Honor Council

The following reports are based on real cases adjudicated by the Emory College Honor Council. Any personally identifiable information has been omitted to protect the privacy of all parties involved unless involved parties have granted the Wheel permission to identify them.

The Honor Council found a senior in a humanities course responsible for plagiarism on an assignment after confirming that significant portions of her assignment were copied verbatim from online sources. The student acknowledged that her work was plagiarized but said it was unintentional. The Honor Council found that the plagiarism was likely intentional and recommended an F in the course, a two-year mark on the student’s personal performance record and a mandatory Honor Code educational program.

The Honor Council found a senior in a social sciences course responsible for plagiarism after she failed to cite an online study guide on an assignment. The student said she was having trouble balancing end-of-semester work with a part-time job but acknowledged that she should have used quotations and citations. The Honor Council recommended a zero on the assignment, a one-letter grade deduction in the course, a four-year mark on her personal performance record and a required Honor Code educational program.

The Honor Council found a senior in a science course responsible for using unauthorized assistance on a final exam. The professor did not permit electronic devices during the exam, Canvas showed that the student was active on the platform during the time of the exam. The student said her login information was on a friend’s computer and her friend may have accessed it while the student was taking the exam. The Honor Council found her account “highly improbable” and recommended that the student receive an F in the course and a two-year mark on her personal performance record.

The following reports are based on real cases adjudicated by the Emory College Honor Council. Any personally identifiable information has been omitted to protect the privacy of all parties involved unless involved parties have granted the Wheel permission to identify them.

 

  • The Honor Council found a freshman student in a lower-level science course responsible for providing false information to gain an academic advantage on an exam. The student’s professor makes photocopies of completed exams for recordkeeping purposes and also allows students to submit exams to be re-graded if they believe the exam was graded incorrectly. The student submitted their exam for a re-grade, and upon comparing it with the photocopy, the professor realized that some answers had been changed. The Honor Council recommended an F in the course and a two-year mark on the student’s personal performance record.

 

  • The Honor Council found a student in an upper-level humanities course responsible for plagiarism on a midterm paper. The professor reported that the student’s paper drew heavily from online sources with some variation, but the ideas remained the same. The student said that they were experiencing an extreme personal circumstance that impacted their ability to complete the work on time and provided documentation to support their circumstance. The student said that instead of asking for an extension, they rushed the assignment and failed to properly cite sources. The Honor Council recommended a zero on the assignment, a one-letter grade deduction in the course and a two-year mark on the student’s personal performance record.

 

  • The Honor Council found a sophomore in a lower-level social science course responsible for plagiarism on a paper and providing false information to gain an academic advantage. The professor noticed a change in the author’s voice in later portions of the paper, noticeably fewer grammatical errors and portions of the paper that went far beyond the level of writing that would be expected from an undergraduate student. The professor also added that the student signed in for class as present, then left the room and did not return. The student denied that they plagiarized the paper and insisted that they must have remembered phrasing from an outside source they studied when preparing for the paper. They also said they felt sick the day they signed into class. The Honor Council recommended an F in the course, a two-year mark on the student’s personal performance record and a mandatory educational program.

The following reports are based on real cases adjudicated by the Emory College Honor Council. Any personally identifiable information has been omitted to protect the privacy of all parties involved unless involved parties have granted the Wheel permission to identify them.

The Honor Council found a senior in an upper-level science course responsible for seeking unauthorized assistance on a midterm exam and violating the electronic device policy. Another student who witnessed the incident reported the violation to the professor after noticing that the student was using a device underneath a desk during the exam. The reported student was questioned, and the Honor Council found the student’s testimony to be inconsistent with the investigation. The Honor Council recommended an F in the course and a two-year mark on the student’s personal performance record.

The Honor Council found a sophomore in a social science course responsible for plagiarism and unauthorized assistance on a homework assignment. The professor reported that two students collaborated and submitted nearly identical answers to a free response question. One of the students said that they completed the assignment on their own and denied that they provided the answers to other students. The Honor Council found the student responsible due to the unlikeliness that two students would independently submit nearly identical answers. The Honor Council recommended an F in the course and a two-year mark on the student’s personal performance record.

The Honor Council found a junior in a science course not responsible for providing false information to gain an academic advantage. The student participated in an online in-class activity although the student did not sign the attendance log which was passed around at the beginning of class, indicating that he might have been completing the activity remotely. On that day, the student said that they arrived late to class, and noted that it was possible that the sign-in sheet missed him. The Honor Council ultimately found the student not responsible after gathering more information that showed the student to be in the building during the appropriate time frame.

