1. K-State home
  2. »Honor System
  3. »System Basics
  4. »Honor Pledge Violations (AUGUST 2003-JULY 2004)

Honor and Integrity System

Honor Pledge Violations (AUGUST 2003-JULY 2004)

The following violations of the Honor Pledge occurred at Kansas State University.
Most recent occurrences are listed first. For definitions to some Honor & Integrity System terms used below, please access this web site link:

TERMS

July

Case #2003/2004-91--As part of an investigation for a previous case, two Juniors were alleged to have participated in unauthorized collaboration on a final exam. In addition, one of the Juniors was also alleged to have received unauthorized aid on a makeup quiz. Both Juniors admitted to the Honor Pledge violations and an Honor an Council Hearing sanctioned each with zeros on the final exam and required each to pass the Academic Integrity course. The Junior who also admitted to unauthorized aid on a quiz was given until the end of spring 2005 to pass the Academic Integrity course. If that deadline is not met, the Junior will face suspension from the University. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-90--A Distance Education Senior was alleged by an Associate Professor to have plagiarized an Internet source for the final paper in the course and sanctioned the Senior with an XF in the course. The F indicates failure in the course; the X indicates the reason is an Honor Pledge violation. The Senior did not contest the allegation. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-89--A Junior plagiarized significant portions of an Internet web site for a final project, claiming it as original work. As a result, the Associate Professor sanctioned the Junior with a zero on the assignment and the requirement to enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course prior to receiving and final grade. The Junior did not contest the allegation.Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-88--Two Juniors participated in unauthorized collaboration on a take-home final exam, one Junior allegedly copied the work of the other Junior. As a result, the Instructor assigned a grade of zero to the Junior who did the work but allowed copying and also required the Junior to enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course prior to receiving a final grade. The Junior who copied was assigned an XF for the course. The F indicates failure in the course; the X indicates the reason is an Honor Pledge violation. The X can be removed by enrolling in and passing the Academic Integrity course; the F will remain permanently on the transcript although the course may be repeated for an additional grade, used to calculate the grade-point-average. The Juniors did not contest the allegations.Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-87--A Senior's final paper contained plagiarized phrases (no source credit or quotations) from two online web sites. The Assistant Professor has alleged an Honor Pledge violation and sanctioned the student with an XF in the course. The Senior did not contest the allegation.Case Closed.

 

June

 

Case #2003/2004-86--An Associate Professor/Dean has alleged unauthorized aid on the part of a student, a Junior, who helped another student (already adjudicated for receiving the aid) during the spring semester. The student who received aid gave information to case investigators stating that marijuana was accepted in return for helping with the assignment. For the unauthorized aid, the Associate Professor is assigning the AI course, to be completed in the fall semester; the Dean of the college will address the use of illegal substances. The Junior did not contest the allegation and is enrolled in the AI course. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-85--An Associate Professor discovered a duplication of words, phrases, and reasoning between two students' study guide assignments. Also, one student's answers to a take-home exam did not really address one of the exam questions. The Associate Professor checked on Google and came up with much of the essay from two free essay sites. The Associate professor assigned XFs for both seniors. The students did not contest the allegations and are enrolled in the AI course for the fall semester. Case Closed.

 

May

 

Case #2003/2004-84--A GTA was grading a rare extra credit opportunity paper which consisted of answering sets of questions that applied to the lecture material. The GTA noted that two papers, one following the other in the alphabetized stack, were virtually identical in many aspects, often word for word. A grade of zero was posted on the KSOL grade book. Both students, a Junior and a Senior, went in individually and asked the Instructor why they did not have a paper to be picked up. One student related that the other student was struggling academically and had given the struggling student a completed assignment, thinking that the effort would generate "ideas," but never anticipated the other student would copy it. The instructor told the student that giving the assignment to another student was a breach of the Honor Code, and reminded the student that the instructions for the assignment CLEARLY prohibited this action. The struggling student also admitted to copying the completed assignment. Both students were sanctioned with the following: 1) a zero on the extra credit, 2) to write the Honor Pledge in their own handwriting, 3) an essay of specific length and parameters answering the following questions: a)why the action was an honor code violation; b) reflection on how the poor decision negatively affected the student, the classmate, the instructor; ways in which students can assist fellow students academically without violating the Honor Pledge; and explaining how actions might hinder professional growth. Neither student wished to contest the allegations. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-83--A Graduate student, with no prior Honor Pledge violation, is alleged by an Associate Professor to have plagiarized eight pages of a 20-page term paper. The student admitted to and did not contest the Associate Professor's allegation. The instructor sanctioned the students with a zero for the term paper and to take the Academic Integrity course. Case Closed.

