William & Mary
Close menu Resources for... William & Mary
Popular Topics
Suggested Results
News Events
Apply Visit Request Info
W&M menu close William & Mary
Community Values & Connection
Student Accountability & Restorative Practices

Fall 2015

Charges

Plea

Judgment

Sanctions
Cheating-Unauthorized Materials; Lying N/A Responsible for Cheating; Not Responsible  for Lying Indefinite Suspension for at least one semester; Failing grade in course; Reflective Essay; Apology Letter; Academic Integrity Seminar
The respondent was found responsible for cheating on a final exam by using unauthorized notecards. The panel found the respondent not responsible for lying in an email to the professor, as the language of the email proved too vague to prove the student had an intent to deceive. The panel determined that the egregiousness of cheating on a final examination and the respondent's lack of participation in the process warranted increasing the sanction from the presumptive level of suspension to an indefinite suspension, concluding that a reinstatement hearing would better allow the council to gauge the student's growth and learning.
Plagiarism Responsible Responsible  Suspension for one semester (4-2); Failing grade in Course; Reflective Essay; Time Management Workshop; Community Service
The respondent plagiarized 99% of a paper worth 20% of the final grade in the course. In assigning a sanction of suspension, the panel considered the presumptive initial level of sanctioning for a level III violation and the additional element of false citations provided at the end of the paper.
Cheating-Unauthorized Assistance Not Responsible Responsible  Suspension for one semester; Failing grade in course; Reflective Essay
On two midterms, the respondent's short answers correlated with another version of the exam (the professor disseminated two versions of the exam). Though the amount of cheating on each exam was small, the panel found the nature of cheating on two separate assignments, even after being confronted by the professor, to be egregious. The panel assigned a suspension in accordance with the presumptive level for a Level III violation.
Cheating-Unauthorized Materials Responsible Responsible  Probation with Loss of Privileges through Spring 2016; failing grade in course; Required Community Service 
The respondent attempted, unsuccessfully, to access course materials on an electronic device during an exam. The panel lowered the sanction below the presumptive initial level of a suspension due to the respondent's outstanding character witness testimonies and the student's demonstrated understanding of the negative impact on the community of trust, both of which constituted an extraordinary circumstance.
Cheating-Directions Violation; Lying Responsible Responsible  Suspension for one semester; failing grade on assignment; Letters of Apology; Time Management Workshop
The respondent consulted a friend for edits on a paper worth 12% of the final grade, which was prohibited by the instructor. When questioned by the professor about who made the edits, the respondent lied. The panel qualified the charge of cheating at a Level II violation but the charge of lying as a Major Violation. In weighing the nature of two charges with their respective presumptive initial levels of sanctioning, the panel concluded a suspension to be the most appropriate to address the combined gravity of the violations.
Stealing Responsible Optional Expedited Resolution Probation through Spring 2016; Community Service
The respondent stole two sodas from Zable Stadium. While the panel did not find respondent's actions appropriate, it weighed the amount of the items stolen and the finding that the act was spontaneous as relevant factors in determining the sanctions. A sanction of probation for one semester was assigned in accordance with the presumptive initial level of sanctioning for a "Minor" stealing violation as defined in the Code.
Cheating-Unauthorized Assistance; Cheating-Unauthorized Materials Responsible Responsible  Indefinite Suspension through at least Spring 2016; failing grade in course; Community Service; Letter of Apology to Professor
The respondent cheated on two exams in the same course by looking on other student's papers and using a phone. The egregious nature and scope and pattern of cheating aggravated the sanction up from the presumptive level of suspension. Though medical conditions presented by the respondent were not considered to be mitigating, the panel concluded that an indefinite suspension would also allow the respondent to address evident issues regarding stress and mental health.
Cheating-Plagiarism Responsible Responsible  Probation through Spring 2016; failing grade in course; Recommended Continued Counseling; Letter of Apology to Professor
The respondent plagiarized the entirety of a draft of a final paper worth 30% of the grade. Though the nature of the violation was egregious, the panel considered three distinct circumstances to be extraordinary, including a medical emergency, a family member falling seriously ill, and the stress of family members living in an unsafe region of the world.  All of these factors were present at the time of the violation and were compelling to the panel and deemed to be extraordinary, allowing for the lowering of the presumed initial level of sanctions.
