Honor Board Case Summaries, 2001 - 2002

Attached is a summary of the cases heard by the Honor Board during the 2001-2002 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 University 2002-2003 Student Handbook, p. 88)

The Honor Board would like to take this opportunity to inform the community that during the 2001-2002 academic year the number of cases brought before the Honor Board increased slightly relative to the previous year. In the 2001-2002 academic year, there were 33 cases adjudicated by the Honor Board, compared to 32 in 2000-2001 (and 35 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:

Jeffrey Berko, '03 Senior Member, jberko@wesleyan.edu
Asher Rolfe, '03 Senior Member, abrolfe@wesleyan.edu
Kevin Ndiang'ui, '04 Junior Member, kndiangui@wesleyan.edu
Camille Zahniser, '04 Junior Member, czahniser@wesleyan.edu

Thank you,
The Honor Board

Case Summaries, Fall 2001 - Spring 2002

• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance) and 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student did not properly cite evidence and shared information with another student in the class. The student claimed that he/she forgot to cite the information, then ran out of time to properly cite the paper. The student was found in violation of subsection 2, but not subsection 1. The Board recommended that the student rewrite the paper for a maximum grade of C, and consult with the Writing Workshop.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 1 (giving and receiving assistance) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student handed in the correct solution from a version of the exam that was different from the one he/she was taking. The student admitted to having copied his/her answer from the student seated next to him/her. The student was found in violation, and the Board agreed that the student should receive a grade of 0 for the exam and discuss time management strategies with a member of the Honor Board.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 1 (giving and receiving assistance) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that one student copied answers from another student's quiz. The student confessed to having done so. The student was found in violation, and received a grade of 0 on the quiz and was asked to write a three page essay concerning their understanding of the Honor System.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 4 (falsification of data) of the Honor Code. The Professor alleged that the student's attendance record for the class had been falsified. The student claimed that a friend falsified his/her attendance record without his/her knowledge. The board found him/her not in violation and he/she was exonerated.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student improperly cited sources. The student confessed. The student was given a 0 for the paper, asked to review the MLA handbook, and rewrite the paper.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance) and 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student was caught cheating on the final examination. The student confessed and was found in violation of the Honor Code. The board recommended a sanction of an F for the course and was advised to talk to a senior board member and write a three-page essay concerning their understanding of the Honor System.
• The Board was asked to consider whether two students violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance) and 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that student A did not take constructive action after witnessing student B cheating by looking at his/her exam. The students confessed and were found in violation of the Honor Code. The Honor Board recommended a sanction of a 0 on the quiz for student B, and asked both students to write a three-page essay concerning their understanding of the Honor System.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 1 (giving and receiving assistance) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that two students submitted nearly identical problem sets. Student A claimed that student B had allowed him/her to look at the problem set to understand the questions since he/she was pressed for time. The Honor Board found that student A copied work from student B's problem set. The Honor Board recommended a sanction of an F for the course for student A.
• The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 2 (plagiarism) and 5 (deception) of the Honor Code. A research paper was submitted with more than 50% plagiarized material and improper citations. The Honor Board found the student in violation of both subsections. This was the student's second violation of the Honor Code. A one-year suspension was recommended.
• The Board was asked to consider whether four students violated subsection 1 (giving and receiving assistance) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the four students handed in three assignments with identical answers and mistakes. The students initially claimed that they had done the work individually. Student A then admitted that they had worked together. Student A was found in violation of subsection 1, and the Honor Board recommended a zero for the assignments in question. Students B, C, and D were found in violation of subsection 1 and subsection 5 (deception). The Honor Board recommended that these students receive a zero for the assignments, write an essay, and meet with Dean Hill.
• The Board was asked to consider whether two students violated subsection 1 (giving and receiving assistance) of the Honor Code. The professor reported that a TA proctoring an exam had seen student A look at student B's exam. Student A admitted that he/she looked at student B's paper, although student B was not aware of this. Student B was exonerated. Student A was found in violation. The Honor Board recommended the sanction of a zero for the exam.