Public Summaries

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 hearings. 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 hearings. Each case reported to the Honor Committee is judged independently on the specific facts of that case at each stage of the adjudicative process.

The male pronoun is used only for consistency. All public summaries are meant to be gender-neutral.

Public Summaries from February 17-December 7, 2015

Conscientious Retractions: The Honor System permits a student to atone for his or her mistakes by filing a Conscientious Retraction (CR). A valid and complete CR involves the admission of a possible Honor Offense before the student has reason to believe that such offense has come under suspicion by anyone.

CR 1: In April, a student filed a CR for cheating on a homework assignment by collaborating with another student.
CR 2: In November, a student submitted a CR for giving unauthorized aid to two students working on a take-home exam.

Informed Retractions: The Informed Retraction (IR) permits a student to atone for his or her mistakes after an Honor Report has been made. An IR is predicated on a student taking responsibility for the commission of an Honor Offense and making amends with all affected parties. A student must then take a two-semester leave of absence from the University. To learn more about the IR, click here.

IR 1: In May, a student filed an IR for cheating on a computer science homework assignment by copying code from another student.
IR 2: In May, a student filed an IR for plagiarizing his part of a group assignment.
IR 3: In May, a student filed an IR for submitting as her own a student’s assignment from a previous year.
IR 4: In September, a student filed an IR for plagiarizing elements of a final paper in an economics class.
IR 5: In October, a student filed an IR for lying about an exam grade using a fabricated test in order to have the TA change his grade in the grade book.
IR 7: In October, a student filed an IR for lying about reasons for needing to withdraw from a summer class.
IR 8: In November, a student filed an IR for stealing by finding another student’s wallet and using his credit card to pay for groceries.

Leaving Admitting Guilt: At any point during the Honor process, a student may waive his or her right to an investigation and/or hearing and Leave Admitting Guilt (“LAG”). 

LAG 1:  In October, a student Left Admitting Guilt for stealing medical equipment during his medical rotations.

Honor Hearings. Note: all public summaries are written using the masculine gender for purposes of confidentiality.

Hearing 1: A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of Cheating on four laboratory reports in a Chemistry class. The case was reported by the professor. The Community argued that the student plagiarized significant portions of text and figures from a previous year’s student. Moreover, the Community argued that the student admitted to committing an Honor offense in an exchange of emails with the professor. The Accused Student argued that scientific writing is restrictive and reports are expected to have similarities. The student met with the previous year’s student to gain clarity on the structure and format of the lab reports and to learn how to concisely write the reports. A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student guilty.

Hearing 2: A student in the College of Arts and Sciences was accused of cheating on a final exam by using unauthorized resources. Another student in the course reported the case. The Community argued that the student was witnessed accessing both electronic and paper resources repeatedly throughout the exam. They argued that the accused student’s recounting of the events in question were inconsistent with the resources turned in at the end of the exam. They argued that the use of these unauthorized resources would constitute cheating and be incompatible with a Community of Trust. The accused student argued that she only used authorized paper resources, including sheets of scratch paper designed for calculations, and that while her electronic resource was not in fact an authorized resource, it was used only for authorized functions. This function included primarily its use as a calculator, and that she derived no tangible benefit beyond what was explicitly allowed for the final exam.  A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Significance.

Hearing 3: A student in the College of Arts and Sciences was accused of cheating on several homework assignments in a computer science class and then lying about his actions. The case was reported by the course professor. After the professor received the homework assignments (all submitted at once after their deadlines had passed), he determined that it was very likely that the Accused Student copied large sections of code from his lab partner. The professor subsequently confronted both students and ultimately decided that only the Accused Student was involved in the act of cheating. The Community argued that the Accused Student copied the work of another student in the class — the Accused Student’s lab partner — and then turned in the work claiming it as his own. The Accused Student, while acknowledging that the assignments were submitted through his email account and likely copied from another student, argued that he did not actually send those emails or even complete the assignments in the first place. The Accused Student then suggested that it was possible another person had access to his NetBadge account and independently submitted the homework assignments. The Community countered that it would be highly difficult for another student to gain access to his NetBadge account, carry on a conversation with the professor over many hours, and know exactly which homework assignments to submit for credit, all without the Accused Student’s knowledge. The Community concluded by arguing the Accused Student submitted the homework assignments knowing that they were copied, and then knowingly lied about it to avoid further consequences, two acts that are detrimental to the Community of Trust. A mixed panel of randomly-selected students and Committee members found the student guilty of both lying and cheating.