Case 2003/2004-82--A Sophomore, with no prior Honor Pledge violation, is alleged by another student to having and distributing a previous answer key to a final exam. The Assistant Professor received an e-mail from the reporting student. The Assistant Professor contacted the Honor & Integrity System office and sent a formal violation report. The investigators did not find enough information to charge the student with having and/or distributing an answer key to the final. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-81--A Junior was alleged by an Associate Professor to having received unauthorized aid during a final exam. The student, who had no prior Honor Pledge violation, acknowledged the unauthorized aid. The Associate Professor sanctioned the student with an XF in the course. The student has enrolled in a fall 2004 section of the AI course to remove the X portion of the grade. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-80--An Assistant Professor of a large lecture class was informed by a student Witness that final exam test answers were distributed amongst students in the class prior to the exam. The exam was taken electronically, on line. The student Witness brought a copy of the answer sheet to the Assistant Professor. After an investigation was under way to analyze all final exams in the course for comparison to the confiscated answer sheet, the Instructor requested that the Honor Pledge violation be withdrawn and the investigation be terminated. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-79--A Junior plagiarized an Internet source on a final project without providing appropriate attribution and was sanctioned by the Associate Professor with an XF for the course. The student contested the allegation and an Honor panel heard the case. Following deliberation, the Honor panel agreed that there had been an Honor Pledge violation and upheld the Associate Professor's sanction of an XF. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-78--A Senior plagiarized an Internet source without providing appropriate attribution. The Associate Professor sanctioned the Senior with a grade penalty and filed a report with the Honor & Integrity System. The student did not contest the allegation. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-77--A Sophomore plagiarized an Internet source without providing appropriate attribution. The Associate Professor sanctioned the Sophomore with a grade penalty and filed a report with the Honor & Integrity System. The student did not contest the allegation. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-76--A Junior was alleged to have plagiarized a poem without appropriate attribution, as part of a final paper. The Instructor wanted to send the student to an Honor Panel because the student denied the action. When the student reviewed the Violation Report in the Honor & Integrity System office, the student conceded that the poem had been lifted and was contrite. The Associate Director suggested the student go back to the Instructor, apologize, and talk things through. The student and the Instructor decided that the student would receive a zero on the paper and would need to satisfactorily pass the AI course before end of fall 2004, or the grade for the course would turn into an XF. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-75--A Freshman plagiarized an Internet source and delivered a speech, nearly word for word, based on that information, failing to cite the source of the information. The GTA sanctioned the Freshman with a zero on the assignment in addition to requiring the student to enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course prior to receiving a final grade. The Freshman did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-74--A Senior plagiarized an Internet source for a paper, turning it in as original work. The Assistant Professor decided to sanction the Senior with an XF in the course. The Senior did not appeal the sanction. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-73--A Junior plagiarized an Internet source for a paper and turned it in as original work. The Associate Professor did a Google search and discovered the identical paper, save an altered titled. Also, the German quotes were excised. The Junior was sanctioned with an XF in the course and did not appeal.Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-72--A Freshman was alleged by a GTA to have participated in unauthorized collaboration on an outside assignment and was sanctioned with a zero on the assignment in addition to having to take the Academic Integrity course prior to receiving a final grade. The Freshman did not appeal the sanction. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-71--A Freshman was alleged by a student witness, to have hired another student to help complete a final project, although collaboration was not to occur. The Associate Professor turned the matter over to the Honor & Integrity System for adjudication. During the Case Investigation stage, the Freshman casually admitted that "a small bag of weed" was exchanged for aid on the project. Before an Honor Council Hearing Panel, the Freshman maintained that the "weed" was not a payment but more of a thank you. The Hearing Panel sanctioned the Freshman with an XF in the course. The F indicates failure in the course; the X indicates the reason was an Honor Pledge violation. The X can only be removed by enrolling in and passing the Academic Integrity course; the F will remain on the transcript although the course may be repeated for an additional grade, used to calculate the grade-point-average. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-70--A Senior plagiarized an Internet source without appropriate attribution and was sanctioned by the GTA with a zero on the assignment and a warning that another incident of plagiarism will result in an XF in the course. The Senior did not request an appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-69--A Distance Education Graduate Student plagiarized Internet sources for a paper and turned it in as original work. The Associate Professor contacted the Graduate Student who admitted plagiarizing and was sanctioned with a zero on the assignment and a warning. The Graduate Student did not appeal the sanction. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-68--A Senior plagiarized an Internet source for a paper, turning it in as original work. The Assistant Professor did an Internet search and discovered the source of the plagiarized material and sanctioned the Senior with an XF in the course. Unfortunately, this was the Senior's second Honor Pledge violation and an Honor Council Hearing Panel was convened to consider whether the Senior should receive an additional sanction. The Hearing Panel decided to require the Senior to perform community service in the form of a minimum of "three speaking engagements on the importance of academic honesty to various university organizations or classes." The Senior gratefully agreed. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-67--A Senior plagiarized Internet sources for a paper including falsifying sources to make it appear as independent research. The Associate Professor was not amused and sanctioned the Senior with an XF in the course. The Senior did not request an appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-66--A Senior decided to plagiarize a paper worth 20% of the course grade. The Assistant Professor noticed that the assignment did not address specific parameters. After typing in a few passages into the search engine "Google," the Assistant Professor found an exact match of the work handed in by the Senior. The Assistant Professor makes several announcements, both written and verbal, about the seriousness of plagiarized work. On the syllabus, the Assistant Professor states, "Plagiarism on papers (turning in another student's work and/or use of printed or internet sources without citation) is a serious problem on our campus. Cutting and pasting text from the Internet is not research--it is plagiarism! If you are unsure about these practices, please see me for clarification." When confronted, the Senior had the sense to admit his behavior, stating that there was complete understanding of the policy. The Senior made the comment that there was knowledge on the student's part about "taking a risk." The risk did not pay off and never does, regardless of getting caught. The Senior now has to live with the knowledge that the consequences of an XF was not worth it. More important, the trust between student and faculty member is lost. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-65--Four Sophomores, with no prior Honor Pledge violations, worked on projects throughout the semester. They submitted works that were exactly alike. This raised the suspicion of the Instructor, who then scrutinized each piece of work. The comparison among electronic files was made by "the similarity of mistakes, location of points, coordinate of objects, colors, text styles and heights, file sizes, created dates, and layouts." The students admitted copying and attributed it to "assisted learning," frustrations and complications with technology "ran them short of time to print off their own files, and "careless planning." Faculty reinforced the message that complications and frustration would occur in any work place, but this was never an excuse for submitting materials that were not originally developed. The students expressed their regret. Each student received a zero on the assignment, the remainder of the project grades would be split, all students would be required to enroll in and successfully pass the Academic Integrity Course by the end of fall 2004 semester. Upon successful completion of the course, the "Incomplete" in the course will be changed to the final grade earned for each student based on the remainder of their individual course work. The students decided not to appeal and will take the AI course in the fall semester. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-64--A sophomore is alleged to have handed in a paper, but not to have followed directions. This aroused the suspicions of the Associate Professor, who promptly conducted an internet search. The search revealed that the paper had been taken verbatim from a web site. The Sophomore admitted taking the paper from the web site, but indicated mentioning the source on the source page. The student admitted having a friend type the paper, and is now evidentially regretting that decision. The Associate Professor sanctioned the student with a zero on the paper and to take the AI course, as well as report the case to the Honor & Integrity System Director. The student did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-63--A Ph.D. student plagiarized a substantial part of a culminating project. The research paper contained identical information from seven paragraphs of a source paper. The student never mentioned the source paper in the report. Much of the plagiarized part of this paper contained other references cited in the reference section of the paper, thereby making it seem that the author (the Ph.D. student) had done much of the work. This is an excellent example of the phrase "padding the bib." It is an excellent example also of what NOT to do when writing a paper. The Assistant Professor decided to fail the work, thus resulting in a "C" for the course. For graduate students, many departments will tolerate only one "C" in coursework. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-62--A graduate master's student is alleged to have plagiarized information from the internet on a paper assignment. The Associate Professor consulted within the department and decided to give the student a choice: either withdraw from the program or face an Honor Council panel. The student chose to withdraw from the program. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-61--An Assistant Professor alleged that two students might be involved in sharing unauthorized work. Specifically, one student handed a final paper in on time. Another student gave the excuse that a grandparent had died. Upon grading the second paper, the Assistant Professor had a sense of deja vu, noticing a remarkable and "alarming similarity of content and structure, though not word-for-word similarity. " The Assistant Professor talked with both students, at first together, then alone after finding out they were roommates. The first student stated there had been discussion about the difficulty of the task, but no more. The second student related much more shared discussion about the content of the paper. The Assistant Professor went back to the papers, noticing a "very strong paragraph-for-paragraph correspondence." The Assistant Professor decided to assign an XF to the student who later admitted to plagiarizing the roommate's paper. The student did not appeal the allegations and will take the AI course. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-60--A senior is alleged to have plagiarized a final paper and summary assignment. When the student came in to talk with the Assistant Professor, the student admitted the behavior and accepted the sanction of XF. The student did not appeal the allegation and will enroll in the Academic Integrity course to remove the X portion of the XF on the student's transcript. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-59--A senior is alleged to have plagiarized a final paper from internet sources, with minor changes in wording. When asked about the behavior the student denied. The Assistant Professor read only the first of five pages and decided the first page was enough to warrant an XF. The student made an appointment with the Associate Director to review the report. Upon reading the report, the student decided not to appeal and enrolled in the summer Academic Integrity course to remove the X portion on the transcript. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-58--A Sophomore is alleged to have plagiarized a final paper. The Associate Professor became suspicious when the student did not use the specific sources requested in the assignment guidelines, nor did the student answer a specific question posed to each student. An internet search quickly found the paper the student submitted on two cheating web sites: www.gotessays.com and www.cheathouse.com The Associate Professor assigned the XF sanction. It appears the student was "cheated" out of money wasted in using the sites for an assignment that would have not cost anything but time and effort. The student decided not to appeal the case after reviewing the Violation Report. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-57--A Sophomore is alleged to have plagiarized significant portions of a persuasive research essay, turning it in as original work. The GTA recognized that the quality of the writing was not consistent with previous work and an XF grade for the course was requested. The Sophomore came in to the Honor & Integrity System office, read the report and discussed the situation with the Associate Director and then acknowledged having plagiarized and accepted the XF. The F indicates failure in the course; the X indicates the reason is an Honor Pledge violation. The X can only be removed by enrolling in and passing the Academic Integrity course; the F will remain permanently on the transcript although the course can be repeated for an additional grade, used to calculate the grade-point-average. Case Closed.

