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 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.

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

***For public summaries after December 11, 2013, please refer to the Honor Newsletter publications, available here.***

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