Hearing 4: A student in the College was accused of cheating by using unauthorized materials on a closed-book in-class exam in a history class. The case was reported by a student who was sitting behind the accused student. The Community argued that the student had several scraps of paper that appeared to be ripped from a notebook paper and that the student was consistently taking them out of his pocket, shielding them from the students around him and studying the notes on the scraps. The Community also claimed that the student did well on the relatively fact-based portion of the exam because of the notes and poorly on the analytical portion.  The Accused argued that the scraps of paper were gum wrappers, and that the student did not cheat on the exam. He simply replaced his gum two or three times throughout the exam period. Because the reporter did not directly see any written material on the scraps of paper, they claimed the student could not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  A mixed panel of Committee members and randomly-selected student panelists found the student not guilty because there was not enough evidence outside of the testimony of one eye-witness (the reporter) to prove that cheating occurred beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hearing 5: A student in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences was accused of cheating on an assignment by soliciting unauthorized aid on an online platform of freelancers. The case was reported by the professor for the course. The Community argued that the Accused Student posted on the website in order to have a freelancer complete the final report of his assignment and that the freelancers potentially contributed to his submitted. The Community argued that a reasonable student would know this use of unauthorized aid would constitute an act of cheating. The Accused Student argued he only sought help from freelancers in order to learn from their work and improve his independently-completed assignment, and that he did not ultimately receive any assistance from the freelancers with whom he was in contact. A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student not guilty of cheating on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

Public Summaries from May 20, 2014-February 16, 2015

Seven students have filed an Informed Retractions since May 20, 2014. To learn more about the IR, click here.

IR 1: In September, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for lying about giving a meal card to a roommate.
IR 2: In November, a student submitted an IR for plagiarism on a paper.
IR 3: In May, a student filed an IR for cheating by plagiarizing portions of a paper he submitted under his own name.
IR 4: In December, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for cheating on a homework assignment in a Computer Science class by copying the work of another without permission.
IR 5: In May, a student filed an IR for cheating by submitting for credit the assignment of another under his own name.
IR 6: In May, a student filed an IR for cheating by submitting for credit the assignment of another under her own name.
IR 7: In May, a student filed an IR for cheating by purchasing and submitting as his own a take-home assignment.

Time has elapsed such that five public summaries of Honor Trials have become publishable since May 20, 2014. Note: all public summaries are written using the masculine gender for purposes of confidentiality.

Trial 1: A student in the College of Arts and Sciences was accused of cheating on two homework assignments in an economics course. The case was reported by the course professor. The Community argued that the Accused Student used the work of other students from past semesters to complete his homework assignments. The reporter testified that the use of outside sources on assignments was forbidden by the course policies, and that any reasonable University student would know that this could be considered an Honor Offense. The Accused Student argued that the syllabus allowed consultation of outside sources on assignments that were not graded and that the outside source was consulted for data only. The Accused Student also claimed that he made a good faith effort to interpret the data and provide original analysis. A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

Trial 2: A student in the College of Arts and Sciences was accused of cheating on two homework assignments in an economics course. The case was reported by the course professor. The Community argued that the Accused Student used the work of other students from past semesters to complete his homework assignments. The reporter testified that the use of outside sources on assignments was forbidden by the course policies, and that any reasonable University student would know that this could be considered an Honor Offense. The Accused Student argued that the syllabus was ambiguous and that it could be interpreted to allow the use of outside sources on ungraded assignments. A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student guilty.

