Go to Wesleyan Homepage Go to Navigation Menu Go to Directories Go to Events Calendar Go to Search Wesleyan Go to Portfolio Sign-in
 
 
Academic Advising and Planning Guide
Advising Resources
Student Academic Resources Network
SARN Peer Advisors
Information for Seniors
Information for Juniors
Information for Sophomores
Major Declaration
Honors Program
Scholarships and Fellowships
Prize Recipients
 
 
 

Honor Board Case Summaries, 2002 - 2003

To the Wesleyan Community:

Attached is a summary of the cases heard by the Honor Board during the 2002-2003 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)

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:

Kevin Ndiang'ui, '04 Senior Member, kndiangui@wesleyan.edu

Camille Zahniser, '04 Senior Member, czahniser@wesleyan.edu

Michael Sanfilippo, '05 Junior Member, msanfilippo@wesleyan.edu

Jonathan Psotka, '05 Junior Member, jpsotka@wesleyan.edu

 

Thank you,
The Honor Board

 

Case Summaries, Fall 2002 - Spring 2003

 

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student had violated subsection 2 (plagiarism). The professor alleged that large portions of a paper were copied from an external source. The student admitted to violating the Honor Code, and the Board found the student in violation of subsection 2. The Board recommended that the student receive a zero for the paper and perform community service.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether two students violated subsection 1 (giving and receiving assistance). The students admitted to violating the Honor Code, and the Board found them in violation of subsection 1. The Board recommended that they each receive a zero for the assignment and meet with the Dean of the College.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 2 (plagiarism) and 4 (willful falsification of data). The student did not appear at the hearing. The Board found the student in violation of subsection 4 and not in violation of subsection 2. The Board recommended that the student receive a zero for the assignment and meet with the Honor Board.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether student A violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance) and 5 (deception). The professor had been informed by student B that student A had used student B's completed assignment as a model for his/her own. Student A admitted to the violations. The Board found student A in violation of subsection 1 and recommended that the student meet with the Honor Board to further discuss the situation.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism). The professor alleged that the student failed to provide consistent footnotes for the sources used in a paper. The student admitted to the violation. The Honor Board recommended that the student rewrite the paper for a maximum grade of C and meet with the writing workshop.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism). The professor alleged that large portions of a paper were taken from an Internet source. The student admitted to the violation. The Honor Board found the student in violation and recommended that the student fail the course and meet with the class dean and faculty advisor.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism). The professor alleged that the student's paper was nearly identical to a paper from the Internet. The student admitted to the violation. The Board found the student in violation and recommended a failing grade for the course.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 2 (plagiarism) and 5 (deception). The professor alleged that a student had submitted a second and third draft of an originally plagiarized paper, while claiming that the first two submissions were accidental. The student admitted to plagiarizing aspects of all three papers as well as trying to deceive the professor on numerous occasions. The Board found the student in violation of subsections 2 and 5 and recommended that the student be suspended for the remainder of the semester and receive a failing grade for the course.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether three students violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance) and 2 (plagiarism). The professor alleged that the students collaborated and shared answers for a laboratory assignment. The students admitted to the violation. The Board found the students in violation and recommended that they receive a failing grade for the course.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether two students violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance) and 2 (plagiarism). The professor alleged that the students collaborated on a laboratory assignment. One student also copied another assignment without the other's permission. The Honor Board found both students in violation and recommended that they receive a failing grade for the course.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance), 2 (plagiarism), and 5 (deception) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student knowingly allowed students in the class to cheat on an exam. The student denied all allegations. Based on the professor's report and substantial evidence, the student was found in violation of subsections 1, 2, and 5. The Board recommended that the student receive an F for the course and that the student be expelled with the option to reapply for admission for the Fall 2004 semester.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance), 2 (plagiarism), 5 (deception), and 6 (failure to take constructive action) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student copied answers from another student's exam. The student denied all allegations. Based on the professor's report, substantial evidence, and the fact that the student was the first of a group of 14 students to submit an exam with remarkably similar answers, the Board found the student in violation of subsections 1, 2, 5, and 6. Based on these multiple violations, the Board recommended that the student receive and F for the course, and that the student be expelled with the option to reapply for the Spring 2004 semester.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance), 2 (plagiarism), 5 (deception), and 6 (failure to take constructive action) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student submitted an exam that was remarkably similar to that of several other students in the course. The professor further alleged that the student submitted a final project, on which the student was required to work alone, that was identical to that of other students in the course. The student admitted to having received assistance on the exam and to having worked with other students on the final project. Based on the professor's report and the student's admission, the Board found the student in violation of subsections 1, 2, 5, and 6 on multiple accounts. Based on these multiple violations, the Board recommended that the student receive and F for the course and that the student be suspended for a period of one year.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance), 2 (plagiarism), 5 (deception), and 6 (failure to take constructive action) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student submitted an exam that was remarkably similar to that of several other students in the course. The professor further alleged that the student submitted a final project, on which the student was required to work alone, that was identical to that of other students in the course. The student admitted to having received assistance on the exam and to having worked with other students on the final project. Based on the professor's report and the student's admission, the Board found the student in violation of subsections 1, 2, 5, and 6 on multiple accounts. Based on these multiple violations, the Board recommended that the student receive and F for the course and that the student be suspended for a period of one year.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance), 2 (plagiarism), 5 (deception), and 6 (failure to take constructive action) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student submitted an exam that was remarkably similar to that of several other students in the course. The professor further alleged that the student submitted a final project, on which the student was required to work alone, that was identical to that of other students in the course. The student admitted to having received assistance on the exam and to having worked with other students on the final project. Based on the professor's report and the student's admission, the Board found the student in violation of subsections 1, 2, 5, and 6 on multiple accounts. Based on these multiple violations, the Board recommended that the student receive and F for the course and that the student be suspended for a period of one year.