Honor Code Case Summaries 2025-2026
2025-2026 HONOR CODE – CASE SUMMARIES
In an honor code hearing, the board heard testimony and reviewed documentation for the student alleged to have violated regulation 1 of the Honor Code. Student pleaded not responsible for the violation. After deliberation, the board found there was not enough evidence to arrive at a more likely than not scenario for the violation taking place, and the student was found not responsible for the violation.
In an honor code hearing, the board considered allegations that Student A violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 2 of the Wesleyan University Honor Code. Given the student's admission to using external sources during multiple exams, the board found the student responsible for violating Regulations 1 and 2 and recommended that the student receive a 0 on each assignment on which they used external sources. The board also strongly recommends that the student meet with their class dean, utilize peer tutors, and meet with counseling services to seek assistance in managing a heavier workload.
In an Honor Board hearing, the board considered allegations that Student A violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 2 of the Wesleyan University Honor Code. The board found the student not responsible for violating Regulation 1 and responsible for violating Regulation 2. Due to the student's implementation of AI-generated code, the board recommended that Student A be placed on probation and receive half credit on the relevant assignment.
In an Honor Board hearing, the board considered allegations that Student A violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Wesleyan University Honor Code. The board found the student responsible for violating Regulation 1 and recommended that they be placed on suspension, receive a "0" on the exam, and write a letter of apology to the course's professor.
In an honor board hearing, the board heard testimony and reviewed documentation regarding 2 alleged violations of regulation 2 of the honor code, plagiarism by student A. The student chose not to appear, leaving the board to hear testimony from the faculty, and review all submitted documentation. The testimony helped clear up the facts of the case and after deliberation, the board believes it more likely than not that the submitted work was not the student's own, and that it was augmented in part or in whole by disallowed generative AI tools. As such the board found the student responsible, recommending a grade of zero for both assignments in question and placed the student on probation.
In an Honor Board meeting, the board heard testimony and reviewed documentation regarding an alleged violation of honor code regulation 2 plagiarism. After hearing all available evidence, the board believes it more likely than not that the submitted work included some material generated through the use of a disallowed tool, QuillBot, which the student admitted to using. After deliberation, the board found the student responsible for the violation, and recommended placing the student on probation and decreasing the score of the assignment by an amount proportional to the level of responsibility displayed.
In an honor code hearing, the board heard testimony and reviewed documentation regarding an alleged violation of honor code regulation 2, plagiarism, by student A. The student pled not responsible to the alleged violation. During the hearing, the board noted inconsistencies in the submission regarding citations, and that, combined with testimony, led the board to believe it was more likely than not that a violation had occurred. The board found the student responsible for the alleged violation, placing the student on probation.
In an honor code hearing, the board found student A responsible for violating section 2, regulation 1 of the honor code (assistance without acknowledgment/cheating). The board recommends the student be penalized with a 0 on the assignment and be placed on probation.
In an honor code hearing, the Board heard testimony and reviewed documentation regarding the alleged violation by Student A. After deliberation, the Board found it more likely than not that the student's submitted work was their own, and found the student not responsible.
In an honor code hearing, the board found Student A responsible for violating Regulation (2), Plagiarism, and recommends Student A to be sanctioned with a 0 on the assignment and that the Student be placed on academic probation. The board recommends that going forward, Student A be comfortable to have more open and direct communication with professors regarding AI policy and concerns over their writing process.
In an honor code hearing, the Board reviewed testimony and documentation regarding an alleged violation of Honor Code Regulation 2, plagiarism. After deliberation, the Board found the student not responsible for the alleged violation and believes it more likely than not that all work was the student's own.
In an honor code hearing, the board considered the document version history and allegations that Student A violated Section II, Plagiarism within the Honor Code. The board found the student not responsible for the alleged violation.
In an honor code hearing, Student A was alleged to have violated regulation 2 of the honor code for plagiarism. After hearing testimony and reviewing submitted documentation, the board believes that the student improperly cited sources and misattributed several quotes and citations, including the improper use of sources outside the scope of the assignment. The board also believes that it is more likely than not that the student used AI in the creation of the assignment. The board found the student responsible for the alleged violation. The student received a zero on the assignment and placed on probation.
In an honor code hearing, the board considered allegations that Student A violated Regulation 2 of the Honor Code. After reviewing documentation, and considered testimony, the board found the student not responsible for violating the Honor Code.
In an honor code hearing, the board considered allegations and reviewed documentation that Student A and B Violated Section II, regulation 1 of the Wesleyan University Honor Code. After considering witness testimony and the documented statement that Student B provided prior to the hearing, the board determined that Student A received access to Student B's work outside of Student B's knowledge, making them responsible for the violation. It is the board's determination that Student A receive a 0 on the assignment, and, due to current enrollment status, the board recommends a letter of apology from Student A to all parties involved to be forwarded to the Dean's office. It is also the board's determination that Student B is not responsible for the violation.
In a Honor Code hearing, the board considered testimony/evidence that Student A violated the Honor Code. The board found the student responsible for violating the Honor Code and recommends Student A to be sanctioned with Academic Probation and a "0" on the assignment. The board acknowledges that Student A was sincere and remorseful as well as had extenuating circumstances at the time of the violation. The board also recommends continued meeting with class dean for support.
In a honor code Hearing, the board considered allegations that Student A violated Section II, Regulation (#2) of the Wesleyan University Code of Academic Conduct. The board found the student responsible for violating Regulation (#2) and recommended that Student A be sanctioned with: A zero percent for their Final Essay and be placed on Probation.
In an honor code hearing, the board considered allegations that Student A was found responsible for honor code violation regulation 1. The board found the student responsible and determined that the student be given a 0% on the exam and referred to accessibility services. Student A took responsibility for their actions and was remorseful.