|
Charges
|
Plea
|
Judgment
|
Sanctions
|
|
|
|
| Referred to Conduct Council |
|
|
| The respondent was referred to the Conduct Council for the accusation of possessing false identification. The respondent was accused of providing false identification to a bartender at one of the delis. The respondent then presented identification that was not his after the manager told him to bring "a false identification". The respondent stated that he only presented false identification after the manager pressured him to do so. The Council could not find sufficient evidence for a Honor violation, so the matter was referred to the Conduct Council. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Probation with Loss of Privileges through Fall 2016 (4-2); Recommended Community Service (6-0); Recommended Continued Counseling (6-0); Letters of Apology (6-0) |
|
| The respondent was found responsible of lying, in that she provided a dishonest and misleading explanation for the reason behind requesting an extension on an assignment. The respondent stated that the respondent was in a location with no computer access for the week; however, it was later determined through photographic evidence that the respondent was somewhere other than what was conveyed to the professor. Taking into consideration the testimonies of all parties involved and the definition of intent, the panel found the respondent responsible beyond a reasonable doubt of lying. In sanctioning, the panel considered the impact on William & Mary's community of trust, the impact on the credibility of other students requesting an extension, and the actions the respondent took to remedy the situation and prevent future violations. These factors, in conjunction with the scope and scale of the violation, led the panel to assign a primary sanction of Probation with Loss of Priveleges through Fall 2016. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The panel reinstated the respondent to the university following Indefinite Suspension through Spring 2016. In coming to their decision, the panel considered the student's reflection on her violation and the concrete goals she laid out for herself in the areas of academics, mental health, and community outreach. |
|
|
|
|
| Responsible (6-0); Responsible (6-0) |
|
| Indefinite Suspension through Fall 2016 (5-1); Letter of Apology (6-0); Letter of Reflection (6-0); Recommended Counseling (6-0) |
|
| The respondent was found responsible on two charges of lying. The respondent sent documents with false information, including the respondent's resume and transcript, to his professor, and also lied to the Dean of Students Office in that he provided misleading information regarding the existence of a resume on the respondent's computer. In sanctioning, the panel considered the gravity of committing two major Honor Code violations and their subsequent impact on William & Mary's community of trust. The scope and impact of these violations were seen as aggravating factors, enough to warrant a primary sanction of Indefinite Suspension. |
|
| Cheating - Plagiarism; Cheating - Plagiarism; Cheating - Plagiarism; Cheating - Plagiarism |
|
| Not Responsible; Not Responsible; Not Responsible; Not Responsible |
|
| Responsible (6-0); Responsible (6-0); Responsible (6-0); Responsible (6-0) |
|
| Indefinite Suspension through Fall 2016 (4-2); Recommended "F" in the Course (4-2); Recommended Academic Integrity Seminar (4-2); Recommended Letter of Reflection (4-2); Recommended Writing Resources Center (4-2); Recommended Community Service (4-2); Recommended Letter of Apology to Professor Hagedorn (4-2) |
|
| The respondent was found responsible on four charges of cheating - plagiarism. The respondent drew on sources such as SparkNotes for short response essays. Considering the cumulative evidence of organization, diction, sentence structure, transitions, ideas, and phrasing in the papers, the panel found the respondent responsible for plagiarism of a significant proportion of each of these four response papers. In sanctioning, the panel considered the gravity of the offence alongside the long time frame in which it occurred (throughout the Fall semester). The panel also took into account the damaging effect of the incident on the trust between the professor and her students. The scope and impact of the violations along with the lack of mitigating factors warranted the primary sanction of Indefinite Suspension, while the severity of the offense and its innately academic nature led to a series of secondary sanctions designed to target academic integrity, involvement with the William & Mary Community, and respect for academic traditions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The panel reinstated the respondent to the university following Indefinite Suspension through Fall 2016. The panel considered the student's reflection on the incident and efforts to make amends during her time away from the university. |
|
| Cheating - Unauthorized Assistance or Collaboration |
|
|
|
| Warning (3-0); Required Letter of Apology (3-0); Recommended Discussion of Honor Code (3-0) |
|