Trial 3: A student in the School of Continuing and Professional Studies was accused of cheating on an online discussion by misrepresenting an outside document as his own work. The case was reported by a student in the class. The Community argued that the Accused Student copied language from the outside source, without citation, and pledged the work as his own, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the Act of cheating. The Accused Student acknowledged that his response came directly from the outside source, but that this type of comment was permissible within the framework of the class. Further, the course professor testified that the student worked in accordance with the course Honor policies. A panel of both randomly-selected students and Honor Committee representatives found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

Trial 4: A student in the Curry School of Education was accused of lying to a police officer during the course of an arrest, and accused of the separate act of lying to a University administrator. The case was reported by an administrator. The Community argued that during the course of an arrest, the accused student knowingly misrepresented his identity to a police officer. Furthermore, this act of lying was done in an attempt to avoid the consequences of his arrest. The accused student argued that while he did initially misrepresent his identity, this was due to the confusion and stress of the arrest, and he later correctly identified himself. In a second act, the Community argued that the accused student lied regarding his presence on grounds to a Curry faculty member and academic dean. The accused student argued that he misunderstood when the question was referring to, and had he been asked more specifically, he would have answered correctly. A panel of randomly-selected students found the accused student guilty of both offenses.

Trial 5: A student in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences was accused of cheating on multiple​graduate school applications by soliciting unauthorized aid on an online platform for the applications’ completion. The Community argued that by using this​ online platform, which connects clients with freelance workers, the Accused Student knowingly used prohibited resources by paying another individual to complete his graduate school applications, thus gaining undue benefit, credit and acknowledgment for the work.  Further, the Community argued that a reasonable University student would have known that his explicit online request for information could constitute the use of unauthorized aid, and that this significant act​would compromise the community of trust. The Accused Student argued that merely soliciting feedback on assignments was not equivalent to employing this assistance in the assignment’s completion. Because no evidence could prove that the student received unauthorized assistance through his online post, or that he subsequently used this assistance in his graduate school applications, the criterion of Act was not fulfilled. A panel of randomly-selected students founds the Accused Student not guilty of cheating on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

Public Summaries from April 3, 2014-May 19, 2014

Three students have had the courage and integrity to come forward and file Conscientious Retractions since April 3, 2014. To learn more about filing a CR, click here.

CR 1: In April, a student filed a CR for cheating on a quiz by looking at the paper of a neighboring student.
CR 2: In April, a student filed a CR for stealing a bicycle.

Five students have filed an Informed Retractions since April 3, 2014.   To learn more about the IR, click here.  Due to the rules relating to anonymity, timing, and other relevant procedures set forth in Section IV.H.8 of the Honor Committee Bylaws, only one public summary has been approved for publication.

IR 1: In April, a student submitted an IR for submitting an altered syllabus from another academic institution for the consideration of transfer credit.

Time has elapsed such that five public summaries of Honor Trials have become publishable since April 3, 2014. Note: all public summaries are written using the masculine gender for purposes of confidentiality.

Trial 1: A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of cheating on five homework assignments in his economics course. The case was reported by the course professor. The Community argued that the Accused Student turned in the work of other students from past semesters and presented it as his own. The reporter gave almost identical assignments from semester to semester but changed a few stylistic details so as to differentiate them; he testified that the Accused Student’s homework matched the assignments from previous semesters, including variable names, capitalization of variables, and so on. The reporter also provided homework assignments from a previous semester’s group, and the Community pointed out identical typos and arithmetic mistakes between the previous semester’s group and the Accused Student’s assignment. The Accused Student argued that the course provided strict guidelines and formatting for responses to the homework questions, which accounts for why the answers were so similar. He also claimed that he had accidentally used data from a previous semester when completing his assignment and that he had unintentionally borrowed a friend’s computer for a couple of the assignments, which explains some similarities. The Accused Student also argued that many of the similarities between the assignments were a coincidence. A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student guilty.

Trial 1: A student in the College of Arts and Sciences was accused of stealing another student’s iPhone. The case was reported by a school administrator. The Community argued that the Accused Student obtained and sold the phone for personal gain without permission from the phone’s owner and without consulting a third party to identify the phone, thus proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the Act of Stealing. The Accused Student argued that he did not intend to steal the phone, and that he took the phone home in order to charge it to identify the owner. The Accused Student argued that he was unable to identify the owner due to the phone’s lack of a SIM card or other identifiable features, and thus he only sold the phone because he did not know he had any other options. A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