Cheating-Plagiarism Responsible Optional Expedited Resolution Probation through Spring 2016; failing grade on assignment; Required Consultations with the Writing Resources Center; Reflective Essay
The respondent plagiarized approximately 47% of a final research paper with both direct quotations of the text and paraphrasing. The scope of plagiarism was significant, yet the student made an attempt to cite within an incorrectly formatted bibliography; thus, the panel found the matter fell within the realm of a Level II honor violation. In accordance with the presumptive initial level of sanctioning, the panel assigned probation for one semester.
Cheating-Plagiarism Responsible Responsible  Suspension through Spring 2016; failing grade in course; Consultation with the Writing Resources Center 
The respondent plagiarized approximately 2/3 of a paper worth 35% of the final grade. In coming to its decision, the panel assigned a sanction of suspension through Spring 2016. Though the respondent presented a computer malfunction as a circumstance that affected the plagiarism, the panel did not consider the technological difficulties to be extraordinary. Thus, the panel did not deviate from the presumptive initial level of sanctioning for a Level III violation.
Cheating - Unauthorized collaboration Responsible Responsible  Suspension for one semester; Academic Integrity Seminar; failing grade in course; 40 Hours of Community Service; Reflective Essay 
The respondent was observed collaborating with another student during an exam. The reporting party observed the parties speak with each other. The respondent pleaded responsible, and the exams contained similarities supporting the conclusion that cheating occurred.  The panel applied the presumed initial level of sanction for a Level III violation.
Cheating - Unauthorized Collaboration and Lying Responsible and Not Responsible  Responsible  and Not Responsible  Suspension for one semester; Academic Integrity Seminar; failing grade in course; counseling
The respondent was observed collaborating with another student during an exam. The reporting party observed the parties speak with each other. The respondent was also charged with lying in the course of the investigation.  The respondent pleaded responsible, and the exams contained similarities supporting the conclusion that cheating occurred. However, the panel did not find the respondent responsible for lying; it found the discrepancy due to a difference in language rather than an intent to deceive.  The panel applied the presumed initial level of sanction for a Level III violation.
Cheating-Unauthorized Aid Not Responsible Not Responsible  N/A
A student reported seeing the respondent cheating by looking at the exam of the student sitting next to respondent.  The professor observed the student after the report and did not see evidence of cheating in student's behavior.  The respondent's exam also contained no similarities to her neighbor's exam that was suggestive of cheating.  After reviewing all testimony and other available evidence, the panel found insufficient evidence existed to find the student in violation. 
Cheating-Plagiarism, Cheating-Directions Violation, Lying Not Responsible to all Responsible for Cheating via plagiarism; not responsible on all other charges Probation with Loss of Privileges through Spring 2016; Academic Integrity Seminar; Time Management Workshop; Consultation with the Writing Resource Center; failing grade on assignment  
The respondent plagiarized an essay via direct use of others' words without quotation. The panel found the similarities between respondent's paper and uncited outside sources. The respondent tried to explain the similarities as being due to "sloppy" paraphrasing due to heightened stress levels. The panel found that the uncited material was extensive enough that it evidenced a signficant disregard for scholarly procedures, but it did not find the student to have plagiarised intentionally.  Regarding the directions violation, the panel found sufficient lack of clarity existed between the professor's instructions and the student's understanding of whether outside sources could be used on the assigment.  For the lying charge the panel found that the student's claim that student did not understand the question posed by the professor was reasonable in light of the circumstances.  Finding a lack of intentional plagiarism, the panel applied the presumed sanctions for a Level II violation and issued secondary sanctions designed to assist the student in developing a better writing process in the future.
Cheating-Plagiarism Not Responsible Responsible  Probation with Loss of Privileges through Spring 2016; Academic Integrity Seminar; Consultation with Writing Resource Center; failing grade in course; Apology to Professor