| The respondent was found responsible on one count of cheating - unauthorized assistance or collaboration. The respondent shared code in some format with another student for a project in the class. In sanctioning, the panel considered the fact that the respondent had already submitted his project at the time of the collaboration, as well as the fact that the honor code had been ambiguously explained as it applied to this class and to discussion of projects and labwork particularly. These mitigating factors warranted a primary sanction of a warning. The professor was deeply distressed that this kind of collaboration would occur, however, prompting secondary sanctions of a letter of apology to the professor in this case and a recommended discussion of the honor code and class policies with the professor for whom the respondent will be a TA in the Fall semester. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Probation with Loss of Privilege through Fall 2016 (3-0) |
|
| The respondent was found responsible for one count of stealing. The respondent took food and change from an office on campus, but was apprehended by the police. The respondent returned the stolen goods to their owners, along with a letter of apology. In sanctions, the panel considered the minor value of the items taken, the respondent's effort to return the items, the respondent's personal circumstances, and the respondent's apology to the victims. The panel also considered the impact that the invasion of personal space had on the community of trust. The panel assigned a sanction of Probation with Loss of Privileges through Fall of 2016. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The respondent pleaded responsible to the charge of Cheating-Plagiarism, and the matter was resolved through the Optional Early Resolution Process. The respondent failed to adequately cite phrases taken from a book.. While the panel found that there was a disregard for scholarly procedure, it concluded that the disregard was unintentional and relatively benign. Additionally, all sentences containing phrases from the source material contained a reference to the page from which the material was drawn at the end of the sentence, but the respondent did not put quotations around the specific words drawn from the text. The panel found that while the respondent did fail to abide by proper scholarly procedure, she did make a good faith effort to cite the source throughout her assignment. The panel assigned a primary sanction of a Warning, and assigned no secondary sanctions. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Warning (6-0), Letter of Apology (6-0) |
|
| The respondent was found responsible for Lying. The respondent was supposed to go on a Branch Out trip to Nicaragua over winter break, but due to illness, did not go on the trip. To receive financial assistance for the trip, students were required to write a blog post which would be published on the Branch Out website. Although the respondent did not go on the trip, she still wrote this blog post. The panel found that although the respondent misrepresented themself in the blog post, there was no malicious intent. The community of trust was not harmed to a large extent, so the panel decided on a sanction of a warning (6-0). The reporting party was affected negatively as a result of the respondent's decision, so the panel decided that a fitting sanction would be a letter of apology to the reporting party. |
|
| Cheating - Directions Violation |
|
|
|
N/A |
| The respondent was found not responsible (6-0) of the charge of Cheating - Directions Violation. Specifically, it was alleged that the respondent fabricated parts of their PHIL 215 Midterm in order to gain an unfair academic advantage. There is the fact that the alignment on the last two pages of the respondent's test varies from the other exams presented. In addition to this, the reporting party's testimony also noted that the allegedly forged test paper was printed in a darker ink than the other tests presented to the panel. Finally, the shade of the red ink was said to be darker on the allegedly forged pages and in random spots throughout the first two pages as well. The reporting parth also pointed out the difference in the handwriting used for the word “OK” on the second page of the test in comparison to the handwriting of the same word on the first page. While the panel found it possible that the discrepancies on the exam are the result of fabrication, the time, effort, and level of detail required to accomplish this makes this implausible. A determining factor throughout all deliberations was whether reasonable doubt was presented; although it is possible that the respondent committed the alleged violations, the panel contends it is not plausible. |
|
| Cheating - Unauthorized Materials; Lying |
|
| Not Responsible; Not Responsible |
|
| Not Responsible (6-0); Not Responsible (6-0) |
|
|