Trial 3:  A student in the College of Arts and Sciences was accused of cheating on a final exam by looking up answers on her cell phone. The case was reported by a student. The Community argued that the reporter’s eyewitness testimony that she observed a student two seats over from her take her cell phone out of a backpack, type on her phone, and erase answers on her final exam proved beyond a reasonable doubt that an Act of cheating occurred. The Accused Student argued that she had been misidentified, pointing to numerous discrepancies in the testimony. The reporter saw a student using a bluebook; the student used a green book. The reporter said the student used a pencil during her exam; the accused student used a pen. The student introduced evidence that her hair color does not match the color described by the reporter and that her clothing and accessories on the day of the exam, likewise, were different from those described by the reporter. A panel of both randomly selected students and Honor Committee representatives found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

Trial 4:  A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of Lying in an Honor proceeding. The Community argued that differences between the Accused Student’s initial interview and his testimony at trial showed that he committed the Act of Lying beyond a reasonable doubt in order to shift blame to another student. The Accused Student argued that he had been under pressure during the original interview to provide an explanation for the alleged collaboration, and he did not intend for the original explanation of the event to be taken as fact. A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

Trial 5:  Three students in the College of Arts and Sciences were accused of cheating on a midterm and final exam by communicating about the answers with each other during each exam. The Community argued that the eyewitness testimony of a classmate stating that the three students mouthed words to each other when the professor left the midterm proved that the three students committed the Act of cheating on the midterm beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, the Community argued that the eyewitness testimony of two classmates, who claimed to have seen the students mouthing words and pointing to each other on the final exam, proved that the students committed the Act of cheating on the final beyond a reasonable doubt. The Accused Students argued that the testimonies of their classmates were not persuasive, as neither classmate could confirm what the Accused Students were communicating to each other during the exams. Rather, the Accused Students argued that their communications concerned matters that had nothing to do with the contents of the exams. In addition, the Accused Students argued that the lack of similarity between their exams and the difficulty involved in communicating the complex course material through mouthing and hand gestures provided reasonable doubt to whether cheating occurred. A panel of randomly-selected students founds the Accused Students not guilty on both the midterm and final on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

 

Public Summaries from December 12, 2013-April 2, 2014

Two students have had the courage and integrity to come forward and file Conscientious Retractions since December 12, 2014. To learn more about filing a CR, click here.

CR 1:  In December, a student filed a CR for cheating on an exam by looking up two questions on a cell phone.
CR 2: In February, a student filed a CR for cheating on a quiz by looking at another student’s paper.

One student has filed an Informed Retractions since December 12, 2014.  To learn more about the IR, click here.

IR 1: In March, a student was reported for plagiarizing on a paper. The student admitted to the Honor Offense and filed an IR.

One student as Left Admitting Guilt (“LAGGED”) since December 12, 2014.

LAG 1: A student was reported for plagiarizing on a paper. The student decided to forgo the investigation process and Leave Admitting Guilt.

Time has elapsed such that one public summary of an Honor Trial have become publishable since December 12, 2014. Note: all public summaries are written using the masculine gender for purposes of confidentiality.

Trial 1: A student in the College of Arts of Sciences was accused of plagiarizing on a paper and annotated bibliography in the fall of 2012. The case was reported by the professor. The Community argued that the Accused Student had copied blocks of text from sources found online without providing proper citations and that parts of the paper were cited with sources not found in the bibliography. The Community further argued that the Honor policies for the class were reviewed sufficiently at the beginning of the semester, and that the professor had dedicated a week to reviewing citations and citation policies after he noticed the Accused Student struggling with citations on an assignment leading up to this final paper. The Accused Student stated that he had difficulties with reading and writing because of his learning disabilities and that he did not have enough experience with research papers to sufficiently understand citation policies. The student also argued that with his rigorous schedule, arranging a time to meet with the professor was difficult; that the ambiguous grading scale for the class did not reflect the student’s need for consultation; and that the professor did not convey to the student his belief that the student needed additional help. A Panel of randomly selected students found the Accused Student not guilty based on Act and Knowledge.

Public Summaries from September 9, 2013-December 11, 2013

Three students have had the courage and integrity to come forward and file Conscientious Retractions since September 9, 2013. To learn more about filing a CR, click here.

CR 1: In October, a student filed a CR for telling a lie during a job interview.
CR 2: In November, a student filed a CR for cheating on an assignment by using information found on the internet.
CR 3: In November, a student filed a CR for lying to a professor in order to skip class.

One student has filed an Informed Retractions since September 9, 2013. To learn more about the IR, click here.

IR 1: A student was reported for cheating on a homework assignment by using answers from a previous semester. The student admitted to the Act and filed an IR.