 

April

 

Case #2003/2004-56--A Sophomore was alleged by a GTA to have plagiarized numerous Internet sources for a research paper, turning it in as original work. The GTA requested the student receive an XF for the course. The F indicates failure in the course; the X indicates the reason is an Honor Pledge violation. The X can only be removed by enrolling in and passing the Academic Integrity course; the F will remain permanently on the transcript although the course can be repeated for an additional grade, used to calculate the Sophomore's grade-point-average. The Sophomore did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-55--A Junior turned in a topic paper which the Instructor discovered to have been plagiarized from an Internet source. The Instructor confronted the Junior who acknowledged the transgression and agreed to the Instructor's sanction, which was to redo the paper sans plagiarizing and to enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-54--A Freshman plagiarized the work of a student who took the class a previous semester, turning it in as original work. When confronted by the Instructor, the Freshman acknowledged plagiarizing and agreed to re-write the paper and enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course prior to receiving a final grade in the class. Unfortunately, the Freshman had already passed the Academic Integrity course as a result of a previous Honor Pledge violation. Since the violations occurred in a short span of time, an Honor Council panel determined that the Freshman should develop and give a presentation on the Honor & Integrity System to an audience to be determined by the Associate Director. The student satisfied the terms of this sanction and agreed to career counseling. The student decided to take some time to reflect on continuing in a university setting or finding a better fit to continue education and training. Sometimes, when a student is dishonest in academic work, it is because the student does not see the value in being in a university setting, perhaps trying to satisfy parental ambitions. Students would do well to reflect on the reasons they attend a university. If they determine the fit is not for them, they should consider attending a different type of educational setting. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-53--A Graduate Student, currently alleged to have violated the Honor Pledge, is alleged to have violated the Honor Pledge a second time on another homework assignment. The Associate Professor turned the matter over to the Honor Council for investigation. The student was given problems to use as a study aid, then was asked to work the problem in the presence of an Honor & Integrity System office staff member. No outside aid was used and the student answered the problem to the Associate Professor's satisfaction. The Honor Pledge violation charge was rescinded. Case Closed.

 

March

 

