Community Notices
Honor Court Dispositions
During the spring semester of 2024, twelve allegations of violations of the Honor Code involving nineteen students were reported to the Honor Court. Eighteen students were found responsible for a violation, and one student was not charged.
In three cases, the student incurred a second violation; one student was suspended for one semester and the other two students received permanent XF’s in the course. The remaining cases involved first violations. Twelve students were sanctioned with the educational tutorial, two with removable XW’s and one with a removable XF.
A student was alleged to have submitted an AI-generated writing assignment in a literature course, in violation of the syllabus’ explicit prohibition of AI. The student was found responsible for violating section II.5 in an administrative hearing and the educational tutorial was levied.
A student was alleged to have used their phone to access a course’s blackboard page during an exam for that course. The student was found responsible for violating section II.6 in an administrative hearing and the educational tutorial was levied.
A group of five students was alleged to have collaborated and copied answers on a take-home exam. The case against one of the students was dismissed. The other four students were found responsible for violations of section II.5 in separate administrative hearings, and the educational tutorial was levied for each.
Two students were alleged to have collaborated together on multiple take-home exams throughout the semester. Both students were found responsible for violating section II.5 at a full Honor Court hearing and were sanctioned with an XW (convertible by request to a W in two years or at graduation) and the educational tutorial.
A student was alleged to have submitted AI-generated responses on a final take-home exam. The student had been charged with a separate Honor Code violation earlier in the semester but had not yet completed the administrative hearing for that first violation by the time the second violation was reported. The student was found responsible for violating section II.5 at a full Honor Court hearing, and a permanent XF transcript notation was levied as a sanction.
A student was alleged to have submitted substantially similar writing assignments in two classes without acknowledgement or explicit permission from the instructors. The student was found responsible for a violation of section II.1 at a full Honor Court hearing, which was the second violation for the student. The student was sanctioned with a one semester suspension without the ability to transfer credits, a permanent XF in one class where the duplicate material was submitted, and a change from a removable XF to a permanent XF in the class where the student’s previous Honor Code violation was committed.
A student was alleged to have submitted AI-generated responses for multiple assignments in a class throughout the semester. The student was found responsible for violating section II.5 at an administrative hearing and sanctioned with an XF (convertible by request to a F in two years or at graduation) and the educational tutorial was levied.
A student was alleged to have submitted an AI-generated response for a question on a take-home final exam. The student was found responsible for violating section II.5 at an administrative hearing and the educational tutorial was assigned.
Two students were alleged to have submitted identical homework sets in violation of the course’s policies. One student was found responsible for violating section II.5 at an administrative hearing and the educational tutorial was levied. The other student was found responsible for violating both sections II.5 and II.7 at an administrative hearing and the educational tutorial was levied.
A student was alleged to have used AI tools to substantially edit multiple assignments in the course. The student was found responsible for violating section II.5 at a full Honor Court hearing, which was the second violation for the student. The student was sanctioned with a permanent XF in the current course, the sanction from the previous violation was changed from a removable XW to a permanent XW, and the educational tutorial was assigned.
Two students were alleged to have submitted similar work without acknowledging their collaboration in violation of the course’s policies. Both students were found responsible for violating section II.5 at separate administrative hearings and the educational tutorial was levied.
A student was alleged to have used prohibited outside sources on a take-home final without acknowledging them. The student was found responsible for violating section II.1 and II.6 at an administrative hearing and the educational tutorial was levied.
During the fall semester of 2023, there were eleven allegations reported to the Honor Court. None of those cases were brought to a full honor court hearing. In summary, fifteen students were found responsible for a violation and two students were not charged.
Of the fifteen students charged, twelve received the educational sanction and tutorial. Three students were withdrawn from the course with an “XW” on their transcript, appealable to an “W” after two years, alongside an educational sanction and tutorial.
Four students were alleged to have collaborated in the creation of computer code without acknowledgement, in violation of the course policies. All four students were found responsible for violating section II.5 at separate administrative hearings and the educational tutorial was levied for all four students.
Two students were alleged to have violated section II.5 by collaborating on a lab report in a manner that violated the course syllabus. Both students were found responsible at separate administrative hearings and the educational tutorial was levied for both.
A student was alleged to have violated section II.6 through the use of outside resources on an exam. The student was found responsible at an administrative hearing. They were removed from the course, given an XW grade (convertible by request to a W in two years or at graduation), and were assigned the educational tutorial.
A student was alleged to have minor collaboration on an essay with an individual outside the college without acknowledgement. The student was found responsible for section II.5 at an administrative hearing and the education tutorial was levied.
A student was alleged to have used Google Translate to generate content for an assessment. The student was found responsible for violating section II.6 at an administrative hearing and the educational tutorial was levied.
Two students were alleged to have collaborated on a take home exam. The first student shared their answers with the second student who then submitted the answers as their own. The first student was not aware that the second student had an extension and had not yet taken the exam. The case against the first student was dismissed. The second student was found responsible for violating section II.6. They were removed from the course, given an XW grade (convertible by request to a W in two years or at graduation), and were assigned the educational tutorial.
A student was alleged to have used ideas from a source without appropriate citation. The student was found responsible for violating section II.1 and the educational tutorial was levied.