Time has elapsed such that seven public summaries of Honor Trials have become publishable since September 9, 2013. Note: all public summaries are written using the masculine gender for purposes of confidentiality.

Trial 1: A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of cheating on a midterm in his economics course using notes stored on an iPhone that was confiscated from the student’s desk. The case was reported by the student’s professor.

The Community argued that the phone was too large relative to the size of the desk for the student to have been unaware of its presence in the ten to fifteen minutes before it was confiscated. The Community further asserted that the phone’s settings (the screen was kept dim and was prevented from automatically locking), the organization of the notes, and other circumstances proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the student intended to use the phone to cheat. The Accused Student argued that he left his phone on his desk by accident and did not realize that it was there until his TA confiscated it, as he was focused only on the exam.

A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student guilty.

Trial 2: A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of Cheating on a final exam in a Physics class. The case was reported by the teaching assistant who proctored the exam.

The Community argued that the teaching assistant who reported the case and three other proctors witnessed the Accused Student looking at exams of several students next to him. Community witnesses noticed him looking around the room with unusual frequency, often looking intently at other tests, flipping through his own exam, and marking and changing answers accordingly. The proctors remembered that the student’s behavior was so noticeable that they issued a verbal warning for students to keep their eyes on their own exams. The Accused Student argued that a medical condition made it difficult for him to concentrate during the exam. The Accused Student also pointed to the course grader’s statistical analysis, which suggested negligible correlation between his test and the tests of the students sitting around him. The Accused Student also testified that he had retaken the exam under close supervision and had done well on the re-take, suggesting he had no motivation to cheat.

A panel comprised of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

Trial 3: A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of Cheating on a final exam. The case was reported by the course professor.

The Community argued that the student had cheated on a final examination by looking at unauthorized notes that he brought to class. The primary witness for the Community claimed to have seen the Accused Student reading essay outlines while he was writing his exam and suggested that he could have created the outlines before the exam, because the professor had sent out the essay prompts in advance. The witness testified that the Accused Student shuffled through papers on the floor under his desk. The Accused Student said he never referred to any unauthorized sources while he was taking his exam. Students had to write different essays in different blue books and write their student ID numbers on their blue books for the purpose of name-blind grading; the Accused Student said that, at one point during the exam, he shuffled through his blue books on the floor to copy his student ID number from one blue book to the others. The Accused Student also said that his handwriting was too small for him to have read any papers that he would have tried to read from the floor.

A panel comprised of Honor Committee members found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

Trial 4: A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of Cheating by unauthorized collaboration on nine assignments in five classes. The case was reported by a person not affiliated with the University of Virginia.

The Community argued that the aid the student received went beyond mere peer editing. They presented evidence of emails and online chat messages in which the Accused Student and the Reporter discussed the Accused Student’s papers and assignments. The Community argued that the Reporter discussed the ideas behind the papers, helped refine the Accused Student’s arguments, and provided guidance on how to argue most convincingly, going far beyond simple grammatical or “structural” suggestions. The Community also presented course syllabi that forbade students from gaining help from anyone but those course professors and a voicemail in which the Accused Student called the Reporter and thanked him for writing a paper for him. The Accused Student argued that he only received aid for grammar and stylistic changes on these assignments without any alteration of ideas or content. He presented a course syllabus in which the professor suggested going to the U.Va. Writing Center for help and argued that the help he received from the Reporter did not go beyond the help he would have gotten from a Writing Center employee.

A panel comprised of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

Trial 5: A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of Lying to postpone the date of his final exam. The case was reported by his professor.

The Community argued that the student lied to the testing coordinator to postpone the date of his final exam. The professor had not given the student permission to move the exam, but the testing coordinator claimed that, when asked if he had permission to move the exam, the Accused Student said he had the professor’s permission. The coordinator said that the policy is never to move an exam unless a student affirms he has his professor’s permission and that he never would have moved the exam without such confirmation from the Accused Student. The Accused Student argued that he only told the test coordinator that he needed to change the time of his exam without any reference to receiving permission from his professor to do so. The Accused Student had made previous short notice arrangements with this testing coordinator. He called a witness who claimed to have heard him speak with the testing coordinator and not heard the student mention professor permission.