The following reports are based on real cases adjudicated by the Emory College Honor Council. Any personally identifiable information has been omitted to protect the privacy of all parties involved unless involved parties have granted the Wheel permission to identify them.

  • The Honor Council found a sophomore in an upper-level science course responsible for plagiarizing on a report. The student used significant portions of course materials and tried to pass it off as their own analysis of the experiment without proper citation, stating that they believed that the materials did not need to be cited because the professor had provided students with the information. The Honor Council did not think that the student intentionally violated the Honor Code, but because all external sources need to be attributed in assignments, the council recommended an F in the course and a two-year mark on the student’s record.

 

  • The Honor Council found a freshman in a humanities course responsible for plagiarizing online sources on an essay. The professor identified several portions of the essay that had been poorly paraphrased from online resources. The student said that they had originally sought out online resources to better understand the essay topic and that they believed that the plagiarized portions of the essay probably came from their notes on the online resources. The Honor Council recommended a zero on the assignment, a one-letter grade deduction in the course, an educational program and a two-year mark on the student’s record.

 

  • The Honor Council found that a sophomore in a lower level science course was not responsible for cheating on an exam. The professor had identified similarities in the student’s and a neighboring student’s exams, but the student on trial explained that the other student was a regular study partner and that the two had worked on problems together prior to the exam. The student provided joint study materials to explain the common mistakes made on the exam. The Honor Council determined that the student was not responsible for cheating.

The following reports are based on real cases adjudicated by the Emory College Honor Council. Any personally identifiable information has been omitted to protect the privacy of all parties involved unless involved parties have granted the Wheel permission to identify them.

  • The Honor Council found an underclassman in a lower level science course guilty of cheating for looking at neighboring students’ work during an exam. During the Honor Council hearing, the student said that they felt unprepared for the exam but understood that they were putting their peers in jeopardy by copying answers. The Honor Council recommended an F in the course and a two-year mark on the student’s record.
  • The Honor Council found an underclassman in a humanities course guilty of providing unauthorized assistance on a homework assignment to another student. The professor identified similarities between several students’ responses to a question requiring a real life application of a concept taught in the course. The student said that they gave a copy of their assignment to a friend, who had asked for help. The Honor Council recommended a zero on the assignment for the student who provided assistance as well as a one-year mark on the student’s record. Information about the student who requested help from his friend was not immediately available.
  • An upperclassman in a social sciences course accepted responsibility for using an unauthorized cell phone during an exam. The student was seen using a phone several times throughout the exam before the proctor approached the student. During the hearing, the student said that they were stressed and experiencing unrelated personal circumstances. As the student had a prior violation, the Honor Council recommended an F in the course and a permanent mark on the student’s record.

Photo courtesy of Flickr Creative Commons/ Brian Turner
Photo courtesy of Flickr Creative Commons/ Brian Turner

The following reports are real cases adjudicated by the Emory College Honor Council. Any personally identifiable information has been omitted to protect the privacy of all parties involved.

  • A junior in a lower level science course was found guilty of seeking unauthorized assistance on a take home exam. Students were not allowed to use outside sources once they began the exam. When grading the student’s work, the professor noted changes in the font and font size that matched the review sheets for the course. It appeared that passages had been cut-and-pasted into the student’s exam and then reworded. The student admitted that he wanted a higher grade and consulted the study guides as he took the exam. The Honor Council recommended an F in the course and a 2-year mark on the student’s personal record.
  • A freshman in a lower level humanities course was found guilty of plagiarism on a series of journal entries. Some of the language sounded a bit technical, and the professor found that portions of the journal entries were copied verbatim without any references or quotation marks. The student acknowledged responsibility for plagiarizing. The Honor Council recommended an F in the course and a 2-year mark on the student’s personal record.
  • A junior in an upper level social science course was found guilty of plagiarism and providing unauthorized assistance on some written assignments. The professor noted that long passages appeared to have been plagiarized in the student’s work. The student admitted to plagiarism, noting that she had faced some personal challenges that semester. She also admitted to the Honor Council that she had plagiarized an essay for a friend in the class, which she submitted on behalf of her friend. The Honor Council recommended an F in the course and a 4-year mark on the student’s personal record.
— Compiled by Brandon Fuhr

Photo courtesy of Flickr Creative Commons/ Brian Turner
Photo courtesy of Flickr Creative Commons/ Brian Turner

 