| The respondent was found not responsible (6-0) for use of unauthorized materials, specifically cellphone use, during the taking of an ANTH 201 exam. The panel took into consideration the respondent's medical state, IT records, and the respondent's testimony in coming to a decsion. The panel found that the device was only used for keeping track of time during the exam, not for unauthorized assisantance. The respondent was also found not responsible (6-0) for lying. Again, the panel considered the respondent's medical state, the respondent's testimony, and a psychiatrists letter regarding the student's state of mind. The respondent was found to have made an unintentional error in telling the professor that the electronic device was not on the respondent's person, when in fact it was. |
|
| Cheating- Unauthorized Materials |
|
|
|
| Probation with Loss of Privileges through Fall 2016 (4-2) and Probation through Spring 2017 (4-2) |
|
| The respondent plead responsible to the charge of Cheating-Unauthorized Materials. The respondent took out thier phone to access Blackboard to see a slideshow that the professor had posted to the site because they forgot how to spell an answer on her final in the class. The respondent was worried about getting a high grade in the class and felt she needed a high score on the exam. Two parties reported that they saw this use of unauthorized materials. The panel considered the respondent's personal circumstances at the time of the incident and decided that the sanctions of Probation with Loss of Privileges through Fall 2016 (4-2) and Probation through Spring 2017 (4-2) would be the most rehabilitative option for the student. |
|
| Cheating- use of unauthorized assistance and collaboration; Lying |
|
| Responsible; Not Responsible |
|
| Responsible; Not Responsible (6-0) |
|
Indefinite Disciplinary Suspension through Fall 2016 (6-0) Indefinite Disciplinary Suspension through Fall 2016 (6-0)
Disciplinary Probation through Spring 2017 (6-0)
Academic Integrity Seminar (6-0)
Letters of Apology
Letter of Reflection
Time Management Course
Recommended “0” on Assignment |
|
| After copying work off of another student and submitting it as the respondent's own, and initially falsifying information surrounding the incident, the panel assigned the respondent the primary sanction of suspension. After much discussion the panel opted for this resolution to provide the respondent with the time needed for reflection and personal growth that can only come with time away from the university. |
|
| Cheating- use of unauthoized assistance and collaboration; Lying |
|
| Not Responsible; Not Responsible |
|
| Not Responsible (6-0); Not Responsible (6-0) |
|
|
| The respondent was found not responsible for providing unauthorized assistance to another student on a project and lying about the incident. A fellow student looked at the respondent’s computer and took the respondent's intellectual property while the respondent was not present. The testimony of the respondent and character witness indicated that the respondent was unaware of the other student’s actions. As the incident was entirely one-sided, the panel couldn’t find the respondent responsible for lying about something the respondent was neither involved in nor aware of. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Probation through Fall 2016 (6-0), Academic integrity seminar (6-0), Letter of apology to the professor (6-0), Resubmit paper for no grade but for course completion (6-0), Writing Resource Center Consultation (6-0), Recommended community service (6-0), Recommended F in course (6-0). |
|
| The respondent failed to cite sources in the respondent's final paper for a course. When his computer crashed the respondent was unable to resubmit the assignment and later realized that the former "incomplete" in the course would become an automatic F if not finished. The submission, lacking references, would have resulted in suspension due to the gravity of the situation, however the respondent's commitment to community service and community impact mitigated the primary sanction to probation- as the panel felt removal from the community would be a detriment to the community at large. |
|
|
|
| Not Responsible; Responsible |
|
| Not Responsible (6-0); Responsible (6-0) |
|
| Probation with Loss of Privileges through Fall 2016 (4-2); Probation through Spring 2017 (4-2); Required Letter of Apology (6-0); Required 25 Hours of Community Service (6-0); Recommended Continued AA Counseling (6-0); Recommended Counseling (6-0); Required AlcoholEdu Course (4-2) |
|
| The student stole another student's flex on four separate accounts to purchase pizza. The panel deemed this a major violation of stealing; however, it assigned Probation with Loss of Privileges instead of Suspension due to the nominal amount of money stolen and the presence of extraordinary factors. |
|
| Cheating - Unauthorized Materials |
|
|
|
| Suspension through Fall 2016 (3-0); Recommended "F" in the Course (3-0); Time Management Seminar (3-0) |
|
| The student accessed the student's cell phone during a final exam and used it to obtain answers from a friend. The panel assigned the presumptive initial level of sanctioning of suspension due to the gravity of the offense coupled with the absence of extraordinary factors. |
|