Graduate Students Now Bound Under the Honor & Integrity System Honor Pledge

Case #2003/2004-52--Two Seniors were observed by two other students in a class group setting, to be changing answers to daily quizzes at the time the correct answers were revealed. The observing students informed the Assistant Professor who then verbally warned the entire class that changing quiz answers would be considered an Honor Pledge violation and directed the class to the course syllabus, which addressed issues of academic dishonesty. Later in the semester, the observing students again alleged to the Assistant Professor that the two Seniors were altering their quizzes after hearing the correct answers. The Assistant Professor confronted both students individually and both denied the allegation, claiming that the observing students didn't like either of them and must be carrying out a vendetta. The Assistant Professor decided to turn the matter over to an Honor Council Hearing Panel for adjudication. Both observing students agreed to attend the hearing and inform the Hearing Panel what they observed. Following the shortest deliberative period on record, an Honor Council Hearing Panel determined that sufficient information did not exist to support the charge of an Honor Pledge violation. Both the Director and Associate Director, however, were concerned and alarmed by the rude manner in which some of the hearing panelists confronted and challenged the student Reporters as well as the faculty Reporter. In two meetings following the hearing, all three Reporters felt abused, unnecessarily challenged and insulted by some members of the Hearing Panel and expressed the feeling that they would be disinclined to bring future cases forward to adjudication. The Director and Associate Director then met with the three reporters a third time, along with the Associate Dean of their college and agreed to changes in Honor Council procedure. Reporters of violations will be allowed to review the makeup of the Hearing Panel prior to the hearing to determine whether they believe a conflict of interest appears to be present. Alleged Violators will be given the same opportunity. Also, Honor Council members will not be seated on Hearing Panels if the participants are from their college. The Director and Associate Director will also agree to recess hearings which appear to contain levels of unnecessary animosity and then determine whether the hearing should continue or the panel be dismissed and a new panel convened to hear the case. Further, the Director and Associate Director will meet with the Honor Council members responsible for the rude and abrasive behavior to discuss why such behavior is inappropriate during Honor Council hearings. This case was especially disappointing since two of the Reporters were students who were bold enough to report and follow through on what they believed to be Honor Pledge violations. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-51--Three Sophomores and a Freshman participated in unauthorized collaboration on a homework assignment, turning in identical papers, each with the same spelling and mechanical errors. The Instructor cleverly noticed the pattern of ineptitude and confronted each of the students individually, each of whom readily admitted their transgression, promising future uncompromising allegiance to the Honor Pledge. The Instructor sanctioned each student with a zero on the assignment. The students did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-50--A Graduate Student submitted a homework assignment which was identical to a posted homework model from a previous semester. When confronted by the Associate Professor, the Graduate Student denied copying the model. To test whether the Graduate Student had a photographic memory, the Associate Professor asked the Graduate Student to do the homework assignment, providing all the information necessary to complete the problem. After a few minutes, it was clear that the Graduate Student's solution was not similar to the version previously turned in. The Graduate Student continued to deny the allegation of copying and the Associate Professor decided to turn the matter over to an Honor Council Hearing Panel for adjudication. A hearing panel found the graduate student not in violation. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-49--A Graduate Student submitted a homework assignment which had an uncanny resemblance to a posted homework model from a previous semester. When confronted by the Associate Professor, the Graduate Student acknowledged copying and was sanctioned with a zero on the assignment. When asked about a previous assignment, the Graduate Student again acknowledged copying from a model from a previous semester. The Associate Professor again decided to sanction with a zero on the assignment. The Graduate Student objected on the grounds that the Associate Professor did not provide a warning after the first copying episode. The Associate Professor decided to turn the matter over to an Honor Council Hearing Panel for adjudication. The Graduate Student met with the Associate Director of the Honor & Integrity System and then decided to meet with the Associate Professor and accept the sanction of zeros on both assignments rather than proceed to an investigation and a hearing. The Associate Professor agreed. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-48--A Freshman plagiarized an Internet site for a paper and turned it in as original work. The Associate Professor noticed a decidedly uneven quality to the writing and checked out some of the better passages through a Google search and discovered the web sites where the plagiarized information originated. The search also led the Associate Professor to a web site specializing in cheating which had some of the same information as the Freshman's paper although it was not clear whether the cheating web site was the original source or simply used some of the same Internet information as the Freshman. The Associate Professor sanctioned the Freshman with a zero on the assignment and the requirement to enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course prior to receiving a final grade in the class. The Freshman did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-47--Two Freshmen are alleged to have participated in unauthorized collaboration on a home work assignment, each turning in the exact assignment, apparently believing the Instructor would be too inattentive to notice. The Instructor, who noticed and was not amused, rewarded each of the freshmen with a zero on the assignment and filed a report with the Honor & Integrity System Director. Should either or both students be found to be responsible for a second Honor Pledge violation in the future, they will be additionally rewarded with an appearance before an Honor Council Hearing Panel to defend themselves from the possibility of suspension or expulsion from the university. The students did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-46--A Sophomore is alleged by a Professor to have altered a graded exam and resubmitted it for additional points, claiming that it had been graded incorrectly. The Professor noticed the alterations and regraded the exam with a zero and required the Sophomore to enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course prior to receiving a final grade in the class. The Sophomore appealed. After meeting with the Reporters and the Sophomore, the Case Investigators concluded that sufficient information did exist to support the charge of an Honor Pledge violation. An Honor Council Hearing Panel heard the case and following lengthy deliberation, determined that sufficient information did not exist to support the charge of an Honor Pledge violation. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-45--A Junior was observed by a test proctor and the Instructor, to be obviously looking at the test answers of a nearby student, although in a deceptive way to try to avoid detection. The Instructor decided to let the Junior explain the deception to an Honor Council Hearing Panel and let them determine the outcomeAn Honor Council Hearing Panel wrestled with the issue, visited the class where the alleged violation occurred and finally determined that an Honor Pledge violation did not occur, though they also recommended that the student visit with the Associate Director of the Honor & Integrity System to review proper test taking decorum. After consultation, the Junior decided to receive further aid from a campus office specializing in helping students with academic difficulties. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-44--A Junior who should have known better, wrote a note to a friend asking the friend to complete an assignment and drop it off at the GTA's office. The friend, who also should have known better, completed the assignment for the Junior and dropped it off but forgot that the Junior's note was still attached to the assignment. The GTA, who was not amused, also noticed that half the assignment was written in one handwriting and the other half in another person's handwriting and decided to turn the case over to the Honor Council for adjudication. Both students will have to explain their ploy to an Honor Council Hearing Panel, the Junior for receiving unauthorized aid and the other student for providing unauthorized aid. A Case Investigation by two Honor Council members concluded that sufficient information did NOT exist to support the allegation of an Honor Pledge violation. Both the Junior and the student who assisted provided a plausible explanation, that the Junior dictated by phone what was to be written on the assignment and the other student provided a favor by delivering the assignment to the GTA's office. The GTA agreed that the explanation was satisfactory and that an Honor Pledge violation did not occur. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-43--A Sophomore plagiarized ideas and phrases from an Internet source without appropriate attribution. The Graduate Teaching Assistant discussed the plagiarizing with the Sophomore and instructed how and why to properly site sources. The Sophomore was sanctioned with a 20% grade reduction and an Honor & Integrity System Violation Report was filed with the Honor & Integrity System. Should the Sophomore be found responsible for a second Honor Pledge violation in the future, an Honor Council Hearing Panel would be convened to consider whether to recommend suspension or expulsion from the University. The Sophomore has five class days to request an appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-42--Two Juniors, working as a team, plagiarized an Internet source on a homework assignment and turned it in as original work. The Assistant Professor noticed that the homework assignment seemed suspiciously professional, typed a few key words into a Google search and discovered the original source of the assignment at a web site. The Assistant Professor emailed the students to set up an office appointment. One of the Juniors made an appointment, acknowledged plagiarizing and agreed to re-do the assignment alone, in addition to being reported for an Honor Pledge violation. No other sanction was imposed. The other Junior claimed to be too busy to comply with the office visit request so the Assistant Professor turned the matter over to the Honor & Integrity System for adjudication. The Honor & Integrity System Director's letter was acknowledged to have been received by the second Junior and the adjudication process began. A few days later, the Junior reluctantly made an appointment to review the Violation Report and while meeting with the Associate Director, acknowledged that the allegation was true. The Associate Director arranged for the Junior to meet with the Assistant Professor; the Junior acknowledged responsibility for the Honor Pledge violation, apologized to the Assistant Professor, and was allowed to complete the assignment alone as was the other Junior. The Honor Pledge violation stands. Should either Juniors be found to be responsible for a second Honor Pledge violation at some time in the future, an Honor Council Hearing Panel will be convened to consider suspension or expulsion from the University. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-41--A Freshman is alleged by a Graduate Teaching Assistant to have plagiarized significant portions of a paper from the Internet without appropriate attribution. The GTA decided to sanction the student with a zero on the paper and require that the student enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course prior to receiving a final grade. The Freshman did not appeal. Case Closed.