  • A junior in a lower level humanities course was found guilty of looking at a cheat sheet during a quiz. During the hearing, the student admitted that he was unprepared for the quiz and made a poor decision. The Honor Council recommended an F in the course and a 2-year mark because the violation was deliberate and the student had received a verbal warning from the Honor Council for a previous offense.
  • The Honor Council dismissed an accusation against two juniors that they sought unauthorized assistance on a quiz in a social science course. A student in the class reported to the professor that she witnessed the two students talking during the quiz. The students admitted that they were misbehaving during the quiz and joking about how easy it was. The Honor Council compared the quiz answers, and there were not any significant or unusual similarities. The students apologized for acting inappropriately during the quiz and indicated that they understood the importance of avoiding any appearance of impropriety.
  • A sophomore was found guilty of plagiarism on a paper in a lower level humanities course. The Teaching Assistant (TA) for the course identified several internet sources that were copied from verbatim. The professor and TA estimated that nearly one-third of the paper was plagiarized. The student admitted that he used the internet for background material for his paper, but as he did not start writing the paper until the night before it was due, he was rushed for time and did not cite or quote his sources. As the student had two prior violations, the Honor Council recommended an F in the course, a permanent mark on his personal record, and permanent dismissal from Emory University.

The following reports are real cases adjudicated by the Emory College Honor Council. Any personally identifiable information has been omitted to protect the privacy of all parties involved.

— Compiled by Brandon Fuhr

Photo courtesy of  Flickr Creative Commons/ Brian Turner
Photo courtesy of Flickr Creative Commons/ Brian Turner
  • Just before a quiz that he later said he had not prepared for, a senior in a lower level humanities course created a small cheat sheet. When the professor noticed the paper in his hand and confronted him, the student admitted that he had made a poor decision. He received a zero on the quiz, a full letter grade deduction in the course and a two year mark on his record.
  • While grading an exam, a lower level humanities course professor noticed that in the essay portions of the test, a student had copied large passages verbatim from online sources. The sophomore student who had taken the exam and had surrendered his phone to a staff member in a nearby room before completing the test alone, claimed that he had memorized those online texts and relied on them for the essay questions. The Honor Council doubted his ability to anticipate an essay question relevant to the online texts, as well as his decision to memorize sources outside of the class textbook and notes and gave the student a failing grade in the course and a two year mark on his record.
  • After using plagiarism detection software, a lower level social science course professor found that a senior’s short response paper almost perfectly matched online sources that he neither referenced nor surrounded with quotation marks. Though the student claimed that he had rushed to complete the paper and had carelessly added the online source while consulting his class notes, the Honor Council did not find his claims credible and recommended a full letter grade deduction in the course, a zero on the assignment and a two year mark on his record.

The following reports are real cases adjudicated by the Emory College Honor Council. Any personally identifiable information has been omitted to protect the privacy of all parties involved.

— Compiled by Lydia O’Neal

Photo courtesy of  Flickr Creative Commons/ Brian Turner
Photo courtesy of Flickr Creative Commons/ Brian Turner
  • When a sophomore in a lower level social science course did not understand a homework assignment question, he consulted his roommate, who showed him the answers and left. The student copied his roommate’s responses, which the course professor noted while grading the assignment. While collaboration was permitted, the student’s roommate said he did not know the student had planned to copy his responses. The student received a two-year mark on his record, a full letter grade deduction in the course and a zero on the assignment.
  • For a short writing assignment, a freshman in a lower level social science course copied a few sentences verbatim from a website without using quotation marks. After typing the phrases into a quick online search, the professor soon found the original text, which had been referenced in the student’s bibliography. As an international student, he claimed that he did not know that direct speech should be placed in quotations but acknowledged that he had committed plagiarism by U.S. standards. The Honor Council required the student to complete an educational program and gave him a one-year mark on his record and zero on the paper but decided that he would have the opportunity to replace the grade after writing another paper on the same subject.
  • While working on a paper about a contemporary author for a lower level humanities course, a junior student contacted the author and included some of his communication with the author in her paper. The professor noted a difference in the student’s language and ideas while grading the paper and consulted the student, who said he didn’t know the content of his conversations with the author should have been cited. Though the student argued that he supplemented the author’s ideas and claims discussed during the unreferenced conversation, he received a failing grade in the course and a two-year mark on his record. Convinced that the student did not intend to plagiarize the discussion material, an appeal panel maintained the two-year mark but gave the student a zero on the assignment instead of an F in the course.

The following reports are real cases adjudicated by the Emory College Honor Council. Any personally identifiable information has been omitted to protect the privacy of all parties involved.

— Compiled by Lydia O’Neal