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance), 2 (plagiarism), 5 (deception), and 6 (failure to take constructive action) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student submitted an exam that was remarkably similar to that of several other students in the course. The professor further alleged that the student submitted a final project, on which the student was required to work alone, that was identical to that of other students in the course. The student admitted to having received assistance on the exam and to having worked with other students on the final project. Based on the professor's report and the student's admission, the Board found the student in violation of subsections 1, 2, 5, and 6 on multiple accounts. Based on these multiple violations, the Board recommended that the student receive and F for the course and that the student be suspended for a period of one year.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance), 2 (plagiarism), 5 (deception), and 6 (failure to take constructive action) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student submitted an exam that was remarkably similar to that of several other students in the course. The professor further alleged that the student submitted a final project, on which the student was required to work alone, that was identical to that of other students in the course. The student admitted to having received assistance on the exam and to having worked with other students on the final project. Based on the professor's report and the student's admission, the Board found the student in violation of subsections 1, 2, 5, and 6 on multiple accounts. Based on these multiple violations, the Board recommended that the student receive and F for the course and that the student be suspended for a period of one year.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance), 2 (plagiarism), 5 (deception), and 6 (failure to take constructive action) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student submitted an exam that was remarkably similar to that of several other students in the course. The professor further alleged that the student submitted a final project, on which the student was required to work alone, that was identical to that of other students in the course. The student denied all allegations involving the exam and admitted to having received assistance having worked with other students on the final project. Based on the professor's report and the student's admission, the Board found the student in violation of subsections 1, 2, 5, and 6 on multiple accounts. Based on these multiple violations, the Board recommended that the student receive and F for the course and that the student be suspended for a period of one year.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance), 2 (plagiarism), 5 (deception), and 6 (failure to take constructive action) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student submitted an exam that was remarkably similar to that of several other students in the course. The professor further alleged that the student submitted a final project, on which the student was required to work alone, that was identical to that of other students in the course. The student admitted to having received assistance on the exam and denied all allegations regarding the final project. Based on the professor's report and the student's admission, the Board found the student in violation of subsections 1, 2, 5, and 6 on multiple accounts. Based on these multiple violations, the Board recommended that the student receive and F for the course and that the student be suspended for a period of one year.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance), 2 (plagiarism), 5 (deception), and 6 (failure to take constructive action) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student submitted an exam that was remarkably similar to that of several other students in the course. The professor further alleged that the student submitted a final project, on which the student was required to work alone, that was identical to that of other students in the course and to a master copy (created by a course TA) of the project. The student admitted to having received assistance on the exam and to having worked with other students on the final project. Based on the professor's report and the student's admission, the Board found the student in violation of subsections 1, 2, 5, and 6 on multiple accounts. Based on these multiple violations, the Board recommended that the student receive and F for the course and that the student be expelled with the option to reapply for the Spring 2004 semester.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance), 2 (plagiarism), 5 (deception), and 6 (failure to take constructive action) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student submitted an exam that was remarkably similar to that of several other students in the course. The student admitted to having received assistance on the exam. Based on the professor's report and the student's admission, the Board found the student in violation of subsections 1, 2, 5, and 6 on multiple accounts. Based on these multiple violations, the Board recommended that the student receive and F for the course and that the student be suspended for one year.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance), 2 (plagiarism), 5 (deception), and 6 (failure to take constructive action) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student submitted an exam that was remarkably similar to that of several other students in the course. The student admitted to having received assistance on the exam. Based on the professor's report and the student's admission, the Board found the student in violation of subsections 1, 2, 5, and 6 on multiple accounts. Based on these multiple violations, the Board recommended that the student receive and F for the course and that the student be suspended for one year.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance), 2 (plagiarism), 5 (deception), and 6 (failure to take constructive action) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student submitted an exam that was remarkably similar to that of several other students in the course. The student admitted to having received assistance on the exam. Based on the professor's report and the student's admission, the Board found the student in violation of subsections 1, 2, 5, and 6 on multiple accounts. Based on these multiple violations, the Board recommended that the student receive and F for the course and that the student be suspended for one year.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance), 2 (plagiarism), 5 (deception), and 6 (failure to take constructive action) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student submitted an exam that was remarkably similar to that of several other students in the course. The student admitted to having received assistance on the exam. Based on the professor's report and the student's admission, the Board found the student in violation of subsections 1, 2, 5, and 6 on multiple accounts. Based on these multiple violations, the Board recommended that the student receive and F for the course and that the student be suspended for one year.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance), 2 (plagiarism), 5 (deception), and 6 (failure to take constructive action) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student submitted an exam that was remarkably similar to that of several other students in the course. The student admitted to having received assistance on the exam. Based on the professor's report and the student's admission, the Board found the student in violation of subsections 1, 2, 5, and 6 on multiple accounts. Based on these multiple violations, the Board recommended that the student receive and F for the course and that the student be suspended for one year.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsections 1 (giving and receiving assistance), 2 (plagiarism), 5 (deception), and 6 (failure to take constructive action) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student submitted an assignment that was identical to that of other students in the class. The student admitted to having received the assignment from a classmate. Based on the professor's report and the student's admission, the Board found the student in violation of subsections 1, 2, and 5. The Board recommended that the student receive an F for the assignment.
     