A panel comprised of randomly selected students found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

Trial 6: A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of Cheating on two economics assignments by using a past student’s work. The case was reported by the course professor.

The Community argued that the Accused Student had used another student’s work from a past semester to complete the assignments. The professor testified that he used very similar assignments from semester to semester with subtle differences in specific details not relevant to solving the problems and that the Accused Student’s work contained the modified details that matched the previous semester’s assignment. The Community also argued that the electronic file’s metadata, including when the document was created, when it was saved, and for how long it had been edited, was inconsistent with any document that would have been created in that semester. The Accused Student argued that he had completed the work on his own in a timeframe consistent with his group’s email thread and that he had not submitted work from the previous semester with the intention of passing it as his own. He said that on one of the assignments, he had changed some subtle formatting details and did not realize those specific changes would coincidentally make his work resemble the previous semester’s version of the assignment. He also said that, for another of them, he had unintentionally attached and sent his group an old copy of the assignment which he had received from a friend for studying purposes and which he had not used to complete his own work and that this mistake should not be considered cheating.

A panel comprised of randomly selected students found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

Trial 7: A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of Cheating on his final exam in a French class. The case was reported by another student in the class.

The primary witness for the Community claimed to have observed the Accused Student referring to note cards in his bag and his sweatshirt pocket during the exam. The Community also said that the student made unauthorized use of his cell phone during the exam while concealing his actions inside the bag beside his desk and provided evidence that the student received a text message that he admitted to reading during the test. The primary witness also observed the Accused Student looking at an exam that another student had turned into the professor’s empty desk and making changes to his own exam before turning it in. The Accused Student said he had looked in his bag because he was expecting an important message. The Accused Student also said that he did not have note cards but that he did have a review packet, which he hurriedly put in his pocket before the exam began and placed in his bag once he had completed his exam. When taking the exam to the front of the room, the Accused Student said he decided to make a last minute change to a couple of his answers and that he did not look at the exams that were already submitted before completing his own.

A mixed panel of randomly-selected student and Committee members found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

Public Summaries from April 1, 2013-September 9, 2013

Public Summaries related to Conscientious Retractions and Informed Retractions

Four students have had the courage and integrity to come forward and file Conscientious Retractions since the 2013-2014 Honor Committee’s term began last April. To learn more about filing a CR, click here. Note: Public summaries are stripped of all identifying information. All parties are identified using male pronouns, regardless of their gender.

CR 1: In April, a student filed a CR for stealing a street sign.
CR 2: In April, a student filed a CR for cheating on a homework assignment by using answers from a previous year’s assignment.
CR 3: In April, a student filed a CR for lying to his professor regarding the submission of an essay to which the student had made edits past the Collab submission deadline.
CR 4: In September, a student filed a CR for cheating on an exam by looking at his notes in the bathroom.

Six students have filed Informed Retractions since the 2013-2014 Honor Committee’s term began last April. To learn more about the IR, click here.

IR 1: A student was reported for lying on an application to a University program by failing to indicate prior criminal convictions on the S.I.S. criminal history update. The student admitted to the Honor Offense and filed an IR.
IR 2: A student was reported for cheating on a take-home exam by having his tutor unknowingly solve the exam questions for him. The student admitted to the Honor Offense and filed an IR.
IR 3: A student was reported for cheating off of another student during an exam. The student admitted to the Honor Offense and filed an IR.
IR 4: A student was reported for cheating on a closed book take-home exam by copying from the class textbook. The student admitted to the Honor Offense and filed an IR.
IR 5 & 6: During a course’s final exam, a student who had taken the course in a previous semester came to the classroom during the exam period and aided a current student on the test. Both students admitted to the Honor Offense and filed IRs.

Public Summaries of LAGs and Honor Trials

Two students have Left Admitting Guilt (“LAGGED”) since the 2013-2014 Honor Committee’s term began last April.

LAG 1: A student was reported for cheating on multiple homework assignments by consulting assignments that had been submitted in previous years. The student decided to LAG.
LAG 2: A student was reported for cheating on an exam by using Internet sources to answer exam questions. The student decided to LAG.

There have been two Honor trials since the 2013-2014 Honor Committee’s term began last April.