Two students were alleged to have used words and ideas from sources without appropriate citation in a jointly-produced written report. Upon investigation it was determined that the concerning sections were only written by one of the students. This student was found responsible for violating section II.1, and they were removed from the course, given an XW grade (convertible by request to a W in two years or at graduation), and were assigned the educational tutorial. The case against the other student was dismissed.
A student was alleged to have used words and ideas from sources without appropriate citation. The student was found responsible for violating section II.1 and the educational tutorial was levied.
A student was alleged to have used Google Translate to generate content for a paper. The student was found responsible for violating section II.5 at an administrative hearing and the educational tutorial was levied.
A student was alleged to have used Google Translate to generate content for a paper. The student was found responsible for violating section II.5 at an administrative hearing and the educational tutorial was levied.
During the spring semester of 2023, there were twenty allegations reported to the Honor Court. Four of those cases were brought to a full honor court hearing. In summary, thirty one students were found responsible for a violation and two students were not charged.
Of the thirty one students charged, twenty four received the educational sanction and tutorial. One student was withdrawn from the course with an “XW” on their transcript, appealable to an “W” after two years, alongside an educational sanction and tutorial. Five students were withdrawn from the course with an “XF*” on their transcript, appealable to an “F” after two years, alongside an educational sanction and tutorial. One student, for whom it was their second violation, received a one semester suspension in addition to an “XW” in the course.
Two students were alleged to have violated section II.5 by collaborating on a graded homework assignment in a manner that violated the course syllabus. The two students were found responsible at separate administrative hearings and the educational tutorial was levied for both.
Two students were alleged to have violated section II.5 by collaborating on a graded homework assignment in a manner that violated course policy. The two students were found responsible at separate administrative hearings and the educational tutorial was levied for both.
A student was alleged to have used lecture slides during a take-home exam. The student was found responsible for violating section II.6 at an administrative hearing and the educational tutorial was levied.
It was alleged that three students violated section II.5 by copying from a completed lab report. One student shared their lab report with the second; the second student copied portions of it directly onto their report, and then sent it to the third student who also copied portions of it directly onto their report. The second and third students were found responsible for violating section II.5 in separate administrative hearings and the educational sanction was levied. The first student was found not responsible for violating section II.5 at a full Honor Court hearing.
Five students were alleged to have shared answers on a take-home exam. All five were found responsible for violating section II.6 at separate administrative hearings and the educational tutorial was levied for each.
Two students were alleged to have collaborated to a small extent on two graded homework assignments in a manner that violated the course syllabus. The two students were found responsible for violating section II.5 at separate administrative hearings and the educational tutorial was levied for both.
A student was alleged to have used an AI writing tool to improve an essay without acknowledging its use. The student was found responsible for violating section II.5 at an administrative hearing and the educational tutorial was levied.
A student was alleged to have used ideas and words from an online source without appropriate citation. The student was found responsible for violating section II.1 at an administrative hearing and the educational tutorial was levied.
A student was alleged to have used an AI writing tool to improve an essay without acknowledging its use. The student was found responsible for violating section II.5 at an administrative hearing. The student was removed from the course, given an XF* (convertible by request to an F in two years or at graduation) as the grade, and assigned the educational tutorial.
A student was alleged to have collaborated with an individual outside of the college on an essay without acknowledgement. The student was found responsible for violating section II.5 at an administrative hearing. The student was removed from the course, given an XF* (convertible by request to an F in two years or at graduation) as the grade, and assigned the educational tutorial. The student made an appeal to the Appeals Board, and the appeal was denied.
A student was alleged to have used an AI writing tool to make minor edits to extra-credit essays without acknowledging its use. The student was found responsible for violating section II.5 at an administrative hearing and the educational tutorial was levied.
Two students were alleged to have used an AI tool to generate code used on a take-home quiz without acknowledgement. Both students were found responsible for violating section II.5 at separate administrative hearings and the educational tutorial was levied for each student.
A student was alleged to have used an AI tool to improve an essay without acknowledgment. The student was found not-responsible for violating section II.5 at a full Honor Court hearing.
A student was alleged to have used words from a source without appropriate citation. The student was found responsible for violating section II.1 at an administrative hearing. The educational tutorial was levied, and the student was required to resubmit a revised version of the assignment in order to receive credit for the course.
Two students were alleged to have used an AI tool to create computer code without acknowledgement, in violation of the course’s policies. Both students were also alleged to have taken code from online sources without appropriate citation. One student was found responsible for violating section II.5 but not-responsible for violating section II.1 at a full Honor Court hearing. This student was removed from the course, given an XF* (convertible by request to an F in two years or at graduation) as the grade, and assigned the educational tutorial. The student made an appeal to the Appeals Board, and the appeal was denied. The other student was found not-responsible for violating section II.5 but responsible for violating section II.1 at a full Honor Court hearing. The student was assigned the educational tutorial.
A student was alleged to have used an AI tool to generate computer code on a take-home quiz. The student was found responsible for violating section II.6 at a full Honor Court hearing. It was the student’s second violation. The student was removed from the course, given an XW grade (convertible by request to a W in two years or at graduation), and suspended from the college for one semester. The student was allowed to transfer credits earned while on suspension.
A student was alleged to have submitted identical work in two different classes. The student was found responsible for violating section II.1 at an administrative hearing and the educational tutorial was levied.
