Community argued that the Accused Student was guilty of plagiarizing the presentation by copying it directly from a preexisting article. The Accused Student argued that the conscientious retraction was valid because it was made in good faith, i.e. before there was reason to suspect the relevant act had come under suspicion by anyone.

A panel of randomly-selected students voted to acquit the Accused Student based on a finding that his conscientious retraction was valid.

P.S. 11-P

Two students in the McIntire School of Commerce were accused of cheating by collaborating on a take-home final exam. The case was reported by a faculty member.

The Community argued that because there was an extremely low likelihood that two students would have the same three idiosyncrasies on their exams, they must have worked together, which was understood to be against the rules of the take-home exam. Their tables with similar values, similar formatting of their exams and extra graphs served as evidence of the alleged collaboration. The Accused Students argued that because they had worked together extensively in the past, they both had similar thought processes which caused them to arrive at similar answers. The similar formatting was a result of the way graphs were formatted in the textbook, from which they both worked. Additionally, the Accused Students received different point totals for each section of the test, further indicating that no collaboration occurred and their answers were, in fact, quite different from each other.

A panel of randomly-selected students voted to acquit the Accused Student on the basis of act and knowledge.

P.S. 11-Q

A student in the School of Engineering & Applied Sciences was accused of cheating by submitting an assignment that was not his own work.  The case was reported by the teaching assistant of the course.  

The Community argued that collaboration was not allowed on this assignment and even if the Accused Student accidentally submitted another student's assignment as his own, he was still seeking unauthorized aid.  The Accused Student argued he never intended to submit another student's work and present it as his own; he accidentally printed out the notes he had taken on another student's assignment and did not look over it before turning it in; and that he only used these notes in order to understand the assignment after he had completed it on his own.

 A panel of randomly-selected students voted to convict the Accused Student.

P.S. 11-R

Two students in the McIntire School of Commerce were accused of cheating by collaborating on their final exam.  The case was reported by a faculty member of the McIntire School.

The Community argued that similarities between the Accused Students’ exams indicated that one of them had copied a file from the other’s computer. The Accused Students argued that any similarities were coincidental and that they had completed the exams independently of one another.

A panel of randomly-selected students voted to acquit the Accused Student on the basis of act and knowledge.

P.S. 11-S

A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of cheating on a problem set in Computer Science course.  The case was reported by a faculty member.

The Community argued the Accused Student's use of the professor's website materials from previous years was a violation of the class's Honor policy and the University Honor Code. The Accused Student argued he did not know the use of such materials constituted an Honor offense.

A panel of randomly-selected students voted to acquit the Accused Student on the basis of act and knowledge.

*note: The male pronoun is used only for consistency. Public Summaries are meant to be gender neutral.

Spring 2011 Public Summaries

P.S. 11-A

A student in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences was accused of cheating by copying his answers to a homework assignment directly from the solutions manual and presenting them as his own work.  The case was reported by the course instructor who discovered the act while grading the assignment.  The Community argued that the student admitted to using the solutions manual in creating his answers; that he had handed in his assignment expecting it to be graded with the rest of the class; and that the professor had made his Honor policy very clear.  The Accused argued that he did not expect his assignment to be graded for credit since he turned it in late; that he used the solutions manual to give him a start on two of the problems but that the rest of the work was his own; and that he turned in the assignment because he wanted to get feedback from the professor on the particular assignment in order to better learn the material.  A panel of randomly selected students voted that the accused student was not guilty of the intentional act of cheating.

P.S. 11-B

A student in the College of Arts and Sciences was accused of (1) stealing an assignment from another student,-  and (2) cheating, by copying from the stolen assignment as well as from an online source. The case was reported by a teaching assistant. The Community argued that the accused student stole the assignment of another student and that this could be corroborated with student eye-witness testimony; - that the accused student then turned in the assignment with significant verbatim text from the allegedly stolen assignment as well as from an unauthorized and un-cited internet source; and that similarities between the accused student’s paper and the allegedly plagiarized sources proved stealing and cheating had occurred.  The Accused argued that no such theft could be proven and that the work presented was his own and comported with classroom rules.  A panel of randomly selected students found the accused student guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the intentional acts of stealing and cheating, and that the acts were not trivial.