  • The Honor Board was asked to consider allegations of subsections 2 and 6 (plagiarism and failure to take constructive action). The student was accused of copying off another student's exam. The student admitted to copying answers from a student who was unaware of the copying. The Board recommended that the student receive a zero for the exam.
     

  • The Honor Board was asked to consider allegations of subsections 2 and 6 (plagiarism and failure to take constructive action). The student's friends had suggested using the Internet as a source for a paper, but the student failed to cite information taken from the web. The student took full responsibility for the violations and was in violation. The Board recommended that the student write an anonymous WeSpeak describing the violations and the events leading up to them.
     

  • The Honor Board was asked to consider allegations of subsections 1 and 2 (giving and receiving assistance and Plagiarism) for three students. Students A and B worked together to outline answers to a take home exam. Student B then helped student C answer questions which student C could not answer. Student A was found in violation of subsection 1. The Board recommended that student A write a WeSpeak to educate the Wesleyan community about the Honor Code. Students B and C were found in violation subsections 1 and 2. The Board recommended that they receive zeros for their exams.
     

  • The Honor Board was asked to consider allegations of subsection 1 (giving and receiving assistance). The student was alleged to have exceeded the bounds for collaboration established by a professor in the course. The student was found in violation. Based on the student's previous violations, the Board recommended that the student be expelled from the University.
     

  • The Honor Board was asked to consider allegations of subsection 1 (giving and receiving assistance). The student was alleged to have exceeded the bounds for collaboration established by the professor in the course. The student was found in violation, and the Board recommended that the student write an essay about the Honor Code and receive a zero for the assignment.
     

  • The Honor Board was asked to consider allegations of subsection 2 (plagiarism). The student admitted to having downloaded parts of an article from the internet and submitting them as original thought. The student was found in violation. Based on the student's previous violation, the Board recommended that the student be dismissed from the University.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student did not properly cite sources that were extensively used in the paper. The student claimed that he/she was unaware of proper citation procedures. The student was found in violation of subsection 2 and the Board recommended that the student receive no credit on the paper and consult with the Writing Workshop.
     

  • The Board was asked to consider whether a student violated subsection 2 (plagiarism) of the Honor Code. The professor alleged that the student did not cite sources that were extensively used in the paper. The student claimed that he/she was was under the impression that the paper was informal and thus not subject to the the same citation standards. The student was found in violation of subsection 2. Since this was the student's second violation the Board recommended that the student be expelled for one year.