Two students were alleged to have used an AI tool to create computer code without acknowledgement, in violation of the course’s policies. Both students were also alleged to have taken code from online sources without appropriate citation. Both students were found responsible for violating sections II.1 and II.5 in separate administrative hearings. Both students were removed from the course, given an XF* grade (convertible by request to a F in two years or at graduation), and were assigned the educational tutorial.
Two students were alleged to have used an AI tool to create computer code without acknowledgement, in violation of the course’s policies. Both students were found responsible for violating section II.5 in separate administrative hearings and the educational tutorial was levied for each student.
A student was alleged to have used an AI tool to create computer code without acknowledgement, in violation of the course’s policies. The student was also alleged to have taken code from an online source without appropriate citation. The student was found responsible for violating sections II.1 and II.5 in an administrative hearing. The student was removed from the course, given an XW grade (convertible by request to a W in two years or at graduation), and was assigned the educational tutorial.
There were twelve allegations involving a total of thirteen students reported to the Honor Court during the Fall 2022 semester. One of those allegations was dismissed and the student was not charged. For the other twelve students that were charged with a violation of the Honor Court, eight proceeded through an administrative hearing with the students admitting responsibility, and four students went through a full Honor Court hearing. At the full Honor Court hearings, three students were found responsible and one was found not responsible.
Eight students who were found responsible received the educational tutorial but no other sanction. Two were withdrawn from a course with an XF*, removable upon two years of graduation, whichever comes first, and the educational tutorial. One student, for whom this was a second violation, was withdrawn from the course with an XF*, removable in two years or at graduation, whichever comes first, and suspended for one semester.
A student was alleged to have copied text from an online source and used it in a cover letter. The student was found responsible for violating section II.1 in an administrative hearing. The educational tutorial was levied, and the student was required to meet with a career advisor at the Career Center.
A student was alleged to have portions of their essay be word-for-word text from an outside source without citation. The student claimed that they had inadvertently omitted the citation in the drafting process. The student was found responsible for violating section II.1 in an administrative hearing and the educational tutorial was levied.
A student was alleged to have used portions of an online resource in a lab report without citation. The student was found responsible for violating section II.1 in an administrative hearing and the educational tutorial was levied.
A student was found to have a practice exam open in the same room they were taking an exam although the student denied utilizing it during the exam. The student was found responsible for violating section II.6 at a full Honor Court hearing and the educational tutorial was levied.
A student was alleged to have used three sentences in an essay from an outside source without citation. The student claimed they had forgotten to cite the source. The student was found responsible for violating section II.1 in an administrative hearing and the educational tutorial was levied.
A student was alleged to have plagiarized and taken a digital image without permission and used it in a student publication. The case was dismissed and referred to the Media Board.
A student was alleged to have cheated on an exam by looking at a nearby student’s work. The student was found responsible for violating section II.6 at a full Honor Court hearing. This was the student’s second Honor Code violation. The student was removed from the course, given an XF* as the grade (convertible by request to an F in two years or at graduation, whichever is earlier), and suspended for one semester. The student made an appeal to the Appeals Board, and the appeal was denied.
A student was found to have their cell phone out during an exam where phone usage was explicitly prohibited. The student denied utilizing it for exam assistance. The student was found responsible for violating section II.6 at a full Honor Court hearing and the educational tutorial was levied.
A student was alleged to have multiple sections of an essay that were taken from an external source without citation. The student was found responsible for violating section II.1 in an administrative hearing and was given an XF* in the course (convertible by request to an F in two years or at graduation, whichever is earlier) and the educational tutorial.
A student was alleged to have taken material from an online course and used it in their own assignments without citation. The student was found responsible for violating section II.1 in an administrative hearing and the educational sanction was levied.
A student was alleged to have accessed course materials on Blackboard during an exam where this was prohibited. The student was found responsible for violating section II.6 in an administrative hearing and was given an XF* in the course (removable upon request in two years or at graduation, whichever is earlier) and the educational tutorial.
Two students were alleged to have inappropriately collaborated on a homework assignment. One of the students claimed that they did not give permission to the other student to copy their work. The latter student was found responsible for violating section II.5 in an administrative hearing and the educational tutorial was levied. The former student was found not responsible for violating section II.5 at a full Honor Court hearing.
There were fourteen cases brought to the attention of the Honor Court in the Spring of 2021. Three of those cases went to a full Honor Court hearing. As part of the fourteen cases, twenty one students were eventually found responsible and two were not charged.
Of those fourteen students who were found responsible, nine were given only the educational sanction and tutorial. Five students were withdrawn from the course with an ‘XW’ (‘withdrawal due to academic dishonesty,’ appealable to a ‘W’ after two years or upon graduation) in addition to receiving the educational sanction and tutorial. Four students were given an ‘XF’ (‘failure due to academic dishonesty,’ appealable to a ‘F’ after two years or upon graduation) in addition to receiving the educational sanction and tutorial. One student, for whom it was their second violation, received a two-semester suspension in addition to an ‘XF.’
