K-State Honor & Integrity System
Kansas State University
215 Fairchild Hall
Manhattan, KS 66506
785-532-2595
Fax: 785-532-5944
honor@k-state.edu
  1. K-State Home >
  2. Honor System >
  3. Honor Council >
  4. Honor System Handbook

Honor System Handbook-August 2003 Edition
Honor System Case Investigation Procedure-Section B

 

[Common Terms Used] [Talking with Reporters] [Talking with Alleged Violators] [Writing CI Reports]

Beginning of Case Investigation

A Case Investigation begins with a phone call or written report from a person who alleges a violation of the Honor Pledge has occurred. The Director of the Honor System will assign each Case a number. The Associate Director will send out an "all call" for volunteers to serve as Case Investigators (CIs). Due to time restraints in affording accused students due process, it is imperative that Honor Council members respond immediately WHETHER OR NOT each can serve on a Case. When the Director has received commitments via phone or email, he/she assigns a team of two members to investigate the Case being brought before the Honor System. (KSU Faculty members may choose to independently adjudicate a case as long as a written report is filed with the Honor System.)

The CI team serves only to interview Case participants and collect relevant facts. Confidentiality must be upheld! It is crucial that a Case Investigation be objective as well as thorough to ensure that there are no preconceived ideas about the student's responsibility in violating the Honor Pledge. To make certain that all Case Investigations are of the same quality, it is mandatory that all Honor Council members understand and adhere to Honor System investigative procedures.

Prior to any meetings, CIs are given the names of all parties involved in the Case. Upon becoming aware of participants, CIs must gage whether there is a conflict of interest in working with any Case participants and so inform the Director . The Director sets up an initial meeting between the CIs and the reporter of the Case and provides the CIs with the initial report and documentation alleging the Honor Pledge violation. The Director then sets up a similar meeting between the CIs and the Alleged Violator (AV) and any witnesses in the Case (GTA, another student, another faculty member, etc.).

It is important that both CIs be present at all meetings with the involved parties. Promptness is indicative of respect for the task at hand. Therefore, CIs should arrive 5 to 10 minutes prior to all meetings in order to familiarize themselves with Case documentation. Each CI is given a Case packet with the initial report and supporting documentation. Arriving early to meetings also gives CIs time to organize their thoughts about the Case.

Talking with the Reporter

(Back to Top)

The Director establishes contact with the Reporter(s) of the alleged Honor Pledge violation and coordinates a time for the CIs and the Reporter to meet. The meeting will usually occur in Fairchild Hall 215. CIs should be enough familiar with the initial report to discuss together what questions might be asked during interviews.

  • Begin the interview by asking the Reporter to relate the events which led him or her to believe that there may have been an Honor Pledge violation.
  • Explain to the Reporter that this meeting is primarily to gather information about the Case.
  • Taking good notes provides the backbone of a good report.
  • Ask to clarify any specific information revealed by the Reporter.Information collectors should be as unbiased as possible.
  • It is especially helpful to ask the Reporter about the three criteria Hearing Panels will use to determine sanctions, if the AV is found to be in violation of the Honor Pledge. These comprise the following:
    1. Truthfulness of the AV
    2. Premediation of the violation
    3. Flagrancy of the violation
  • If asked for your opinion on the Case, simply respond that you must remain neutral and that you cannot predict an outcome.

At this time, both CIs should review notes made during an interview. It is a good idea to write/type the pertinent segment of the report ASAP after each meeting.

Talking with the Alleged Violator(s) (AV)

(Back to Top)

Always strive to protect the anonymity of the AV.

At the initial meeting, introduce yourself and state that your purpose as a Case Investigator is to gather information related to the Case. Be firm and competent, but not cold or aloof. Maintain appropriate eye contact and remember that non-verbal communication (posture, tone of voice, open-mindedness) speaks as loudly as words.

  • Assume the AV has been informed by Honor System staff of Case procedures. He or she should also have a copy of the report alleging the violation. The AV should have also made an appointment with Scott Jones, Dean of Student Life. The AV will also have been assigned a member of HIPE, as an advisor. The HIPE advisor may be present with the AV in Case Investigations. The HIPE advisor knows not to speak to the CIs unless asked questions by the investigators.

  • It is especially helpful to stress to the AV that there are three criteria Hearing Panels will use to determine sanctions, if the AV is found to be responsible for an Honor Pledge violation. These comprise of the following:

    1. Truthfulness of the AV
    2. Premediation of the violation
    3. Flagrancy of the violation

  • Some topics which might be pertinent:

    1. Student's major, class, and projected graduation date.
    2. How the student completed the assignment/exam/project.
    3. Whom the student studied with, what notes or books used, where seated (during exams) etc.
    4. The importance (%) and difficulty of the assignment or exam.
    5. Progress in the class at the time.
    6. Names of other students who may verify or confirm information.
    7. Relationship with other suspected students when they have been identified. Use discretion when bringing up other suspected students.
    8. Student's knowledge of the Honor System.
    9. Written and verbal information presented by the instructor on the assignment/exam/project.
    10. Circumstance surrounding the possible violation (stress, competence in class, preparedness).
    11. Greek affiliation (to prevent conflicts of interest should the Case go to a panel hearing).

  • If there is more than one AV, separate meetings may be scheduled for the same day.

  • Answer all questions and assure the AV that all Honor Council proceedings are conducted in the strictest confidence.

  • The report of the meeting should be written as soon as possible.

  • If any questions or complications arise, either the Director or Associate Director will be in the Honor System office during meetings with all participants.

Writing CI Reports

The CIs are responsible for writing the CI report. An example of a CI report is offered at this link: CI Report CIs are welcomed to use the HS office computer for writing the CI report. Either the faculty CI or the student CI may write up the report to the Director, however, each must sign the original. If the office computer is not used, the final report may be sent as an email attachment to honor@ksu.edu. CIs usually sign the original report at the hearing panel, if the Case proceeds to one. Note: Be certain to check the last portion of the form on whether or not both CIs find sufficient information (or lack of sufficient information) for the Case to move to a hearing. The CI report is made available in advance of the Case hearing to the reporter, the AV(s), and the hearing panel members.

CIs are both present at the Case hearing, if the report suggests moving forward due to having sufficient information.. According to the hearing panel script and HC procedure, CIs briefly explain the Case to the hearing panel members. In the hearing, CIs may be asked questions by the reporter, the AV, and/or the hearing panel members. Bring CI packets to the hearing with all notes taken during meetings.

Terms Commonly Used

(Back to Top)

Investigation-The investigation itself is the process by which objective data and pertinent information are gathered and presented for evaluation by Case Investigators and the Honor System Director. If the conclusion is that there is enough information to warrant a hearing, the Director then proceeds with the Case.


Case Investigators-Two members of the Honor Council (one student and one faculty member) who interview all parties involved in the Case--Reporter, Alleged Violator(s),also known as AV, witnesses, etc.


Reporter-The individual (faculty or student) who reports a Case to the Honor System.


Alleged Violator-The student who is alleged to have violated some aspect of the Honor System.


Case Report-The standard document used by the Reporter (found on the Honor System web site) in reporting an alleged violation of the Honor Pledge.


CI Report-The document written by the Case Investigators after all interviews have been conducted. An example of this form is also available on the Honor System web site.