Honor Board Case Summaries, 2004-2005

To the Wesleyan Community:

Attached is a summary of the cases heard by the Honor Board during the 2004-2005 academic year. Each summary includes the allegation, the Board's findings and the sanction(s) assigned to the individual(s).

As stated in the current Student Handbook, "The Honor System depends upon the willingness of all members of the University to adhere to the standards of academic behavior articulated in the Honor Code. Every student must understand and accept this responsibility as a condition of enrollment. This substantial responsibility is an important aspect of a Wesleyan education."

This information is supplied by the Board to increase understanding of the Honor Code, and to promote an awareness of the Board's role in the Wesleyan Community.

If you have any questions about the Honor Code, please do not hesitate to contact the Chairs of the Honor Board who are listed below:

Namrata Kotwani, '06, nkotwani@wesleyan.edu
Tacina Outram, '06, toutram@wesleyan.edu

Thank you,
The Honor Board

• The Board was asked to consider a possible violation of subsection 1, giving and receiving assistance, and subsection 5, deception. A professor alleged that one of their students had cheated on their exam. Another professor had found the student's notebook with answers hidden behind a toilet in the bathroom near the classroom in which the student was taking the exam. The student claimed that they had been extremely nervous about the exam, so they had hidden the notebook behind the toilet in order to calm themselves, but that they had never gone and looked at the notebook while they was taking the exam. Indeed, the evidence showed that it was more likely than not that neither the student nor anyone else had looked at the notebook during the exam. However, the Honor Board felt that the act of hiding the notes behind the toilet was deceptive both to the professor and to the class, and violated the spirit of the Honor Code. The Board thus found the student in violation of subsection 5, deception. The Board recommended that the student receive a 65 on the exam.

• The Board was asked to consider a possible violation of subsection 2, plagiarism, and subsection 4, falsification of data and citations. A professor alleged that one of their students copied parts of a website in a paper they turned in for the class and had also falsified the works cited page. The student admitted to the charges and was consequently found in violation of both subsections. The Board recommended that they receive no credit on the paper, that they go to the Writing Workshop to better understand how to cite sources and write research papers, and that under the guidance of their Professor they write an anonymous Wespeak article about plagiarism.

• The Board was asked to consider a possible violation of subsection 1, giving and receiving assistance. A student reported to their professor that they had seen another student looking at their notes during a quiz. The professor confronted the student and the student immediately admitted that they had cheated on the quiz. The student claimed that they had a disability regarding certain types of test-taking which pertained to the format of the quiz they were taking. The student then attempted to withdraw from the course before the Honor Board hearing had occurred, and did not tell their class dean the truth about their reasons for withdrawal. The Honor Board found the student in violation and assigned them no credit for the quiz, although the Honor Board allowed the student to withdraw from the class after the hearing. The Board also mandated that the student meet with their class dean to discuss their disability, and that they write a letter of apology to the professor for attempting to go over the professor's head in withdrawing from the course.

• The Board was asked to consider a possible violation of subsection 2, plagiarism. A professor alleged that one of their students had copied portions of a paper from books. The student claimed that they had been under extreme stress while they wrote the paper, and so had simply poorly cited the sources. Since there were instances of clear intent to plagiarize, for instance repeatedly changing "I" to "He" in a paragraph that in the source material had been autobiographical, the Board found the student in violation. The Board assigned the student no credit for the paper, which resulted in an "F" for the course, and the sanction was that the student had to go to the Writing Workshop and write a paper about what plagiarism is and what its effects are on a community of ideas.

• The Board was asked to consider a possible violation of subsection 1, giving and receiving assistance, and subsection 5, deception. A professor observed that during an exam, a student had their notebook open next to their chair. The professor moved the notebook under the chair, but later saw the notebook again next to the chair with the student leaning over the notebook. The professor then confiscated the notebook and found that it was open to the page of theorems needed to answer several questions on the exam. The student claimed that they had accidentally kicked the notebook out from under their desk, and that they had not seen the notebook lying next to their chair. The Board found the student in violation. Since this was a second offense for the student, the Board expelled the student, and recommended that they not be readmitted without demonstrating significant improvement in their ethical reasoning, academic integrity and in their attitude towards their education.

• The Board was asked to consider a possible violation of subsection 2, plagiarism. The professor alleged that the student's paper was derived from various websites. The student admitted to the charges, claiming personal problems. The student was consequently found in violation. The Board recommended they receive no credit for the assignment, although they will be allowed to withdraw from the course. The board also recommended that the student rewrite the paper along the original guidelines and write a letter of apology to the Professor and the Honor Board.

• The Board was asked to consider a possible violation of subsection 2, plagiarism. The professor alleged that the student's paper was derived from various websites. The student admitted to the charges. The student was consequently found in violation. The Board recommended that they receive no credit for the class and meet with the class dean.

• The Board was asked to consider a possible violation of subsection 1, giving and receiving assistance, and subsection 5, Deception, for two students, Student A and Student B. The professor alleged that the students' answers on an in-class exam were too similar to be coincidental, and that the students, who were sitting next to each other, had either cooperated or one of the students had cheated off the other. During the hearing, both students alleged that the other had copied off each other during the exam. After reviewing the evidence and testimony, the board found student A to not be in violation of subsections 1 and 5 and student B to be in violation of subsections 1 and 5. The Board recommended that student B receive a failure for the course, as well as a suspension from the University for 1 full academic year, effective Fall 2005.