The fourteen cases are reported in more detail below:
- Two students were investigated for violating Section II.5, unauthorized collaboration and Section II.6, cheating on assignments. Charges were brought against both of them. The students were found responsible. One of the students worked with the other student that was in a different course section on two exams and submitted several answers that were the same or similar. Both were given an XW on their transcript and the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.1, plagiarism. Charges were brought against them. The student was found responsible. The student obtained a copy of another student's assignment and then copied from it. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.5, unauthorized collaboration and Section II.7, submission of work as one's own that has been prepared by another person. Charges were brought against them. The student was found responsible. The student obtained a copy of an assignment from another student and submitted it as theirs. They were given an XW on their transcript and the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were investigated for violating Section II.5, unauthorized collaboration and Section II.6, cheating on assignments. Charges were brought against both of them. The students were found responsible. The students worked together on an exam, which was not allowed, and then sent a copy of the exam to a third student, who submitted similar answers. Both were given an XF on their transcript and the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.5, unauthorized collaboration and Section II.6, cheating on assignments. Charges were brought against them. The student was found responsible. They submitted an exam that was very similar to two other students' exams. Also, an earlier exam contained several similarities to one of those same students' exams. They were given an XF on their transcript and the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were investigated for violating Section II.6, cheating on assignments. Charges were brought against one of them and the other was dismissed and sent to the Judicial Board for possible violation of student conduct code #12 and #14. The charged student was found responsible. This student obtained a copy of the exam from the other student and used it to help them on questions they were not sure of. The student also did the same thing on a previous exam in the same course, but used the other student's exam to a lesser extent. They were given an XF on their transcript and the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were investigated for violating Section II.5, unauthorized collaboration. Charges were brought against both of them. The students were found responsible. One of the students worked with the other on an assignment, and then later shared it to that other student electronically, as prohibited by their instructor. Both were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were investigated for violating Section II.5, unauthorized collaboration and Section II.6, cheating on assignments. Charges were brought against both of them. The students were found responsible. The students collaborated with each other on a final exam and one question on a previous exam. Both were given an XF on their transcript and the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were investigated for violating Section II.5, unauthorized collaboration and Section II.6, cheating on assignments. Charges were brought against both of them. The students were found responsible. One of the students assisted the other student with completing a few questions on a final exam. Both were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.6, cheating on assignments and Section II.7, submission of work as one's own that has been prepared by another person. Charges were brought against them. The student was found responsible. For an exam, the student took solutions from the professor’s online repository, modified them slightly, and submitted them as his answers. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.1, plagiarism and Section II.6, cheating on assignments. Charges were brought against them. The case went to a full hearing and the student was found responsible. They used a source and did not cite the ideas they took from it. They also used an online source while taking an exam. The student, for whom this was a second violation, was given a two-semester suspension and an ‘XF’ in the course, appealable to a ‘F’ after two years. They appealed the case and the Appeals Board upheld the sanctions.
- Two students were investigated for violating Section II.5, unauthorized collaboration and Section II.6, cheating on assignments. Charges were brought against both of them. The students were found responsible. These two students collaborated (via text and pictures) and submitted the same answers to at least 3 questions on an exam. Both were given an XW on their transcript and the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were investigated for violating Section II.5, unauthorized collaboration and one of them was additionally investigated for violating Section II.7, submission of work as one's own that has been prepared by another person. Charges were brought against both of them. The students were found responsible. One of the students asked for and received a copy of another student's quiz and then accidentally submitted it as their own. Both were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.1, plagiarism. Charges were brought against them. The student was found responsible. They used an outside source on an assignment without citation. The student was given the educational sanction and tutorial.
There were nine cases brought to the attention of the Honor Court in the Fall of 2021. Two of those cases went to a full Honor Court hearing. As part of the nine cases, eleven students were eventually found responsible, two were found not responsible, and four were not charged with a violation.
Of those eleven students who were found responsible, nine were given the educational sanction and tutorial. None were withdrawn from their course with an ‘XW’ (‘withdrawal due to academic dishonesty,’ appealable to a ‘W’ after two years or upon graduation) in addition to receiving the educational sanction and tutorial. Two students were given an ‘XF’ (‘failure due to academic dishonesty,’ appealable to a ‘F’ after two years or upon graduation) in addition to receiving the educational sanction and tutorial. None of the students were suspended or expelled.
The nine cases are reported in more detail below:
- Two students were investigated for violating Section II.5, unauthorized collaboration. Charges were brought against both. They were found responsible. The students collaborated with each other on parts of a take-home exam, came up with some answers together and submitted them on their exams. The two students were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were investigated for violating Section II.1, plagiarism. Charges were brought against both. They were found responsible. The students collaborated with each other on parts of a take-home exam, came up with some answers together and submitted them on their exams. The two students were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were investigated for violating Section II.5, unauthorized collaboration. Charges were brought against them. They were found not responsible in a full hearing.
- Two students were investigated for violating Section II.6, cheating. Charges were brought against both of them. Both students were found responsible. One student obtained answers from another student who took the exam at a different time, and claimed that they assumed the questions would be different. Both students were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were investigated for violating Section II.5, unauthorized collaboration. Charges were brought against both. They were found responsible. The students were lab partners and collaborated too closely with each other outside the lab, submitting the same report as prohibited by the instructor. The two students were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were investigated for violating Section II.5, unauthorized collaboration and Section II.6, cheating. Charges were brought against both. They were found responsible. One of the students admitted to taking the final exam with the other student and collaborating on both the exam and another project in the course. The two students were given a XF in their transcript, and the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were investigated for violating Section II.6, cheating on assignments. Charges were brought against one of them. The student was found responsible. They looked at another student's paper for help during an examination. This student was given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.1, plagiarism. Charges were brought against them. The student was found responsible. The course professor had found several sentences that were extremely similar, and in some cases, word-for-word as one of the papers that the student was using. This student was given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.1, plagiarism. Charges were brought against them. The student was found responsible. The professor had found several sentences that were similar, and in some cases, word-for-word to the introduction in a primary source that was supplied for the lab. This student was given the educational sanction and tutorial.
