Honor Board Case Summaries 2008-2009

• The Honor Board was asked to review a possible violation of Subsection 2 (Plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor reported that although a student cited several sources on the final paper they turned in, there were large sections of the paper taken from online sources used verbatim without proper citation. At the hearing, the student readily took responsibility for their actions and promised to re-write the paper. Board records showed that this student had also come before the Honor Board a year and a half earlier, and although they were not found in violation, they did receive a warning from the Honor Board at that time. After reviewing the situation, the Honor Board determined that the student was in violation of the Honor Code. As a sanction, the student received no credit for the paper.

• The Honor Board was asked to review a possible violation of Subsection 2 (Plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor reported that although a student cited several sources on the final paper that they turned in, there were large sections of the paper taken from online sources used verbatim without proper citation. After reviewing the situation, The Honor Board determined that the student was in violation of unintentional plagiarism. Although the student acknowledged that the research presented in the paper was not their own, the student failed to properly indicate and cite the sections of the paper that were taken verbatim from the sources included in the reference list. As a sanction, the student received a one letter grade demotion on their paper. In addition, the student was required to write a brief essay that outlined the proper techniques for presenting information taken from outside sources, including how to cite that information on a formal paper. The student was asked to do this project in consultation with their class dean.

• The Honor Board was asked to review a possible violation of Subsection 4 (Willful falsification of data, information or citations in any formal academic exercise) and Subsection 5 (Deception concerning adherence to the conditions set by the instructor for the formal academic exercise) of the Honor Code. The professors reported that when a student resubmitted a test for re-grading, it appeared that two of the answers were modified from the original test. After reviewing the situation, the Honor Board determined that the student was in violation of the Honor Code. As a sanction, the student received no credit for the exam. They were also required to write a five-page essay with full citations about the importance of honor codes in academic communities, and to turn the essay in to their class dean for review and discussion. The student appealed the decision of the Honor Board to the president, but the appeal was denied.

• The Honor Board was asked to review a possible violation of Subsection 2 (Plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor informed the Board that there were large sections of a student’s final paper taken verbatim from secondary sources without proper citations. After reviewing the situation, the Honor Board found the student in violation. As a sanction, the student received no credit for their final paper. They were also required to write a five-page essay about the importance of honor codes in academic communities and to submit it to their class dean for discussion.

• The Honor Board was asked to review a possible violation of Subsection 2 (Plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor informed the Board that there were large sections of a student’s final paper copied from online sources without proper citations. After reviewing the situation, the Honor Board found the student in violation. As a sanction, the student received no credit for their final paper. They were also required to write a five-page essay about the importance of honor codes in academic communities, and to submit it to their class dean for discussion.

• The Honor Board was asked to review a possible violation of Subsection 4 (Willful falsification of data, information or citations in any formal academic exercise) and Subsection 5 (Deception concerning adherence to the conditions set by the instructor for the formal academic exercise) of the Honor Code. The professors reported that the answers on a test that a student asked to be considered for re-grading were modified from the answers the student turned in on their original test paper. After reviewing the situation, the student was found in violation of the Honor Code. The Board was particularly concerned that the student took a deceptive approach to the hearing and displayed an unusual degree of premeditation in the violation, including the elaborate construction of an entirely new page submitted for re-grading. As a sanction the student received an “F” for the course. The student was also required to write a five-page essay about the importance of honor codes in academic communities, and to submit it to their class dean for discussion.

• The Honor Board was asked to review a possible violation of Subsection 1 (The attempt to give or obtain assistance in a formal academic exercise without due acknowledgement) of the Honor Code. The professor reported that many of the answers, including mistakes, on the final exam that a student turned in contained the same answers as those on another classmate’s exam. After reviewing the situation, The Board determined that the student was in violation of the Honor Code. As a sanction the student received a failing grade for the course. They were also required to write a five-page essay on the importance of honor codes in academic communities. The student whose exam was copied from was not found in violation. The student found in violation appealed the decision of the Board to the president, but the appeal was denied.

• The Honor Board was asked to review a possible violation of Subsection 2 (Plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor reported that nearly the entire draft of a final research paper that a student turned in was taken word-for-word from various sources on internet websites. Less than a week later, the same professor reported discovering that another paper by the same student turned in for the same class also contained material that had been taken from other literary sources without attributing proper credit or citation. After reviewing the situation, the Board determined that the student was in violation of the Honor Code. As a sanction, the student received a failing grade for the course.