Trial 1: A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of cheating on two large homework assignments in one course. The case was reported by the course professor. The Community argued that the Accused Student had copied large blocks of text word-for-word from a popular Internet site and should have known that doing so could be considered cheating. The Accused Student, who attended grade school in another country before attending high school in the United States, argued that his educational background emphasized correct answers, rather than originality, thus preventing him from realizing that his copying text word-for-word was wrongful cheating. A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of act and knowledge.

Trial 2: A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of cheating on a midterm exam. The case was reported by the course’s Teaching Assistant. The Community argued that the Accused Student copied answers from the tests of the students next to and in front of him, providing video evidence from the exam and a statistical analysis of the similarities of test answers among students in the class. The Accused Student argued that he did not look at the tests of any other students and solely interacted with his neighbor to exchange an eraser. He also argued that the similarities of his answers with those of his neighbors were a result of the fact that he and his friend seated next to him studied together for the exam. A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of act and knowledge.

Fall 2012 Public Summaries

P.S. 12-H
A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of cheating by plagiarism on a paper in a politics-international relations class. The case was reported by the course professor.

The Community argued that the student knowingly plagiarized multiple times in the paper.

The Accused Student argued that he lacked Knowledge because of the professor’s loose attitude and that the Act was not Significant.

A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student guilty.

P.S. 12-I
A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of cheating by copying another student’s answers on an exam. The case was reported by the course professor.

The Community argued that the Accused Student had the opportunity to look at another student’s exam when the other student left the room, and that the answers between the two multiple choice exams were too similar to have happened by chance, including a large proportion of incorrect answers that were identical.

The Accused Student argued that the two students used the same online resources from which to study for the final, which could explain the similarities between the two exams.

A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

P.S. 12-J
Two students in the Darden School of Business were accused of cheating on two exams in a first-year class. The case was reported by the course professor.

The Community argued that the exams were virtually identical as a result of collaboration. The students had the same incorrect answers with identical processes on one of the exams, in addition to having almost all of the same answers on the multiple choice portion of the other exam, including a substantial number of incorrect answers.

The Accused Students argued that their similar performance on the exams was a result of having extremely similar personal and professional backgrounds with the same books and class notes. Thus, the same right and wrong answers could be expected due to extremely similar understanding of the material.

A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Students not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

P.S. 12-K
Four students in the School of Engineering & Applied Sciences were accused of cheating on a homework assignment. The case was reported by the teaching assistant.

The Community argued that the Accused Students had similar errors and formatting in their assignments.

The Accused Students argued that the assignments were completed independently, but since the students were in a study group together, they approached the problems the same way. They also argued that they all used the same computer software to generate the identical graphs.

A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Students not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

P.S. 12-L
Two students in the School of Engineering & Applied Sciences were accused of cheating by collaboration.

The Community argued that the Accused Students admitted to collaborating to some degree on the assignment, and that the Accused Students made the same mistakes on the work in question, suggesting a degree of collaboration that was not permitted.

The Accused Students argued that the degree of the collaboration in question was insufficient to warrant a violation of the Honor Code. One student argued that he had shared some information with the other, but that the other student had stolen additional work from him without his knowledge. The second student argued that the computer program default setting could create coincidental similarities. Furthermore, both Accused Students argued that due to the ambiguity of the Syllabus and the circumstances surrounding the act in question, they could not have reasonably been expected to know that these actions constituted cheating.

A panel of randomly-selected students and Committee Members found the Accused Students guilty.

P.S. 12-M
udents in the College of Arts & Sciences were accused of cheating by conferring with each other and copying answers on a multiple choice exam in a Biology class. The case was reported by a student.

The Community argued that both students had been positively identified by three separate eyewitnesses and that the nearly identical patterns of answers on the exams were too similar to have happened by chance.

The Accused Students argued that they had been misidentified by the eyewitnesses and that the similar patterns were due to studying for the exam together.

A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Students guilty.

P.S. 12-N
A student in the College of Arts and Sciences was accused of cheating by plagiarizing two papers in a Commerce class. The case was reported by the course professor.

The Community argued that the Accused Student copied large paragraphs verbatim and did not make any effort to give the authors of each work any credit, and that a reasonable student should have known that failing to cite these sources could be considered an Honor Offense.

The Accused Student argued that he believed that using online sources was acceptable for this course, and was absent during the lecture when the exam was discussed, and therefore had no reason to believe that her actions would constitute cheating.