There were 22 cases brought to the attention of the Honor Court in the Spring of 2021. Three of those cases went to a full Honor Court hearing. As part of the 22 cases, 32 students were eventually found responsible and four were not charged with a violation.
Of those 32 students who were found responsible, 21 were given only the educational sanction and tutorial. Five students were withdrawn from the course with an ‘XW’ (‘withdrawal due to academic dishonesty’) in addition to receiving the educational sanction and tutorial. One student was given an ‘XF’ (‘failure due to academic dishonesty’) in addition to receiving the educational sanction and tutorial. One student had their degree withheld for one semester in addition to an ‘XF’ and the educational sanction and tutorial. Two students received a one-semester suspension in addition to an ‘XF’ and the educational sanction and tutorial. One student, for whom it was their second violation, received a one-semester suspension in addition to an ‘XW’. Another student, for whom it was their second violation, had their degree withheld for one semester and their grade in the course where the first violation occurred was changed to a permanent ‘XF’.
The 22 cases are reported in more detail below:
- Five students were investigated for violating Section II.1, plagiarism. Charges were brought against three of the students. They were found responsible. The students copied a solution to a homework problem from a peer in a manner that violated the course syllabus and failed to provide an appropriate acknowledgment. The three students were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. One student shared the answer to a question on an exam with another student, who copied it and submitted it. Both students were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism, and Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student violated the rules of an open-book exam by accessing an online source, copying language from the website, and submitting it as their own without citation. They were given an ‘XW’ in the course, appealable to a ‘W’ after two years, in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism, and Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student copied work from a website and submitted it as part of their project without citation. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Five students were investigated for violating Section II.1, plagiarism, Section II.2, stealing digital content, Section II.5, improper collaboration and Section II.6, cheating on assessments. Charges were brought against four of the students. The case went to a full honor court hearing and the four students were found responsible for violating Section II.1, and Section II.5, and not responsible for violating Section II.2. One of the four students was additionally found responsible for violating Section II.6. The four students copied work from the online portfolio of a student who had previously taken the course and submitted it without citation; the students also collaborated more closely than what was acceptable and without citation across multiple assignments. One of the four students shared a digital copy of a project with another student in violation of the course syllabus. One student received an ‘XF’ in the course, appealable to an ‘F’ after three semesters, in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial. One student was given a one-semester suspension and an ‘XF’ in the course, appealable to an ‘F’ after one year, in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial. One student, for whom this was their second violation, was given a one-semester suspension and an ‘XW’ in the course, appealable to a ‘W’ after two years. The student with the additional charge was given a one-semester suspension and an ‘XF’ in the course, appealable to an ‘F’ after two years, in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial. Each of the three students who received a suspension appealed their case and the Appeals Board upheld the sanctions.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments, and a second student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism, Section II.5, improper collaboration, and Section II.7, submission of another’s work as one’s own. The case went to a full Honor Court hearing and both students were found responsible for their respective charges. The first student violated the course syllabus by sharing a digital copy of their project from a previous semester with the second student, who submitted it as their own. The second student also shared this copy with others in the class and collaborated more closely than what was acceptable on a separate assignment without providing citations. The first student, for whom this was their second violation, had their degree withheld for one semester upon graduation and the grade in the course where the first violation occurred was changed to a permanent ‘XF.’ The second student’s degree was withheld for one semester upon graduation and the student was given an ‘XF’ in the course, appealable to an ‘F’ after two years, in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student violated the rules of an exam by using a calculator. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student violated the rules of an exam by using a calculator. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student violated the rules of an exam by using a calculator. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student violated the rules for an exam by accessing Blackboard. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism, and Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student violated the rules of an exam by accessing and copying language from a website without citation. They were given an ‘XW’ in the course, appealable to a ‘W’ after two years, in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student submitted the same work in two different classes without permission or acknowledgement. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Three students were charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism, and Section II.5, improper collaboration. They were found responsible. The students collaborated more closely than what was acceptable on an assignment and failed to cite this collaboration. One of the three students copied portions of a separate project from a peer in violation of the course syllabus. This student was given an ‘XW’ in the course, appealable to a ‘W’ after two years, in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial. The other two students were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism, and Section II.6, cheating on assessments. The case went to a full Honor Court hearing and they were found responsible. The student violated the course syllabus by obtaining a digital copy of another student’s project and submitting that student’s work without citation. They were given an ‘XW’ in the course, appealable to a ‘W’ after two years, in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student failed to acknowledge language they copied from a source when writing a paper. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student failed to cite ideas and language taken from outside sources when writing a paper. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student accessed unauthorized material when completing an assignment. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student failed to cite language they copied from an online source when writing a paper. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism, and Section II.5, improper collaboration. They were found responsible. The student collaborated more closely than what was acceptable on an assignment and failed to cite this collaboration. The student also copied portions of a separate project from a peer in violation of the course syllabus. This student was given an ‘XW’ in the course, appealable to a ‘W’ after two years, in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student contacted a peer for assistance while completing a take-home exam. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were investigated for violating Section II.1, plagiarism. Charges were brought against one of the students. They were found responsible. The student failed to cite work that they copied from a peer on a homework assignment. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were both found responsible. The students discussed questions on a take-home final exam on which collaboration was forbidden. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
There were 13 cases brought to the attention of the Honor Court in the Fall of 2020. Three of those cases went to a full Honor Court hearing. As part of the 13 cases, 13 students were eventually found responsible, five were found not responsible, and three were not charged with a violation.