• The Honor Board was asked to review a possible violation of Subsection 2 (Plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor reported that the term paper a student submitted appeared to have been nearly 100% plagiarized from one of the sources cited in the paper’s bibliography. After reviewing the situation, the Board determined that the student was in violation of the Honor Code. As a sanction, the student received a failing grade for the course.

• The Honor Board was asked to review a possible violation of Subsection 5 (Deception concerning adherence to the conditions set by the instructor for the formal academic exercise) of the Honor Code. The professor reported that a folder containing class notes about the material on the final exam was discovered during the exam in a restroom near where the exam was taking place. A student taking the exam was observed at several intervals going into the restroom, and later leaving the exam with the folder. After reviewing the situation, the Board determined that the student was in violation of the Honor Code. As a sanction, the student received a zero for the final exam. They were also required to write a five-page essay on the importance of honor codes in academic communities.

• The Honor Board was asked to review a possible violation of Subsection 1 (The attempt to give or obtain assistance in a formal academic exercise without due acknowledgement) of the Honor Code. The professor informed the Board that several portions of the final exams of two students contained identical phrasing. During the Honor Board hearing, both students admitted to copying each other’s exams, and were found in violation of the Honor Code. Both students received a zero for their exams.

• The Honor Board was asked to review a possible violation of Subsection 1 (The attempt to give or obtain assistance in a formal academic exercise without due acknowledgement) and Subsection 2 (Plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor reported that many of the answers on two students’ take-home exams were almost identical to each other. Additionally, some of those answers were taken word-for-word from Wikipedia. When confronted by the professor, “Student A” said that they turned in the “wrong exam” and immediately sent the professor another version of the exam. At the hearing, the Honor Board determined that this student was not in violation of Subsection 1. Also, since the Board did not have enough evidence to determine whether turning in the original exam was deliberately deceptive, the student was found to be guilty of "unintentional plagiarism," that is, of an unintentional violation of subsection 2 of the Honor Code. As a sanction, the student received a one-letter grade demotion on the grade assigned to the second exam that they turned in. Additionally, they were required to write a five-page essay on the importance of honor codes in academic communities. The other student, “Student B” admitted that they were in violation of Subsection 2 (Plagiarism). The Board agreed that they were in violation of Subsection 2, but not in violation of Subsection 1. As a sanction, they received no credit for their exam, and they were also required to write a five-page essay on the importance of honor codes in academic communities.

• The Honor Board was asked to review a possible violation of Subsection 2 (Plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor reported that the contents of the paper a student turned in appeared to have been taken almost verbatim from an internet source. After reviewing the situation, and by the student’s own admission, the Board determined that the student was in violation of the Honor Code. As a sanction, the student received no credit for the paper. They were also required to write a five-page essay on the importance of honor codes in academic communities.

• The Honor Board was asked to review a possible violation of Subsection 1 (The attempt to give or obtain assistance in a formal academic exercise without due acknowledgement) and Subsection 2 (Plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor reported that although the criterion for their class required students to work on lab reports independently, several of the lab reports that a student turned in appeared to have been done in collaboration with and possibly plagiarized from reports turned in by another student in the class. After reviewing the situation, The Honor Board determined that the student was in violation of Subsection 1, but not in violation of Subsection. The student’s collaboration with other students in the class prior to writing the lab assignment violated the conditions set by the professor, but the student did not plagiarize their final work. As a sanction, the student received a zero for the assignment. The student appealed the decision of the Honor Board to the president, but the appeal was denied.

• The Honor Board was asked to review a possible violation of Subsection 1 (The attempt to give or obtain assistance in a formal academic exercise without due acknowledgement) of the Honor Code. The professor informed the Board that the final take-home exams of four students in the class contained a remarkable amount of similarities. At the hearing, all four students were forthright in admitting that they had each in turn copied from each other’s exam papers. As a sanction, each student received no credit for their final exams. For similar violations, students have often been required to write essays about the importance of the Honor Code, but in this case, due to the degree of candidness and remorse each student exhibited during the hearing, there were no additional sanctions imposed beyond receiving no credit for the exam.