A panel of randomly- selected students found the Accused Student guilty.

P.S. 12-O
A graduate from the College of Arts & Sciences and a student in the School of Engineering & Applied Sciences were accused of cheating on a homework assignment and of conspiring to lie to cover up the cheating. The case was reported by another student.

The Community argued that any instance of copying material without attribution was cheating.

The Accused Students argued that they were unaware that they were required to cite the material they had copied and that it was an honest mistake.

A panel of randomly-selected students found both Accused Students not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

Spring 2012 Public Summaries

P.S. Case 12-A
A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of cheating on a reading response paper. The case was reported by the student’s professor.

The Community argued that the Accused Student had plagiarized material from the internet relating to the assigned course reading – misrepresenting this as his own work.

The Accused Student argued that he had read a variety of material online and may have internalized some of its wording and structure, and that his use of the material did not constitute plagiarism due to the lack of formal citation requirements on the assignment. Moreover, the assignment in question represented such a small proportion of his final grade as to be insignificant.

A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student guilty.

P.S. 12-B
A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of cheating by plagiarizing articles he wrote in connection with his participation in an extra-curricular organization. The case was reported by another student.

The Community argued that the Accused Student should have known that the Honor Code applied to all aspects of University life, including his submissions for extra-curricular organizations.

The Accused Student argued that a reasonable student in his situation would not have understood that the act in question constituted an Honor offense.

A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

P.S. 12-C
A student in the Darden School of Business was accused of cheating by obtaining information regarding an exam prior to taking this exam. The case was reported by other students.

The Community argued that a reasonable student should have known that listening to a conversation regarding an exam that the student had not yet taken constitutes an Honor offense. The Community further argued that the act was significant because the Accused Student had not made the other parties to the conversation in question aware that he had not yet taken the exam.

The Accused Student argued that while he was presumed to be present during the conversation because he was logged in to the online forum through which it occurred, that he was not actually present during discussions of the exam in question. He argued that he never heard any discussion of the exam because he had other events to attend to during the conversation in question and was therefore not present.

A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

P.S. 12-D
A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of cheating by plagiarizing a reading response in a history class. The case was reported by the professor of the class.

The Community argued that the professor explained the Honor Code to the class numerous times and the Accused Student should have known that the Honor Code applied to the assignment. Therefore, the Accused Student should have known he must use citations when including outside sources.

The Accused Student argued that the assignment was described as simple and informal and he did not believe that formal citations were necessary. The teaching assistant of the section did not mention that citations of outside sources were required when explaining the assignment.

A mixed panel of randomly-selected students and Honor Committee members found the Accused Student guilty.

P.S. 12-E
A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of cheating by using a friend’s data and corresponding analysis to complete a project and presentation. The case was reported by the course professor.

The Community argued that the Accused Student directly copied the data and friend’s analysis into his project essay and presentation. In doing so, he should have known that attempting to take credit for the work of another would constitute cheating.

The Accused Student argued that he only used the friend’s data but drew his own conclusions, asserting that borrowing the friend’s data was no different from using data obtained from a library or online source. He added that he simply forgot to cite his friend for providing the data.

A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student guilty.

P.S. 12-F
A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of cheating on a paper assigned in an English class. The case was reported by a teaching assistant in the course.

The Community argued that the Accused Student’s work was copied verbatim from several online sources, and thus constituted cheating. The Community also argued that the Accused Student knowingly committed such an Act because the assignment sheet contained instructions to include a “Works Cited” page.

The Accused Student argued that copying materials by itself did not constitute an act of cheating and that the Accused Student believed he was compiling research for a draft, instead of knowingly plagiarizing for this assignment. The Accused Student also argued that since this assignment received a grade that did not by itself constitute the final grade for the paper, the Act was insignificant.

A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student guilty.

P.S. 12-G
A student in the Darden School of Business was accused of cheating on four response papers by plagiarizing material from online articles. The case was reported by the course professors.

The Community argued that the Accuse Student copied verbatim passages from online sources into the papers, and a reasonable University student should have known that using other authors’ words without citations constitutes an Honor offense.

The Accused Student argued that his different cultural and academic background led to his misunderstanding of the assignment and the need for citations.

A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.

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