Honor Board Case Summaries, 2000 - 2001

To the Wesleyan Community:

Attached is a summary of the cases heard by the Honor Board during the 2000-2001 academic year. Each summary includes the allegation, the Board's findings and the sanction(s) assigned to the individual(s).

As stated in the Student Handbook, "The Honor System depends upon adherence of all members of the University to the standards of academic behavior articulated in the Honor Code. This community embraces a great variety of individuals whose diversity of thought and life-style are wellsprings of the intellectual and creative life of the University. In this diverse group there are, properly, a few basic tenets. These include a willingness to adhere to the Honor Code. Any student wishing to enroll at Wesleyan should understand and accept this responsibility as a condition of enrollment. The substantial responsibility is one aspect of the education offered at Wesleyan." (Wesleyan 2001-2001 Student Handbook,) p. 91

The Honor Board would like to take this opportunity to inform the community that during the 2000-2001 academic year there was a slight decrease in the number of students who were found in violation of the Honor Code, in comparison to the number of students found in violation during the 1999-2000 academic year, (32 students in 2000-2001 compared to 35 students in 1999-2000).

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 any of the members of the Honor Board who are listed below:

Casey Davison, '02 Senior Member, cdavison@wesleyan.edu
John Lawler, '02 Senior Member, jlawler@wesleyan.edu
Jeffrey Berko, '03 Junior Member, jberko@wesleyan.edu
Asher Rolfe, '03 Junior Member, abrolfe@wesleyan.edu

Thank you,
The Honor Board

Case Summaries

• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The instructor noticed that portions of the student's paper appeared to have been copied verbatim from an outside source with no citations. The student maintained that although he did use the source in question, he was unaware that his use constituted plagiarism. The Board found the student in violation, and recommended the student receive a failing grade for the assignment. The Board also recommended that he be required to meet with someone from the Writing Workshop about how to write papers and meet privately with a member of the Board to go over specifics of what constitutes plagiarism.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The instructor noticed that the paper was largely copied verbatim from an outside source. After initially denying the allegations, the student acknowledged that the paper was in fact plagiarized. The Board found the student in violation of subsection 2 as well as subsection 5 (deception) of the Honor Code. The Board recommended that the student receive a failing grade for the class, and be suspended for the following semester. In addition, the student was required to write a letter to the Board before being readmitted to the University.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The instructor noticed that portions of the student's paper appeared to be taken from an outside source without any citations. The student maintained that he had used the outside source, but was unaware that his use constituted plagiarism. The Board found the student in violation, and recommended that he rewrite the paper for a maximum grade of D- and write an essay for the Board on when and how to cite sources.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The instructor noticed that portions of the student's paper appeared to be taken from an outside source without any citations. The student responded that he had used an outside source, but did not realize his use was substantial enough to necessitate citations. The Board found the student in violation and recommended that he rewrite the paper for a maximum grade of D- and write an essay for the board on when and how to cite sources.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor noticed that the paper was largely copied verbatim from an outside source. The student admitted to having plagiarized the paper from that source. The student was found in violation and the Board recommended that he fail the course and write an essay.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor noticed that an outside source had been used in a paper without proper citation. The Board found the student in violation and recommended that she rewrite the paper, meet with a writing tutor, and write an essay on why and how to cite sources.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that a number of passages in the student's paper came from an outside source without proper citation. The student acknowledged use of the outside source, but was unaware that his use necessitated citations. The Board found the student in violation and recommended he rewrite the paper with proper citations, for a maximum grade of a B-.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor noticed substantial use of outside sources without proper citation in a rough draft of a paper. The professor said she noted the lack of citations on the paper, but no changes were made in the final draft. The student said he was unclear on when citations were necessary. The student was found in violation and the Board recommended that he fail the assignment, meet with a writing tutor, and write an essay on why and how to cite sources.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) and subsection 5 (deception) of the Honor Code. The student allegedly submitted a paper written by another person. The student admitted to having done this and was found in violation of both subsection 2 and subsection 5. The Board recommended that the student receive a failing grade for the course.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor noticed that a substantial number of passages had been taken from an outside source without the proper citation. The student acknowledged using the outside source, but said he was unaware that he needed to cite the source. The Board found the student in violation and recommended he fail the assignment, rewrite the paper, and write an essay about the Honor Code.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student had violated Subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The student was alleged to have handed in a paper containing information from sources that had not been cited. The professor said the paper had come to her attention because she had expected the students to reference journal articles and use footnotes, while this student's paper contained only a bibliography of web-sites and no footnotes. The student said he had misunderstood the professor's expectations and had not known how to properly cite sources from the Internet. The Board found the student in violation of the Honor Code and recommended that he receive an F for the paper and be required to rewrite it using proper citations.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that part of the paper was taken from an outside source without proper citation. The student claimed that the lack of citation was unintentional. The Board found the student in violation and recommended the paper be re-written with proper citation for a maximum grade of B-.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor noticed that the paper was largely taken from an uncited source. The student admitted to having used an outside source with the intention of passing it off as her own. The Board found the student in violation of subsection 5 (deception) as well as subsection 2 and recommended she fail the course.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that one paper had been taken entirely from an uncited source and another contained significant passages from unacknowledged sources. In a written statement, the student admitted to having plagiarized the paper. The Board found the student in violation and recommended he fail the class, be required to meet with members of the Board, and write a paper about academic integrity.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that large parts of the term paper were taken from an outside source without proper citation. The student said he was unclear on how to properly cite outside sources. The Board found the student in violation and recommended he fail the paper and meet with a writing tutor.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student had violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the first half of the student's term paper had been copied from several sources that had not been cited, while the second half had been entirely copied from one article. The student admitted that he had left the paper to the last minute and in desperation had copied the article. The Board found the student in violation of subsection 2 and recommended he receive a failing grade for the course.
• The Board was asked to consider whether three students had violated subsection 1 (giving/receiving aid without acknowledgement) of the Honor Code. The professor said that three homework assignments done by the students contained nearly identical work and that while he encouraged students to help each other, he expected them to do their own work. He said he had gone over this expectation at the beginning of the semester. The professor also showed that the students' work on the second assignment had been done on the same computer. Students B and C admitted that, not understanding the Honor Code and the professor's expectations, they had worked together extensively on the first assignment. On the second assignment, Student A said he had done his own work and then had let Student B look at it while he helped him because Student B was having trouble with the assignment. Student B said he had let Student C look at his work. The three students said they had been working on the third assignment at the same time in the computer lab. The Board found students B and C in violation of subsection 1 for the first assignment and recommended they receive no credit for it. The Board found all three students in violation of subsection 1 on the second assignment and recommended that student A be required to write a paper about appropriate ways to give aid and students B and C receive no credit for the assignment. The Board did not find the students in violation for the third assignment. The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor noticed significant similarities between the student's work and work submitted by another student. The student acknowledged that he had submitted someone else's work as his own and was found in violation. The Board recommended the student receive an F for that assignment.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 4 (willful falsification of data) and subsection 5 (deception) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student tried to receive a grade for work that was never submitted. The Board found the student in violation and recommended the student receive a failing grade for the course and write a paper on academic integrity.
• The Board was asked to consider whether Students A and B violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that significant parts of the paper were taken from an outside source without proper citation. The Board considered whether student A and student B had also violated subsection 5 (deception) of the Honor Code. Both students were found in violation only of subsection 2, and the Board recommended that they both fail the paper and each write a paper on academic integrity.