 

December--End of Fall 2003 Semester

 

Case #2003/2004-40--A freshman was alleged by an Assistant Professor to have copied the test answers of another student in the class. The Assistant Professor had two versions of the exam and the Freshman who was alleged to have copied had 10 incorrect answers, however when the answers were compared to those of the other exam, the exam scored 90%. The Assistant Professor also determined that only one student in the class had the same answers as the Freshman and that student sat one seat away and one seat forward of the Freshman. The Assistant Professor confronted the Freshman who denied cheating and the Assistant Professor requested that the case be adjudicated by an Honor Council Hearing Panel. Later, the Freshman was called in to the Honor & Integrity System office to review the Honor & Integrity System Violation Report with the Associate Director of the Honor & Integrity System. After reading the report, the Freshman admitted to having cheated, agreed to accept a zero on the exam and to enroll in the Academic Integrity course. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-39--Two Juniors conspired to falsify the attendance roster of a class both were enrolled in. One Junior who was going to be absent, asked the other Junior to falsify the signature of the absent Junior on the attendance roster. The Professor noticed the discrepancy in the handwriting and confronted both Juniors who admitted the Honor Pledge violation. Both were sanctioned with an additional class assignment. If either are found to be responsible for a second Honor Pledge violation, an Honor Council Hearing Panel would be convened to consider a more serious sanction. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-38--A Senior with no prior Honor Pledge violations directly quoted statements from a web page without proper citation. The paper did not list sources in the text or the bibliography. The sources were there were fabricated or falsified. The instructor recommended a full investigation by an Honor Council hearing panel. The student, distraught and not aware of the gravity of situation, was encouraged to go back to the instructor to enter into a dialogue. After reviewing the Honor Pledge violation, the student admitted wrong-doing to the instructor. The instructor then sanctioned the student with re-writing the paper and taking the Academic Integrity course. The student did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-37--A freshman with no prior violation, is alleged by Case Investigators of one case to have falsified information given to the Instructor and Associate Director of the Honor & Integrity System in an internal investigation and again to the Case Investigators. The Case Investigators recommend a hearing to determine if information given was of a false nature. An Honor Council Hearing Panel heard the case and decided that sufficient information did not exist to find the Freshman responsible for an Honor Pledge Violation. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-36--A Senior with two prior Honor Pledge violations was alleged by a GTA to have plagiarized significant portions of a final paper from the Internet without providing appropriate attribution. The GTA sanctioned the Senior with an XF in the course. An Honor Council Hearing Panel met to decide whether an additional sanction would be appropriate. The Senior chose not to appear at the hearing and the Hearing Panel decided to suspend the Senior indefinitely until the Senior enrolled in and passed the Academic Integrity course. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-35--A Sophomore was alleged by an Associate Professor to have plagiarized significant portions of a final paper without providing appropriate attribution, resulting in a sanction of an XF for the course. The F indicates failure; the X indicates the reason is an Honor Pledge violation. The Sophomore did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-34--A Senior was alleged by an Associate Professor to have plagiarized significant portions of a final paper without providing appropriate attribution and was assigned an XF for the course. The Senior claimed to have mistakenly handed in the wrong draft of the paper, however, the Associate Professor suggested the Senior make that argument to an Honor Council Hearing Panel. The Senior did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-33--A Sophomore was alleged by an Associate Professor to have plagiarized significant portions of a final paper without providing appropriate attribution. The Associate Professor sanctioned the student with an XF in the course. The F indicates failure in the course; the X indicates the reason is an Honor Pledge violation. The Sophomore did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-32--Four Freshmen allegedly participated in unauthorized collaboration on a homework assignment. The Instructor sanctioned the four students with a zero on the assignment and filed a report with the Honor & Integrity System. Should any of the four be found to be responsible for a second Honor Pledge violation, an Honor Council Hearing Panel would be convened to consider suspension or expulsion. The students did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-31--A Sophomore and a Freshman allegedly participated in unauthorized collaboration on a homework assignment. The Instructor sanctioned both students with a zero on the assignment and filed a report with the Honor & Integrity System. The students did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-30--A Sophomore allegedly plagiarized significant portions of an Internet article, failing to provide appropriate attribution. The Associate Professor was not amused and sanctioned the Sophomore with an XF in the course. The F indicates failure; the X indicates the reason is an Honor Pledge violation. The Sophomore did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-29--A first-year student missed classes on days when papers were due and instead handed the three papers in late on the first day of final exams. The Associate Professor determined that all three were plagiarized from Internet sources and consequently assigned the student an XF for the course. The F indicates failure in the course; the X indicates the reason is an Honor Pledge violation. The X can only be removed by enrolling in and passing the Academic Integrity course; the F will remain permanently on the transcript although the course may be repeated for an additional grade, used to calculate the grade-point-average. The student did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-28--A GTA teaching a distance education class discovered that a Senior had submitted a final paper which had been significantly plagiarized from Internet sources without appropriate attribution. The GTA decided to sanction the Senior with an XF in the course. The F indicates failure in the course; the X indicates the reason is an Honor Pledge violation. The Senior did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-27--A GTA teaching a distance education class discovered that a Senior had submitted a final paper which had been significantly plagiarized from Internet sources. While consulting with another distance education GTA ten states away, it was discovered that the Senior in question had submitted the same plagiarized paper to both GTAs in two different courses. The Senior was sanctioned by the GTA with an XF in the course. The F indicates failure in the course; the X indicates the reason is an Honor Pledge violation. The Senior did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-26--A Sophomore turned in an exam with the correct answers to a problem but with the supporting steps "making no sense at all." The Professor made a photocopy of the exam and then handed the exam back, requesting that the Sophomore make an appointment to explain how the correct answer was arrived at. The Sophomore later returned, having altered the previous supporting steps, claiming the exam had not been changed. The Professor was not amused and sanctioned the Sophomore with an XF in the course. The F indicates failure in the course; the X indicates the reason is an Honor Pledge violation. The Sophomore did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-25--A GTA teaching a distance education class discovered that a Senior had submitted a final paper which had been significantly plagiarized from Internet sources. The GTA decided to sanction the Senior with an XF in the course. The F indicates failure in the course, the X indicates the reason is an Honor Pledge violation. The X can only be removed by enrolling in and passing the Academic Integrity course; the F will remain permanently on the transcript although the course may be repeated for an additional grade used to calculate the grade-point average.The Senior did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-24--A Senior disputed a final course grade from a previous semester with an Assistant Professor, who decided to re-read the Senior's final paper and discovered that part of the paper had been plagiarized. Instead of the case going to the Undergraduate Grievance Board as a grade dispute, the case was turned over to the Honor Council for adjudication. The Honor & Integrity System Director notified the Registrar to change the original course grade to an Incomplete, pending the outcome of an Honor Council Hearing Panel decision. Before an Honor Council Hearing Panel, the Senior admitted to plagiarizing part of the paper and was sanctioned by being required to take the Academic Integrity course. The Hearing Panel did not impose a grade sanction on the Senior's paper although the Assistant Professor has that and other options. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-23--A Freshman, who had been frequently absent from class, brought a "doctor's excuse" to the final exam. The "excuse" claimed that the Freshman had been ill for the previous two weeks. The GTA was immediately suspicious due to the lack of a letterhead, the scrawling penmanship and the misspelling of the word "excuse." The GTA went to the doctor's office for confirmation of authenticity and was told that the written excuse had not come from their office. The GTA decided to sanction the Freshman with an XF in the course. The F indicates failure in the course; the X indicates the reason is an Honor Pledge violation. The X can only be removed by enrolling in and passing Academic Integrity course; the F will remain permanently on the transcript although the course may be repeated for an additional grade. The Freshman did not appeal the sanction. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-22--A Junior plagiarized the paper of another Junior who had taken the same course in a prior semester. The GTA decided to send the case to an Honor Council Hearing Panel for adjudication. Case Investigators were to determine whether the paper was willingly passed from one Junior to the other or was acquired in some other way. An Honor Council Hearing Panel was convinced that the Junior who allowed the other Junior access to the paper, did not intend to contribute to the Honor Pledge violation and was warned, but not sanctioned. The other Junior was sanctioned with an XF in the course. The F indicates Failure; the X indicates the reason was an Honor Pledge violation. The X can only be removed by enrolling in and passing the Academic Integrity course; the F will remain permanently on the transcript although the course can be repeated and the new grade used to calculate the grade-point-average. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-21--A Junior was discovered to be using unauthorized notes during an exam scheduled in the offices of Disability Services. Since the discovery was made shortly after the exam began, the Professor decided to require the Junior to enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course prior to receiving a final grade in the class. Unfortunately, since this was the second Honor Pledge violation by the Junior, an Honor Council Hearing Panel was convened to determine whether an additional sanction should be imposed. An Honor Council Hearing Panel sanctioned by requiring the Junior to enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course prior to receiving a final grade. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-20--A Senior brought a previous exam to a Professor, claiming that it has been graded incorrectly. The Professor noticed that the handwriting on the exam was different from the Senior's name and signature. The Professor also noticed that only two students in the class had the same score as the exam in question. The Honor & Integrity System Director requested that the two students with the same score on the exam bring their exam to the Professor, which they did. One of those exams was identical to the one the Senior claimed as being graded incorrectly. The Senior admitted to the Honor Council Case Investigators to having "borrowed" the exam of a friend in the class for the purpose of preparing for the final exam but instead used the exam to try to claim additional points in the class. The Professor turned the case over to an Honor Council Hearing Panel. An Honor Council Hearing Panel found the Senior to be responsible for an Honor Pledge violation and sanctioned with an XF for the course. The F indicates failure in the course; the X indicates the reason is an Honor Pledge violation. The X can be removed by enrolling in and passing the Academic Integrity course; the F remains permanently on the transcript although the course can be repeated for a second grade, used to calculate the grade-point-average. The Hearing Panel recommended to the department that the Senior be admitted into the course spring semester so that the student could stay on track toward graduation. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-19--Two Juniors were witnessed by a GTA to be participating in unauthorized collaboration on an assignment. The GTA confronted the two students and sanctioned them each with a zero on the assignment. Neither student was required to take the Academic Integrity course. Neither student appealed the sanction. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-18--A Sophomore and a Junior conspired to deceive a GTA by placing a phone call informing the GTA that a package had arrived in the main office and needed to be picked up. After the GTA left the office unlocked to go to the main office, the Junior entered the unlocked office and took a packet belonging to another student. Upon returning, the GTA noticed the missing packet and informed the teaching Instructor who informed the Dean. An investigation led to the discovery of the phone number of the Sophomore who had made the call. The Sophomore was confronted and acknowledged having made the phone call; the Sophomore also named the Junior involved in the conspiracy. The Junior was confronted and acknowledged taking the packet which belonged to another student. Although the GTA claims that two packets were taken, the Junior claims only one packet was taken. The Instructor turned the case over to the Honor & Integrity System for adjudication with the recommendation that the Junior be expelled and that the Sophomore be required to take the Academic Integrity course An Honor Council Hearing Panel sanctioned the Junior with expulsion from the University for a period of one year, fall 2004-fall 2005 semester providing the Junior immediately enroll in the Academic Integrity course. Following the one year expulsion, the Junior could reapply for admission to KSU. The Sophomore was sanctioned by being required to enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-17--An Assistant Professor alleged that a Senior plagiarized multiple sources of information in writing a thesis paper. Upon talking with the student, the Assistant Professor determined that the student had developed the paper, understood the content, but did not clearly understand how to reference materials and clearly distinguish between original ideas and the ideas of other authors. It was also determined that while the student was clearly capable of reading and reflecting on the literature, the student did not have a clear enough understanding about appropriate research methods in the development of a thesis type paper. The Assistant Professor assigned the following sanctions: a rewrite of the paper, take the Academic Integrity course, and enroll in an independent study to help the student understand appropriate research method strategies and documentation. The student did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case#2003/2004-16--A GTA, while grading homework assignments, noticed two papers which were nearly identical, indicating that one student seemed to have copied the homework of another student. Both students got the same problems wrong and both students had skipped the same question. The Associate Professor, responsible for teaching the class, also examined both assignments and agreed with the GTA's conclusion and decided to sanction both students with a zero on the assignment and require them to enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course prior to receiving a final grade. The students did not appeal the sanction. Case Closed.

