Go to Wesleyan Homepage Go to Navigation Menu Go to Directories Go to Events Calendar Go to Search Wesleyan Go to Portfolio Sign-in
 
 
Mission Statement
Offices and Programs
Organization Chart
The Student Handbook
Administrators and Staff
Counseling Resources
Discrimination and Harassment
Disabilities Services
The Honor System
Honor Board Case Summaries
Useful Forms
 
 
 

Honor Board Case Summaries 2005-2006

To the Wesleyan Community:

Attached is a summary of the cases heard by the Honor Board during the 2005-2006 academic year. Each summary includes the allegation, the Board's findings and the sanction(s) assigned to the individual(s).

As stated in the current Student Handbook, "The Honor System depends upon the willingness of all members of the University to adhere to the standards of academic behavior articulated in the Honor Code. Every student must understand and accept this responsibility as a condition of enrollment. This substantial responsibility is an important aspect of a Wesleyan education."

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 the Chairs of the Honor Board who are listed below:

Andrew Bleeker, '07, ableeker@wesleyan.edu
Matt Johnson, '07, mdjohnson@wesleyan.edu

Thank you,
The Honor Board

  • The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 2, (Plagiarism). When grading the student's paper the professor realized that many of the phrases did not flow naturally with the rest of the writing. After submitting the paper to TurnItIn.com it became clear that many sentences were taken verbatim, without either quotation marks or citations of any kind, from websites. Other ideas were paraphrased with a similar lack of citation. The student claimed that he was new to writing college level papers and did include some sources in a brief works cited list. The Board found the student in violation. For sanctions, the Board held that the student receive no credit for the assignment, rewrite the paper correctly with the help of the writing workshop and submit it to the professor, and apply for a writing mentor for the next academic year.

  • 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 three students submitted lab reports that contained multiple similarities. The students admitted that they had discussed the assignment and written their reports next to one another but did not consider their collaboration to be cheating. After a comparison of their reports to others from the class the Board found the students in violation. As a sanction the Board recommended that they each receive the grade of an E for the course.

  • The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 2, (Plagiarism). While reading the student's take-home final exam the professor noticed that certain statements sounded out of character. When the professor searched for some of the phrases he found that a number of sentences, phrases, and ideas were taken from Encarta and Wikipedia without any acknowledgement. The student admitted all charges, claiming that they was behind in the course and it was never their intention to plagiarize. The student also argued that after attending an international high school they were unaware of the standard American definition of plagiarism. The Board found the student in violation. As a sanction the Board held that the student write a paper about the importance and background of an honor system at academic institutions, meet with their class dean, and 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 two students collaborated in the writing of a project for their language class. Specific passages were cited which appeared identically on both papers. In addition, they shared similar overall themes, which were not present in any of the other students' papers from the class. The students admitted that they worked together but argued that they had been partners in the language class all semester and did not intend for their collaboration to be cheating. The Board found both students in violation. As sanctions the Board held that the students write a formal letter of apology to the professor, write a five page paper on the honor system, and 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) and Subsection 5, (Deception concerning adherence to the conditions set by the instructor for the formal academic exercise). The professor said that when he/she waited to use the bathroom during the final exam for their class, they heard papers rustling inside the bathroom. One of the professor's students then left the bathroom. When the professor entered the bathroom he/she found notes for their exam hidden in the trash can. Both the student and professor returned to the exam as normal. The student was charged with using the unauthorized notes during the exam and then attempting to deceive the professor with his/her actions. The student later admitted everything and apologized to the professor. The Board found the student in violation. As a sanction the Board recommended that the student receive zero credit for the exam.

  • The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 2, (Plagiarism). When reading the student's paper the professor found that sources for numerous quotations and interpretations of primary source material were not provided. In the works cited list the student did list the articles the primary source material was taken from but did not specifically quote or use in text citations. The student denied any intentional wrongdoing. The Board found the student in violation of unintentional plagiarism. As a sanction the student was asked to rewrite the paper in consultation with the professor and receive a grade based on their original submission. The Board also held that no violation be recorded on the student's academic record.

  • The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsections 2, (Plagiarism), 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). The professor charged that in the student's major field research project for the semester, in lieu of performing the research themselves the student manufactured information, data, and personal interviews. Further, sections of the paper were copied directly from online sources without attribution. The professor was also deeply offended that the student's actions jeopardize the integrity of his academic discipline. The student admitted all charges. The Board found the student in violation. As sanctions the Board held that the student rewrite the paper with the correct research, serve ninety hours of community service, and receive no credit for the course.

  • The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 2, (Plagiarism). The professor charged that the student plagiarized two papers by using sentences and at times paragraphs from other sources without using quotation marks or citations. A TurnItIn.com report showed that nearly one-third of one of the papers consisted of writings from other sources. The student first argued that they had tried to cite properly but finally acknowledged that they had indeed violated the honor code. The student also admitted that they had been involved in too many extracurricular activities and had panicked under the stress. The Board found the student in violation. As sanctions, the Board held that the student receive a failing grade in the class and meet with his class dean about time management.

