Sample Precedent File - Academic Dishonesty
Charges
Charge: Academic Dishonesty, namely Cheating Plea: Responsible, in part Verdict: Responsible Vote: 5-0Sanction(s)/Appeal
Suspension for one semester Disciplinary probation for remainder of academic career Written assignment with deadline Appeal: NoNarrative
#2632, a Pratt sophomore, was enrolled in Biology during the fall 2005 semester. After the first test was returned, #2632 turned the test back in (per the policies for a re-grade), asking for reexamination of three question parts. The teaching assistant in charge of the re-grades reviewed the questions and could not understand why more points were not given for one of #2632’s answers. The grader then compared a photocopy of the original exam to the copy that #2632 turned back in and noticed that the answer had been altered. Following this, Dr. Professor referred the matter to the Office of Judicial Affairs. A panel of the Undergraduate Judicial Board heard the case on November 22, 2005, to determine if #2632 was responsible for the charge of Academic Dishonesty, namely Cheating.
During the hearing, #2632 pleaded responsible in part to the allegation. He admitted that a mistake had been made, but claimed that the course requirements for a re-grade were unclear and confusing. He said he did not know that the exams were photocopied nor the policies on what to do for a re-grade. He presented a copy of the course syllabus as evidence. The panel then reviewed the syllabus and noted that it listed in two places aspects of a re-grade, including that a written request must be attached, photocopies of the original exams were going to be made, and if there were any questions that the students should ask the professor.
The panel asked Dr. Professor about how the re-grade policy was explained, if there were any changes from the syllabus, and what he can recall saying about the policy in class. While he was unsure of exactly what he described to the class, he did say that the syllabus had not changed and that he had detailed that a written request is needed for a re-grade. The panel then asked #2632 about the timeline for everything he did relating to the test. #2632 said that he made changes to the test when he returned to his room, and that he had added information because he thought that it was a further clarification of what he said. The panel pursued this line of questioning further as it wanted to know why this differed from what he had mentioned earlier about wanting to add the information to study and prepare for the final. #2632’s story changed a bit as the questioning continued, and it was unclear ultimately to the panel as to truly why #2632 changed his response to the question. The panel asked why he did not remember while writing the request the night before he submitted the re-grade that he had changed the information on the test. #2632 explained that he had forgotten that he had added the information since it was added the week before, and that he thought he deserved partial credit on the answer he saw. He stressed that it was only a few points that he had asked for and that he believed that it would not have changed his grade. The panel continued with questions of clarification for Dr. Professor and #2632. It is important to note that Dr. Professor said that the added information to the test question was necessary for the credit, and that #2632 said that he had not fully reviewed the syllabus. The panel concluded the questioning and thanked all involved for their participation.
The panel voted 5-0 to find #2632 responsible for the charge of Academic Dishonesty, namely Cheating. The panel based its decision on the fact that #2632 had clearly turned in the altered test for a re-grade with the written request detailing some of the changes as reasons he deserved more points. The panel did not believe that the reason #2632 gave of not understanding the requirements for turning in a re-grade was valid as it was clearly detailed in the syllabus. The panel voted 5-0 in favor of a one-semester suspension (effective for the Spring 2006 semester), disciplinary probation for the remainder of his undergraduate career at Duke, and a two-to-three page reflection paper to be submitted to Dean Bryan by June 1, 2006. The paper must include what #2632 has learned from this situation, particularly in regard to paying attention to class policies, as well as his own interpretation of the Duke Community Standard and what it means in a community of scholars.
The panel believes that #2632 made a mistake, but that he can grow and learn from this and return to Duke and have a positive influence on the Duke community.