 

November

 

Case #2003/2004-15--A Freshman is alleged by an Associate Professor to have plagiarized an Internet source on a paper without providing appropriate documentation. Except for the first and second paragraph, the paper is alleged to be entirely plagiarized. The Associate Professor decided to sanction the student with a zero on the assignment and the requirement to enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course prior to receiving a final grade. The student did not return to class following the Honor Pledge violation and consequently was assigned an XF for the course by the Associate Professor. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-14--Following an exam, an Assistant Professor picked up crib notes from the floor and decided to compare those notes to the essay question answers of the class. Two exams had answers similar to the crib notes and the Assistant Professor called in the two students responsible for the similar answers. The Two Seniors admitted using the notes prior to the exam but claimed not using them during the exam. Instructions on the exam and articulated by the Assistant Professor were that all study materials were to be put away. The Assistant Professor decided to turn the case over to the Honor Council for adjudication. Two Honor Council Case Investigators met with the participants individually and concluded that sufficient information did NOT exist to send the case forward to an Honor Council Hearing Panel. The students were warned in the future to be sure that all study material was placed in an inaccessible location prior to the exam to avoid suspicion. The Assistant Professor was urged to be diligent regarding exam instructions and the placement of study materials in an inaccessible location. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-13--A Junior and a Senior are alleged to have participated in unauthorized collaboration on a homework assignment. The Professor was suspicious because both had used an unusual procedure to solve the problem, unlike the other students in the class, and also made the identical error in computation. If the two students had admitted the unauthorized collaboration, the Professor was not going to sanction them, but warn them that their actions constituted an Honor Pledge violation and allow them to do the assignment over. Since the students denied what the Professor believed was obvious, the Professor decided to sanction them with a zero on the assignment and the requirement that they enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course prior to receiving a final grade in the Professor's course. The students did not appeal the sanction. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-12--A Junior handed in a journal entry assignment that raised the suspicions of an Associate Professor. Upon further investigation the Associate Professor did indeed find plagiarism from the Internet. The Junior was sanctioned with an XF in the course. The Junior did not appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-11--A Senior has been reported with two uncontested Honor Pledge violations. An Honor Council hearing panel was to be convened to determine if the Senior was to be sanctioned further. The Senior requested that the hearing be postponed until the start of spring semester. Since the Senior was due to graduate, the Honor & Integrity System Director placed a hold on the Senior's transcript and notified the Dean to hold the Senior's diploma until an Honor Council Hearing Panel could decide the case. The Senior again requested that the hearing be postponed due to family health problems. The hearing was rescheduled and this time the Senior was told that the rescheduled hearing would occur with or without the Senior's presence. The Senior did not appear at the hearing and an Honor Council Hearing Panel imposed the sanction that the Senior enroll in and complete the Academic Integrity course prior to receiving a KSU diploma. The Senior was sent a letter informing of the sanction but has not as yet responded. The KSU diploma is on hold. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-10--A Freshman and a Junior are alleged to have given and received unauthorized aid on a quiz. The GTA became suspicious when the body language of both students suggested academic dishonesty was occurring--leaning back from the quiz and leaning forward to better see the quiz in front. A verbal  exchange by the couple was also heard by the GTA during a moment of distraction. When interviewed, the Junior admitted the violation. The Freshman did not appear at two meetings scheduled with Honor Council Case Investigators. The Director has cancelled the appeal and the sanction will stand. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-09--A Freshman received unauthorized aid from notes during an exam. The GTA administering the exam for the Instructor was alerted to the inappropriate behavior by another student. When the Instructor interviewed the reporting student, that student stated the Freshman had sat in a far corner of the exam room, which was unusual. The reporting student saw the unauthorized note card on the violator's knee and heard the Freshman make the comment, "I didn't have enough time to study for the test." When the Instructor confronted the Freshman, the student denied, but understood the Instructor was bound to report the incident. The student has been uncooperative in making an appointment to see the Honor & Integrity System Director. The Freshman decided to cooperate and meet with the Case Investigators, who concluded that sufficient information did exist to go forward to a hearing. An Honor Council Hearing Panel decided, after listening to both the Freshman and a student witness, that an Honor Pledge violation did occur. Although the Hearing Panel declined to reduce the score on the exam, the Freshman was required to enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course prior to receiving a final grade in the class. Case Closed.