  • The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsections 1, (The attempt to give or obtain assistance in a formal academic exercise without due acknowledgement), Subsection 2, (Plagiarism) Subsection 4, (Willful falsification of date, information, or citation in any formal academic exercise) and Subsection 5, (Deception concerning adherence to the conditions set by the instructor for the formal academic exercise). The professor charged that a student collaborated on a paper with their teaching assistant. The professor noted that the teaching assistant may not have done anything wrong, but thought that the student had. A TurnItIn.com report revealed only an 8% correlation between the CA's old paper and that of the student. Both the CA and the student acknowledged that the student asked the CA for help but both staunchly argued they believed that it was within the confines of the honor code. The Board found that both students were not in violation. However, the Board issued stern written warnings to both students.

  • 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 noticed certain similarities between two final exams. Some of the similarities included making the same mistakes - mistakes that were unusual and not made by any other members of the class. Both students were charged. Of these, one student had done fairly well in the course all semester while the other had missed a large number of classes. During the hearing it became clear that these absences stemmed from a serious challenge in the student's family life. Though this student had originally denied any wrongdoing, during the hearing they took full responsibility for their actions, noting that they had indeed copied off of the other student's paper during the exam. They also staunchly denied that the other student was in any way complicit. The Board found the primary student in violation and issued the other a strong warning. As a sanction for the primary student, the Board held that the student receive a D- 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) Subsection 2, (Plagiarism) Subsection 3, (The submission of the same work for academic credit more than once without permission) and Subsection 5, (Deception concerning adherence to the conditions set by the instructor for the formal academic exercise). When running the student's paper through TurnItIn.com the professor found that the paper was identical to a paper the student had co-authored previously for a prior class. Though there was a question as to whether the student had plagiarized work of his co-author, it became clear that the co-author had only done the data analysis section of the original paper, which was not included in this submission. The student admitted the actions, though claimed that he was not aware that resubmission qualified as cheating. The Board found the student in violation. As sanctions, the Board held that the student receive no credit for the assignment and write a ten page, well-researched paper about the importance of an honor code in an academic community.

  • 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). A professor charged that three students had submitted exactly the same paper, with the name of only one student on it. The professor initially thought that the students were collaborating and intending to submit only one paper. After further discussion it became clear that the students accidentally e-mailed the wrong file and had indeed written individual unique papers. All charges were then withdrawn, though the students were each issued a warning.

  • The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 2, (Plagiarism). Though the alleged offense was committed by an undergraduate student, the student had already completed all of his undergraduate degree requirements and was taking GLSP classes, which is where the alleged violation occurred. The case was then referred for adjudication by the Graduate Student Board.

  • The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsection 2, (Plagiarism). The professor charged that the paper of a visiting international student contained many sections which were directly copied from Wikipedia. The student claimed that as an international student they assumed that this was acceptable. None of the copied text were quoted or cited. The Board found the student in violation and assigned a failing grade for the course. The student then appealed the decision to President Bennet. The President upheld the Honor Board's decision, noting that the student was responsible for following basic American academic regulations. However, wanting the student's credits to still be transferable from Wesleyan, President Bennet changed the sanction from a failing grade in the course to a failing grade on the assignment.

  • The Honor Board was asked to consider an alleged violation of Subsections 1, (The attempt to give or obtain assistance in a formal academic exercise without due acknowledgement) and Subsection 2, (Plagiarism). The professor charged that the paper of one student (hereafter student 1) was substantially similar to the paper of student 2, who had taken the class a prior semester. During the hearing it became clear that the two students did not know each other or collaborate in any other way. Eventually, in speaking with student 1 it became clear that they had asked a friend (student 3) to read his/her old paper from the class the prior year as a guide. Student 1 then admitted to having copied much of this paper when they had panicked under stress at the end of the semester. The Board found student 1 in violation and assigned them a failing grade for the course. The situation for Student 2 was more difficult. They were abroad during the semester the case was taking place and communication was limited. After more than a semester of investigation Student 2 finally admitted that the previous year he/she had been using a lab computer and found a file labeled with the name of a course he/she had planned to take. Student 2 copied this paper and planned to use it as a guide in the course. The paper was that of student 3, and also supposedly under stress, Student 2 plagiarized this paper in place of writing his/her own final report. The Board found Student 2 in violation of Subsections 2 and 6 - plagiarism and the failure to take constructive action in the semester during the investigation. The student had already failed the course so the Board felt that it was unable to use grades as a punitive measure. Due to the prolonged, willfully deceptive nature of the offense, the Board held that the student be suspended for one academic semester.