Honor Board Case Summaries 2006-2007

• The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 2 (Plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor charged that some sections of a student’s paper were taken verbatim from other essays on the assigned topic, found online, without due acknowledgement. The student admitted that portions of the assignment were indeed taken from internet sources, although they claimed that it was not intentional. After further inquiry the Board found the student in violation. For a sanction, the Board recommended that the student receive no credit for the assignment.

• The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 1 (The attempt to give or obtain assistance in a formal academic exercise without due acknowledgement). The professor charged that a student had frequently referred to a laptop during an examination, when its usage had not been established as a norm for the class, thus constituting an implicit attempt to gain advantage. The student admitted using a laptop during the examination but claimed lack of knowledge that its use was prohibited. Further inquiry led the Board to find the student in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student’s exam be graded with a penalty (as determined by the professor) subsequently applied to the final score. The student was also required to write a 5-page essay, with full citations, about the importance of honor codes in academic communities in which one is encouraged to do independent research.

• The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 4 (Willful falsification of data, information, or citation in any formal academic exercise). The professors charged that a student had changed answers on their exam after they had been graded, then resubmitted them to the professors requesting that they be re-graded. The student admitted forgetting that the answer for which points were being petitioned had been copied from the correct answers supplied by the professors after the test. After further inquiry the Board found the student in violation. For a sanction, the Board recommended that the student receive no credit for the specific answer to which changes had been made. The student then appealed the sanction of the professors, which was different from the Board’s recommendation. The president upheld the appeal and the sanction reverted to that of the Board’s recommendation.

• The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 2 (Plagiarism). The professor charged that one of the essays submitted by a student as part of a take-home exam contained portions which appeared to have been cut and pasted from several websites without citing the sources. The student claimed that the essay submitted was an older version with notes from Internet sources that was not supposed to have been sent; sending that version was unintentional. After further inquiry the Board found the student in violation. For sanctions the Board recommended that the student receive a failing grade for the examination, write a 4-page essay about the role of Honor Codes in academic communities and the importance of giving due acknowledgement in academic exercise, and meet with the appropriate class dean to discuss the essay and the student’s understanding of the Honor Code.

• The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 1 (The attempt to give or obtain assistance in a formal academic exercise without due acknowledgement). The professors charged that, along with other irregularities found in a student’s lab work, lab notes and data printouts were identical to work done by another student for an experiment completed during a previous class for which there was no evidence that the charged student had attended. The student admitted copying the data and other suspected information from the other student. The Board found the student in violation. For a sanction the Board recommended that the student receive an “Unsatisfactory” grade for the course.

• The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 1 (The attempt to give or obtain assistance in a formal academic exercise without due acknowledgement). The professor charged that the final exam turned in by one student was identical to the exam turned in by another. The first student admitted to having copied information from the other student during the examination and the second student admitted to having intentionally helped the first student do so. The Board found both students in violation. For sanctions the Board recommended that each student receive a failing grade for the course.

• The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 2 (Plagiarism). The professor charged that a student’s take-home midterm exam appeared to have phrases that were copied from internet sources with using citations to acknowledge the sources. The student claimed that he was not aware of the strict rules regarding citations. After further inquiry, the Board found the student in violation. For sanctions the Board recommended that the student receive a stern warning to be mindful of Honor Code infringements in the future and to pay strict attention to the specific guidelines set by professors in future exams. The Board also recommended that the student write a 5-page essay concerning the proper attribution of Internet sources in academic writing, to be submitted to the class dean, at which point a conversation with the said dean would ensue about the student’s understanding of the Honor Code.

• The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 2 (Plagiarism). The professor charged that a weekly response paper turned in by a student appeared to have phrases that were copied from an internet website source. The student admitted to having done so. The Board found the student in violation. For sanctions the Board recommended that the student receive no credit for any of the weekly response papers submitted throughout the course.

• The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 2 (Plagiarism). The professor charged that a weekly response paper turned in by a student appeared to have phrases that were copied verbatim from an internet website source. The student admitted to having done so and acknowledged the action as a poor decision. The Board found the student in violation. For a sanction the Board recommended that the student receive no credit for any of the weekly response papers submitted throughout the course.

• The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 1 (The attempt to give or obtain assistance in a formal academic exercise without due acknowledgement) and Subsection 5 (Deception concerning adherence to the conditions set by the instructor for the formal academic exercise). The professor charged that a student left the classroom after an examination with the completed exam and, instead of bringing it to the professor immediately, returned the examination much later. Much of the content of the submitted examination also contained information, almost verbatim, from internet sources. The student contended that he was not aware of the importance of returning the exam promptly and that information from web sources had been memorized while studying. After further inquiry the Board found the student in violation. For a sanction the Board recommended that the student receive a failing grade for the course. The student appealed to the President, but the appeal was denied.

• The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 3 (The submission of the same work for academic credit more than once without permission). The professor charged that the final paper turned in by a student contained most of the content of a paper they had turned for another class the previous semester. The student admitted that the paper that was submitted was a longer version of a paper that they had written and submitted for another class the previous semester. The Board found the student in violation. For sanctions the Board recommended that the student receive an “Unsatisfactory” grade for the course. Because this was the student’s second Honor Code violation, and in keeping with precedent, the Board also recommended suspension from Wesleyan for one semester. The student appealed the Board’s recommendation of suspension to the President. The case was assigned to the incoming President and the appeal was granted by the incoming President of the university but the student was required to rewrite the paper.

• The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 2 (Plagiarism). The professor charged that a student’s composition appeared to have portions that were copied from internet website sources without proper citations, as well as inconsistencies in the content involving sophisticated linguistic and philosophical expressions which were not studied in or learned from the language course’s textbook. The student admitted forgetting to cite appropriately but contended the philosophical expression were original because of exposure to those ideas in other classes. After further inquiry the Board did not find the student in violation. However, the Board did recommend that the student seek assistance from the professor or from a writing tutor on properly citing sources in research papers. The student was also required to report to the class dean on progress in this area.

• The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 2 (Plagiarism). The professor charged that substantial portions of a student’s research paper appeared to have been copied, in some cases verbatim, from internet sources. After being contacted by the professor, the student resubmitted what they claimed to be the original paper meant to be submitted, which also contained sources which were not cited. There were also inconsistencies with the process the student described in creating the original paper from the first paper submitted, which the student referred to as a “cut and paste” document. The student claimed that sending in the first paper was accidental and that not citing sources was also unintentional. After further inquiry, the Board found the student in violation of Subsection 2 as well as Subsection 5 (Deception) which occurred during the case proceedings. Given the compounded offenses, the Board recommended that the student receive a failing grade for the course and be suspended for a period of one semester. The student appealed to the President, but the appeal was denied.