Of those 13 students who were found responsible, 10 were given only the educational sanction and tutorial. Two students were given an ‘XF’ (‘failure due to academic dishonesty’) in addition to receiving the educational sanction and tutorial. One student, for whom it was their second violation, received a one-semester suspension with an ‘XW’ (‘withdrawal due to academic dishonesty’) in the course, and their grade in the course where the first violation occurred was changed to a permanent ‘XNC’ (‘no credit due to academic dishonesty’).
The 13 cases are reported in more detail below:
- Two students were charged with violating Section II.5, improper collaboration. They were found responsible. The students collaborated more closely than what was acceptable on an assignment. Both students were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The students compared answers with each other on a take-home exam. Both students received an ‘XF’ in the course, appealable to an ‘F’ after one year, in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial. One student appealed the case and the Appeals Board upheld the sanction.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student exceeded the allotted time for completing a take-home exam. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student failed to cite material they copied from an article when writing an essay for a take-home, open-note/book exam. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were charged with violating Section II.5, improper collaboration, and Section II.6, cheating on assessments. The case went to a full Honor Court hearing and the students were found not responsible.
- Two students were charged with violating Section II.5, improper collaboration. They were found responsible. The students collaborated more closely than what was acceptable on two assignments and failed to cite the collaboration. Both students were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Three students were investigated for violating Section II.5, improper collaboration, and Section II.6, cheating on assessments. No charges were brought against the students.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student copied work from a website in a manner that violated the course syllabus. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. The case went to a full Honor Court hearing and the student was found responsible. The student copied work from a website in a manner that violated the course syllabus. This was their second violation. The student was given a one-semester suspension and an ‘XW’ in the course, appealable to a ‘W’ after two years, and the grade in the course where the first violation occurred was changed to a permanent ‘XNC’. The student appealed the case and the Appeals Board upheld the sanction.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student copied work from a website in a manner that violated the course syllabus. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Three students were charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism, Section II.5, improper collaboration, and Section II.6, cheating on assessments. The case went to a full Honor Court hearing and the students were found not responsible.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student used Google Translate on a final paper. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student failed to cite information from an outside source that they included in a paper. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
Summary:
There were 13 cases brought to the attention of the Honor Court in the Spring of 2020. Two of those cases went to a full Honor Court hearing. As part of the 13 cases, 13 students were eventually found responsible and four were found not responsible.
Of those 13 students who were found responsible, 7 were given only the educational sanction and tutorial. Two students were withdrawn from the course with a ‘W’ on their transcript in addition to receiving the educational sanction and tutorial. Three students were given an XNC (‘no credit due to academic dishonesty’) in addition to receiving the educational sanction and tutorial. One student, for whom it was their second violation, was expelled.
The 13 cases are reported in more detail below:
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found not responsible.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.7, submission of other’s work as their own. After a full Honor Court hearing, they were found responsible. The student submitted another student's assignment, which was obtained without knowledge of the other student, as their own. They received an XNC in the course, appealable to an ‘NC’ after two years, in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.7, submission of other’s work as their own. They were found responsible. The student submitted another student's assignment as their own. They received an XNC in the course, appealable to an ‘NC’ after two years, in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found not responsible.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student used information obtained from another student in their assignment without appropriate attribution. They received the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student used verbatim language from a source without citation on a take-home exam. They received the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student used verbatim language from a source as part of an oral presentation and in parts of a paper without appropriate citation. They received the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The students used verbatim language from a source without citation on a take-home exam. They received the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were investigated for violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found not responsible.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student used verbatim language from a source without citation on a homework assignment. They received the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student used verbatim language from a source without citation for three sentences in a final paper. They received the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were both found responsible. The two students communicated via text about problems on an exam. They were withdrawn from the course with a ‘W’ on their transcript in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism, Section II.5, improper collaboration, and Section II.6, cheating on assessments. One student was heard in a full Honor Court hearing. They were both found responsible. The two students used information from one another in their assignments without appropriate attribution, inappropriately shared information during collaboration on assignments, and provided exam answers to one another on a final exam. One student received an XNC in the course, appealable to an ‘NC’ after one year, in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial. One student, for whom this was their second violation, was expelled. That student appealed the case and the Appeals Board upheld the sanction.
Summary:
There were 20 cases brought to the attention of the Honor Court in the fall of 2019. Two of those cases were heard by the full Honor Court. As part of the 20 cases, 21 students were eventually found responsible, and one was found not responsible.
Of the 21 students who were found responsible, 17 were given only the educational sanction and tutorial. One student was withdrawn from the course with a ‘W’ on their transcript in addition to receiving the educational sanction and tutorial. Two students were given an XF (‘failure due to academic dishonesty’) in addition to receiving the educational sanction and tutorial. One student, who committed the same violation in two separate classes at the same time received the educational sanction and tutorial for the violation in the first class and a supplementary educational sanction for the violation in the second class.