P.S. 11-C

A student in the College of Arts and Sciences was accused of cheating by copying large sections of a final paper from an external source and failing to cite it correctly. The case was reported by the course instructor. The Community argued that the student, despite having cited some sources in the paper, should have known that taking large portions of someone else’s work constituted plagiarism and was detrimental to the Community of Trust, and that the Honor policy and citation techniques for this class had been clearly explained in the student’s class and discussion section.  The Accused argued that he had cited his sources to the best of his ability; that citing the source at all showed that he did not intentionally plagiarize; and that he did not clearly understand the Honor system at the University nor did he understand its seriousness.  A panel of randomly selected students found the accused student guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the intentional act of cheating, and that the act was not trivial.

P.S. 11-D

A student in the College of Arts and Sciences was accused of cheating by a professor.  The student did not attend his scheduled trial.  According to the Honor Committee bylaws, the student was deemed to have left the University admitting guilt.

P.S. 11-E

A student in the College of Arts and Sciences was accused of cheating on a closed-notes final exam by accessing outside information on a mobile phone.  The case was reported by two fellow students.  The Community argued that fellow students witnessed the student inappropriately using a phone during the exam and that several passages of the essay exam were identical to those found in internet resources.  The Accused Student argued that the phone was only used during the exam to check the time, an acceptable practice, and that the similarities between the exam and online resources were due to the study practice of memorization used to prepare for the exam. A panel of randomly selected students and Honor Committee members found the accused student guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of cheating, and that the act was not trivial

P.S. 11-F

A student in the College of Arts and Sciences was accused of lying during a University proceeding.  The case was reported by a student.  The Community argued that a number of self-contradictions during the proceeding were evidence of an intentional act of lying, and that the act was non-trivial due to the importance of telling the truth during University proceedings.  The Accused Student argued that the inconsistencies in his story were merely a result of confusing questions and a difficulty in remembering past events. A panel of randomly selected students found the Accused Student not guilty of the intentional act of lying.

P.S. 11-G

A student in the College of Arts and Sciences was accused of cheating by plagiarizing large portions of text and failing to cite sources correctly on a final paper. The case was reported by the course instructor. The Community argued that the student should have known this act constituted plagiarism and was seriously detrimental to the Community of Trust. The accused student argued that he cited his sources to the best of his ability and felt that his source was acknowledged appropriately. A panel of randomly selected students found the accused student not guilty of the intentional act of cheating.

P.S. 11-H

A student in the College of Arts and Sciences was accused of cheating while taking a make-up quiz in a library on Grounds. The case was reported by a teaching assistant. The Community argued that another student had seen the accused student cheating off of a notes page for the duration of the quiz; that the witnessing student later retrieved the notes from the garbage; and,  that the answers which had extensive erasure markings, coincided with the discarded notes. The Accused Student argued that he did not cheat off of his notes but did reach down to collect the notes into a more organized pile at one point during the quiz. He maintained that he did not ever look at the notes, but rather that the papers he was shuffling were the actual quiz and the papers on which he was writing his answers. A panel of randomly selected students found the accused student not guilty of the intentional act of cheating.

P.S. 11-I

A student in the College of Arts and Sciences was accused of lying in a University proceeding. The case was reported by a student. The Community argued that the student’s testimony was intentionally deceptive. The accused student argued that the alleged falsifications in his testimony were not intended to deceive but were rather honest mistakes that were later corrected and as such should be considered trivial offense. A panel of randomly selected students found the accused student not guilty of the intentional act of lying.

P.S. 11-J

A student in the School of Commerce was accused of cheating by knowingly allowing a classmate to copy substantial portions of a final exam. The case was reported by the course instructor. The community argued that the extent and nature of the copying indicated that it could not have occurred without the knowledge and consent of the accused student. The accused student argued that the classmate had secretly found and copied the material when the accused student was not present. A mixed panel of randomly selected students and Honor Committee members found the student not guilty of the intentional act of cheating.