The respondent plagiarized an essay by directly using others’ words without quotations and falsely attributing information to sources. The panel considered the similarities between the paper and the cited sources, the infrequent use of citations and quotations throughout the paper, and the respondent’s testimony. The respondent testified that the similarities occurred because the sources coincided with the respondent’s pre-existing opinions. The respondent also claimed that “human error” was the reason why information in the paper was attributed to the wrong source.  However, when the respondent’s individual acts were coupled, they composed the majority of the paper and the panel found that there was a flagrant disregarded for scholarly procedure.
Cheating-directions violation, cheating- use of unauthorized materials Not Responsible Not Responsible , Not Responsible  N/A
The respondent used his phone on his geology exam in the Watson Lab. The student testified that he/she forgot a calculator and was using the phone as a calculator. The lab proctor testified that she believed that this was truthful, and that she had never specifically given student directions stating that student could not use a phone as a calculator.
Stealing Not Responsible Responsible  Permanent Dismissal
The respondent stole another student's flex points to order food. The student had previously been suspended for a cheating violation. Due to the student's significant previous disciplinary record, the panel determined that it would be appropriate to sanction above the presumptive initial level of sanctioning for this offense and therefore determined permanent dismissal was the most appropriate sanction.
Stealing Not Responsible Not Responsible  N/A
The respondent was reported for having been a part of a plan to steal another student's flex points (see incident above). After reviewing all evidence and testimony, the panel determined that the respondent had no direct knowledge or involvement in the violation and found the student not responsible.
Charge Plea Judgment Sanction Summary
Cheating Unauthorized Assistance, Cheating Unauthorized Materials Not Responsible Not Responsible  for Cheating Unauthorized Materials, Responsible  for Cheating Unauthorized Assistance Suspension for one semester; failing grade for course , Recommended Counseling 
The respondents were reported for cheating during a final exam after a fellow student told the professor that he believed the two were communicating and collaborating on the exam. The witness also claimed that the two may have been looking at notes that were sticking out of a backpack. While the panel did not find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support the claim that respondents consulted the notes, the panel did find the students responsible for collaborating during the exam after another credible witness sitting next to the respondents testified that the student heard and saw the two communicating throughout the test.
Cheating Unauthorized Assistance, Cheating Unauthorized Materials Not Responsible Not Responsible  for Cheating Unauthorized Materials, Responsible  for Cheating Unauthorized Assistance Suspension for one semester; failing grade for course , Recommended Counseling 
The respondents were accused of cheating during a final exam after a fellow student told the professor that he believed the two were communicating and collaborating on the exam. The witness also claimed that the two may have been looking at notes that were sticking out of a backpack. While the panel did not find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support the claim that respondents consulted the notes, the panel did find the students responsible for collaborating during the exam after another credible witness sitting next to the respondents testified that the student heard and saw the two communicating throughout the test.
Cheating Unauthorized Assistance, Lying Responsible for Unauthorized Assistance, Not Responsible for Lying Responsible for Cheating Unauthorized Materials, Responsible for Lying Suspension for one semester, F in course, Apology to Professor
The respondents acknowledged both asking for and receiving answers to questions on an exam.  When initially asked by the professor, the students denied collaborating; later during investigation, they acknowledged doing so.
Cheating Unauthorized Assistance, Lying

Responsible for Unauthorized Assistance, Not Responsible for Lying

 Responsible for Cheating Unauthorized Materials, Responsible for Lying Suspension for one semester, F in course, Apology to Professor

The respondents acknowledged both asking for and receiving answers to questions on an exam.  When initially asked by the professor, the students denied collaborating; later during investigation, they acknowledged doing so.

Cheating in the form of plagiarism

*Graduate case

 Not Responsible Responsible Disciplinary Probation, 15 hours of community service, Reflection paper
The Respondent submitted a paper that included over 37 instances of sentences and phrases without attribution, citations that were improperly cited and sources that were misattributed.