The 20 cases are reported in more detail below:
- Two students were charged with violating Section II.5, improper collaboration. They were found responsible. The students collaborated too closely on a homework assignment. Both students were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student accessed Blackboard while in possession of a portion of the final exam. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student accessed Blackboard multiple times while taking a final exam. They received an XF in the course, appealable to an ‘F’ after two years, in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial. The student appealed the case and the Appeals Board upheld the sanction.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student accessed Blackboard while taking a final exam. They were withdrawn from the course with a ‘W’ on their transcript and given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student changed answers on an exam after it was returned to the student and asked for it to be regraded. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. The student included verbatim translation from the internet on a final exam. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. They failed to cite an outside source consulted when writing an essay. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found not responsible.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student used Google Translate to complete a writing assignment, which was prohibited per the syllabus. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student copied wording from outside sources without citation. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student copied wording from outside sources without citation. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were charged with violating Section II.5, improper collaboration. They were both found responsible. The students worked side-by-side on an assignment and turned in work that was more similar than acceptable. Both students were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were charged with violating Section II.5, improper collaboration. One student’s case was heard in a full Honor Court hearing. Both students were found responsible. The students worked side-by-side on homework assignments and turned in work that was more similar than acceptable. One student was given the educational sanction and tutorial. For the other student, it was a violation that occurred simultaneous with another first violation for improper collaboration. They received a supplementary educational sanction for this violation.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student accessed Blackboard while taking an exam. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student accessed Blackboard while taking an exam. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student accessed Blackboard while taking an exam. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. After a full Honor Court hearing, they were found responsible. The student accessed Blackboard while taking an exam and had denied responsibility. They received an XF in the course, appealable to an ‘F’ after two years, in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student failed to cite a source that was used throughout a 5-page paper. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student copied homework from another student who took the class previously and submitted it as their own. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student copied material from an online source and submitted it as their own for two Blackboard posts. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
Summary:
There were 10 cases brought to the attention of the Honor Court in the Spring of 2019. None of those cases went to a full Honor Court hearing. Of those cases, 9 students were eventually found responsible and one was found not responsible.
Of those 9 students who were found responsible, 8 were given only the educational sanction and tutorial. One student was given a ‘W’ (withdrawal from the course) and was required to redo an assignment in addition to receiving the educational sanction and tutorial.
The 10 cases are reported in more detail below:
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. They copied answers to several homework problems from a peer who had previously taken the course. They received the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student copied verbatim from a source without appropriate attribution for an extra credit assignment. They received the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student copied verbatim from multiple sources without appropriate attribution on a final paper worth a substantial portion of the final grade. They were withdrawn from the course with a ‘W’ on their transcript in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial. They were also asked to re-write the paper.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student used phrases and ideas from a source without attribution on a 2-page essay. They received the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found not responsible.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student copied from an answer key on Blackboard for homework that had extended deadlines. They received the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. They student was observed looking at another student’s work during an exam and had the same incorrect answers as a nearby student. They received the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student failed to acknowledge ideas taken from an online source in a 2-page paper. They received the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student coped verbatim from 2 sources without appropriate attribution on an assignment worth 5% of the overall grade. They received the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student violated written rules of an exam by having a cellphone on their person during the exam. They received the educational sanction and tutorial.
Summary:
There were 13 cases brought to the attention of the Honor Court in the fall of 2018. Two of those cases were heard by the full Honor Court. As part of the 13 cases, 14 students were eventually found responsible, and 40 were found not responsible.
Of the 14 students who were found responsible, 12 were given only the educational sanction and tutorial, 1 student was also given an XF (‘failure due to academic dishonesty’), and 1 student received a 1-semester suspension in addition to an XF and the educational sanction and tutorial.
The 13 cases are reported in more detail below:
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. On an open book final exam, the student copied text directly from several sources without citations. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student violated the rules of a final exam. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Two students were charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. Two paragraphs in a 12-page group paper closely resembled a source and were not cited. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Four students were investigated for violating Section II.5, improper collaboration. Three students were found responsible and one was found not responsible. One student shared an assignment with 2 other students in the course without permission. Two students used portions of another student’s assignment without permission from the professor. All three students were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. After a full Honor Court hearing they were found responsible. They submitted another student’s work as their own for multiple assignments in 2 courses. They received XFs in both courses, appealable to grades of ‘F’ after two years, and a 1-semester suspension in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial. The student appealed the case and the Appeals Board upheld the sanction.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. After a full Honor Court hearing, they were found responsible. They included verbatim phrases from an online source without citation. It was a second violation of the Honor Code. They received an XF in the course, appealable to an ‘F’ after two years.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. On a final project, they included material that was directly copied from a website instead of paraphrased as per assignment instructions. They received the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. They consulted an online source without permission on an assignment worth a small portion of the final grade. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student quoted from a source without proper citations. They received the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.4, misrepresentation or falsification of data. They were found responsible. On a short paper, they misrepresented online information as scholarly by including a citation of a different source. They received the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student took several sentences from a source nearly verbatim and failed to cite the source. They received the educational sanction and tutorial.