Fall 2010 Public Summaries

P.S. 10-A

A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of cheating by using notes on a closed-note midterm examination.  The case was reported by the course instructor.  The Community argued that the student's exam was convincingly similar both in content and handwriting to a sheet of notes found in the exam room.  The accused student argued that he had never seen the sheet of notes before, the handwriting sample was too small for comparison, and the similar terminology was common knowledge that all students might have used. 

A panel of randomly selected students found the accused student not guilty of the intentional act of cheating.  

P.S. 10-B

A student in the School of Engineering and Applied Science was accused of cheating by fraudulently electronically submitting another student’s work as their own.  The case was reported by a teaching assistant.  Neither side disputed that the work submitted did in fact belong to another student.  The community argued that a number of differences between the submissions sufficed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the student’s should have known his actions constituted cheating.  The accused student argued that the act was unintentional and accidental. 

A panel of randomly selected students found the accused student not guilty of the intentional act of cheating.  

P.S. 10-C

A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of cheating by using notes on a closed-note exam.  The case was reported by a teaching assistant.  The community argued that the act was intentional because the student knew it was a closed-note exam and non-trivial because cheating on any exam is not consistent with the community of trust. The accused student argued that notes were only used for a small portion of the exam that was worth a small fraction of the final grade, and thus the act was trivial.

A panel of randomly selected students voted that the accused student was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the intentional act of cheating.  The panel on consideration of triviality voted that the act in question was of such a nature that it did violate the community of trust and was therefore not trivial.

P.S. 10-D

A student in the College of Arts and Sciences was accused of cheating by copying large sections of a mid-term paper from an external source and failing to cite them correctly. The case was reported by the course instructor. The community argued that the student should have known this act constituted plagiarism and was seriously detrimental to the community of trust. The community also alleged that the honor policy and citation techniques for this class were clearly explained in the student’s discussion section.  The accused student argued that he cited his sources to the best of his ability and felt that his source was acknowledged appropriately.  The student argued that the act was a misunderstanding of the professor’s citation policy and not an act of cheating.

A mixed panel of Committee members and randomly selected students found the accused student guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the intentional act of cheating. The panel, on consideration of triviality, voted that the act in question was intolerable in the Community of Trust and therefore not trivial.

P.S. 10-E

Two students in the College of Arts and Science were accused of cheating on a final exam.  The case was reported by the course instructor. The community argued that the students collaborated together on the exam and that statistical evidence and the testimony of teaching assistants claiming they viewed collaboration proved this was the case.  The accused students argued that cheating did not occur claiming that both were in good academic standing in the course and denying the testimony of the teaching assistants by offering explanations for their alleged conduct. 

A panel of randomly selected students found one of the accused students not guilty of the intentional act of cheating.  The same panel of randomly selected students found the other accused student guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the intentional act of cheating.  The panel, on consideration of triviality, voted that the act in question was intolerable in the Community of Trust and therefore not trivial.

P.S. 10-F

A student in the School of Continuing and Professional Studies was accused of cheating on a take-home examination by copying from various texts thereby violating the closed book policy of the exam.  The case was reported by the course instructor.  The Community argued that numerous phrases and misplaced punctuation matched a document found in a Google search using key words in the student’s answers to questions and that this proved the student had copied these passages.  The Accused Student argued that their method of study for the examination was a rote memorization technique, whereby the accused repeatedly wrote lines of text in order to memorize them. 

A panel of randomly selected students found the accused student not guilty of the intentional act of cheating.  

P.S. 10-G

A student in the McIntire School of Commerce was accused of cheating by looking at another student's exam.  The case was reported by a teaching assistant.  The community argued that the student's multiple choice answers, both right and wrong, and written answers corresponded so closely as to convincingly prove cheating occurred.  The accused student argued that their similar knowledge and terminology was due to studying together and there was no proof of cheating.

A mixed panel of Committee members and randomly selected students found the accused student not guilty of the intentional act of cheating.