 

October

 

Case #2003/2004-08--Two non-degree undergraduate students were observed looking at the tests paper of a neighbor during an exam even though the class was repeatedly warned not to look around. The Professor sanctioned both with a zero on the assignment. Both students claimed that their behavior was culturally accepted in their country. After conferring with the Honor & Integrity System Director, the Professor decided to maintain the original sanction. The students decided to appeal. An Honor Council Hearing Panel heard the case and decided that there was insufficient information to find the two students responsible for Honor Pledge violations. The student's exams will be graded and their scores recorded. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-07--A Senior plagiarized two web sites without appropriate attribution, passing off the information as original work. When detected, the Senior appealed to the Assistant Professor claiming that a friend provided the information and the Senior did not know it was plagiarized. The Assistant Professor was not amused and sanctioned the Senior with a zero on the assignment and the requirement to enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course prior to receiving a final grade. The Senior did not appeal. Case Closed.

 

September

 

Case #2003/2004-06--A Sophomore allowed another Sophomore to copy the first Sophomore's design project for a class. The Instructor noticed the identical projects and interviewed the Sophomores individually, both of whom admitted the Honor Pledge violations. The Sophomore who copied was given an XF for the course. The F indicates failure in the course; the X indicates the reason is an Honor Pledge violation. The X can only be removed by enrolling in and passing the Academic Integrity course; the F will remain permanently on the transcript although the course can be repeated for an additional grade, used to calculate the grade-point-average. The other Sophomore was given a zero on the assignment and required to enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course prior to receiving a final grade in the course. Neither student requested an appeal. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-05--A Freshman emailed an Assistant Professor with the suspicion that a classmate had access to an exam which was to be given the following day. The Freshman was invited to meet with the Assistant Professor and the Honor & Integrity System Director. The Assistant Professor determined that the classmate had an exam from a previous semester which was generally available in the library and from a web site. It was determined that this was not an Honor Pledge violation. Both the Assistant Professor and the Director praised the Freshman for bringing this matter to their attention. The Assistant Professor will track the classmate's progress in the course but doesn't believe the integrity of the exam was compromised. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-04--A Senior came to the Honor & Integrity System Office to report a Junior roommate who had offered the Senior $150 to take an exam in a math course. The Senior refused but also related to the Director and Associate Director that the Junior had not been attending any classes, sleeping all day and partying at night. The Director is inquiring of the math instructor whether the Junior or a stand-in had taken the exam. Since the Junior may be experiencing depression, immediate counseling is being recommended. The Junior agreed to the need for counseling and was diagnosed as being depressed. A Resident Assistant continued to observe the actions of the Junior who, it appears, never attended a single class during the semester. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-03--An Assistant Professor was told that an assisting GTA may have been changing grades for students. The Assistant Professor discovered that the course's final exam had a flaw which allowed students in the course to access the final on line for an indefinite period of time instead of shutting down after 90 minutes. As a result, an unusually high percentage of students received an A on the final. The problem has since been corrected for future classes. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-02--A GTA, teaching a large lecture class, gave a daily quiz as a way of taking attendance. Students were instructed to take their quizzes individually and then assemble into pre-arranged groups to discuss the quiz. Students were then asked to decide, as a group, answers to the quiz questions. After the group discussion, the GTA provided the correct answers and then directed the students to enter their individual scores AND group scores next to their names on the group folder. After the third week, the GTA discovered that about 1/3 of the groups were recording perfect scores for each member of the group; another 1/3 were beginning to slip into that pattern after first recording random earned scores; the remaining 1/3 appeared to be following the instructions and their scores appeared to be random throughout. After consulting with the Honor & Integrity System Director and Associate Director, the GTA decided to give the class a quiz and collect them without providing the correct answers. When corrected, this set of answers provided a comparison to previous quiz scores. After the quiz, the GTA expressed disappointment about what appeared to be happening and told the students that if they were in a group that was changing individual quiz scores, they should individually make a ten-minute appointment to meet the GTA to discuss what they knew about their group's method of following the quiz instructions. The GTA also believed that there were instances of students writing in quiz scores for absent classmates. At the end of class, 45 students signed up to meet with the GTA and later many others emailed the GTA to make appointments. At the conclusion of the internal investigation, the GTA decided to sanction 44 of the 196 students, requiring them to enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course prior to receiving a final grade. Of the 44 students, 17 requested an appeal before an Honor Council Hearing Panel. Honor Council Case Investigators have met with 13 of the 17 appealing students in preparation for a hearing scheduled just prior to the start of spring semester classes. The 4 remaining students spoke with Case Investigators at the beginning of the spring semester. The investigation has determined that one student provided false information to the Case Investigators; that student will be charged with an Honor Pledge violation. The student will have 10 calendar days to appeal. The investigation also determined that two students may have provided false information in the internal investigation. At a group of hearings, Honor Council members, in various hearing panel configurations, upheld the instructor's charge that Honor Pledge violations had occurred and the sanction to take the Academic Integrity course remained. Several hearing panels made recommendations to the instructor. One panel determined there was not enough information to charge the two students with falsifying information during an internal investigation. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004-01--A Sophomore was alleged by an Assistant Professor to have plagiarized an Internet source essay and turned it in as original work. The Assistant Professor quickly located the original source and was not amused to discover that indeed plagiarism had occurred. The Sophomore was sanctioned with an XF in the course and did not appeal. The F indicates failure in the course; the X indicates the reason was an Honor Pledge violation. The X can only be removed by enrolling in and passing the Academic Integrity course. Case Closed.

Case #2003/2004--XX--An Associate Professor suspected two distance education students of having participated in unauthorized collaboration on an exam. The two students each lived in a different state. One of the students admitted the collaboration and the other student denied. Both were given an F on the exam. The student who denied collaboration did not complete the course. The student who admitted collaboration received a D in the course and will need to repeat the course. The Associate Professor, following a series of email exchanges with the Honor & Integrity System Director, decided not to file an Honor & Integrity System Violation Report. Case Closed.