- Thirty eight students were investigated for violating Section II.1, plagiarism and Section II.5, improper collaboration. No charges were brought against the students.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found not responsible.
Summary:
There were 26 cases brought to the attention of the Honor Court in the spring of 2018. Of those cases, 21 students were eventually found responsible, four were found not responsible, and one student’s case has yet to be finalized because the student is on leave.
Of the 21 students who were found responsible, nine were given only the educational sanction and tutorial. Seven students found responsible were withdrawn from the course, in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial. Three students were given an XF (‘Removed from the course for academic dishonesty’) in the course, in addition to the educational sanction and tutorial. One student received community service, in addition to the educational sanction. One student, for whom it was their second violation, had their degree withheld for one year.
There were three full Honor Court cases in the spring of 2018.
The 26 cases are reported in more detail below:
- A student was charged with violating Section II.5, improper collaboration. They were found responsible. The student’s paper was found to contain many similarities to another student’s paper. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The assignment was worth 5% of the final grade. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. No charge was brought against the student because of insufficient evidence that a violation occurred.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. They accessed lecture notes and slides during an exam. They were withdrawn from the course and were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. That student is still on leave and their case has yet to be resolved.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The assignment was worth a significant portion of the final grade. They were withdrawn from the course and were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. They communicated with other students during and after a final exam. They received an ‘XF’ (‘Removed from the course for academic dishonesty’) for the class in which the violation occurred, appealable to an ‘F’ after two years. Additionally, they were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.5, improper collaboration. They were found responsible. They submitted an assignment that was nearly identical to another student’s paper in the course. They were withdrawn from the course and were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student submitted the same final paper for three courses while studying off campus. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial and required to re-write two of the papers, write letters of apology to the professors and staff members involved in the case, and complete 30 hours of community service.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The assignment was worth 15% of the final grade and nearly all of it was copied from online sources. They were withdrawn from the course and were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. They copied answers from an exam that was sitting on a professor’s desk. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. After a full honor court hearing the student was found not responsible.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student submitted a final project that was largely copied from a project found online. They were withdrawn from the course and were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. They submitted an abstract that was taken nearly verbatim from an online source. This violation was a second one for this student and the student had yet to complete the educational sanction and tutorial from the first violation. The Court decided to withhold the student’s degree for one year. The Court stipulated that if the student did not complete the educational sanction by the deadline the student would then be suspended for one year. The student appealed the Honor Court decision. The Appeals Board upheld the decision of the Court.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. They communicated with another student (who had already taken the exam) about an upcoming final exam. They received an ‘XF’ (‘Removed from the course for academic dishonesty’) for the class in which the violation occurred, appealable to an ‘F’ after two years. Additionally, they were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. No charge was brought against the student because of insufficient evidence that a violation occurred.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The student completed an exam in the library instead of taking the exam in the classroom and used notes while completing the exam. They were withdrawn from the course and were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. They communicated with another student during a final exam. They received an ‘XF’ (‘Removed from the course for academic dishonesty’) for the class in which the violation occurred, appealable to an ‘F’ after two years. Additionally, they were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.5, improper collaboration. They were found responsible. The student’s paper was found to contain many similarities to another student’s paper. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. They copied portions of a book for an assignment without proper citation. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was investigated for violating Section II.1, plagiarism. No charge was brought against the student because of insufficient evidence that a violation occurred.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.5, improper collaboration. They were found responsible. They shared an assignment with another student in the course without permission from the instructor. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. They accessed a website without permission while taking a final exam. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. They copied portions of resources for a paper without proper citation. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. They copied portions of resources for a paper without proper citation. They were withdrawn from the course and were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The student submitted a project that was largely copied from a project found online. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
Summary:
There were 14 students brought to the attention of the Honor Court in the fall of 2017. Of those cases, 11 students were eventually found responsible and three were found not responsible.
Of the 11 students who were found responsible, nine were given only the educational sanction and tutorial. The remaining two students found responsible were withdrawn from the course, in addition to the educational sanction.
There were no full Honor Court cases in the fall of 2017.
The 14 cases are reported in more detail below:
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The assignment was relatively minor. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The assignment was a homework worth very little of the final grade. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. The assignment was a paper worth a significant portion of the final grade in the course. The student was given the educational sanction and tutorial, and they were withdrawn from the course.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The assignment was relatively minor. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was found not responsible for violating the honor code. The case was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. One paragraph of an otherwise acceptable paper was plagiarized. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. The assignment was a minor homework. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.5, improper collaboration. They were found responsible. The assignment was a lab report worth a significant portion of the final grade in the course. The student was given the educational sanction and tutorial, and they were withdrawn from the course.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. One sentence of a paper worth a large portion of the final grade was found to be plagiarized. The student was given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism, and Section II.5, improper collaboration. The assignment was a lab report worth a significant portion of the final grade in the course. The work was both plagiarized and then shared with another student. The student was given the educational sanction and tutorial and was withdrawn from the course.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.6, cheating on assessments. They were found responsible. They were found to have cheated on a small part of an exam. They were given the educational sanction and tutorial.
- A student was found not responsible for violating the honor code. The case was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
- A student was found not responsible for violating the honor code. The case was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
- A student was charged with violating Section II.1, plagiarism. They were found responsible. A few paragraphs of a large paper were found to be paraphrased from a source without citation. The student was given the educational sanction and tutorial.
