Honor Council

The Honor Council found a junior in a science course responsible for accessing Canvas to find the answer to a question during a final exam. The professor confronted the student, who accepted responsibility and acknowledged that she would have had an unfair advantage in the course. In an expedited hearing, the student received the standard sanction of an F in the course and a two-year mark on her record.

The Honor Council found a senior in a science course responsible for using another student’s work to complete an assignment. In a full hearing, the student said that he and a classmate only collaborated on strategies for the assignment. However, more than half of the submitted content was identical. When questioned at the hearing about the assignment, the student could not recall the assignment’s details and the concepts or strategies discussed with the other student. The Honor Council found that the student’s submission was not his own work, and the Council recommended a zero on the assignment, a one-letter grade deduction in the course and a two-year mark on his record.

The Honor Council found a freshman in a humanities course responsible for plagiarism. The student submitted an essay that included information directly copied from online sources without proper citation. The student said he thought he did not need to cite the information because he considered it common knowledge. The Honor Council determined that the subject matter was not considered to be common knowledge, as the professor did not know the information upon reviewing the paper. The Honor Council recommended the standard sanction of an F in the course, a two-year mark on the student’s record and an educational program.

The Honor Council found a junior in a science course responsible for unauthorized assistance on an assignment. Both the teaching assistant (TA) and the professor found similarities among a group of students’ lab reports. The Honor Council’s investigation found that one student sent the assignment to the others in the group to use as a reference. The student thought that being allowed to work collaboratively meant it was acceptable to use the other student’s work, according to the report. In the assignment’s instructions, the professor said that although the lab was to be completed together, the report needed to be completed individually. The Honor Council recommended a zero on the assignment, a one-letter grade deduction in the final course grade, a two-year mark on his record and an educational program.

The Honor Council found a junior in a social sciences course responsible for plagiarism. The professor noticed distinctive phrases in the student’s paper and found that the student had copied the language after finding the original source online. The professor gave specific directions to not use additional sources beyond what had been given and discussed in class. After finding her responsible for plagiarism, the Honor Council learned that she had a prior Honor Code violation of a similar type. The Honor Council recommended the standard sanction for a second offense of the Honor Code: an F in the course, a permanent mark on her record and a one-semester suspension.

The Honor Council found a sophomore in a science course responsible for receiving unauthorized assistance on a quiz. The professor noticed that the student’s answers corresponded to a different version of the quiz. At the hearing, the student explained that he looked at another student’s answers because he was stressed and nervous. He also shared that he had a previous violation of the Honor Code from his freshman year. The Honor Council found the previous violation to be minor and did not recommend the standard sanction for a second offense. Instead, the Honor Council recommended an F in the course and a permanent mark on his record.

The Honor Council found a freshman in a humanities class responsible for plagiarism. The student said he altered an image from the internet and thought that it was then considered a new image, so he failed to cite the original source in an assignment. He said the professor did not give clear instructions about citing material in the assignment guidelines. The Honor Council determined that the professor could have provided clearer expectations, but the student ultimately plagiarized the image. The Honor Council recommended a zero on the assignment, a verbal warning and a mandatory Honor Code educational program.

The Honor Council found a freshman responsible for providing false information to a professor in a first-year course. The student asked a peer to sign him in as present on the attendance sheet when he was absent. In the course, students are evaluated on attendance. The student said he did not know this was an Honor Code violation, but the student accepted responsibility for the violation later at an expedited hearing. The Honor Council recommended the standard sanction of an unsatisfactory grade in the course and a two-year mark on his personal performance record.

The Honor Council found a freshman in a science class responsible for plagiarism. The student said she was overwhelmed from a heavy course load and forgot to cite some of the sources she used for an assignment. The Council found that the student demonstrated an understanding of the importance of citing sources in other parts of the assignment. However, more than half of the assignment came from unacknowledged sources. At an expedited hearing, the student accepted responsibility for the violation. The Honor Council recommended the standard sanction of an F in the course and a two-year mark on her personal performance record.

The Honor Council found a freshman in a science course responsible for plagiarizing an assignment. The student asked to use a friend’s assignment to serve as a model for his own, but he used almost all of his friend’s work and submitted it as his own. The assignment is worth 10 percent of the course grade. The student suggested that he and his classmate didn’t realize this was a form of plagiarism and that his classmate had also engaged in academic misconduct. The student requested an expedited hearing, in which the Honor Council recommended the standard sanction of an F in the course, a two-year mark on the student’s record and an educational program about the Honor Code.

The Honor Council found a junior in a science course responsible for plagiarism. The student submitted work that, according to the professor, looked suspiciously similar to another student’s work. The Honor Council determined that the similarities were too detailed to be coincidental. The student said he did not know the other student, leading the Honor Council to believe they may have independently assessed the same online resources. The Honor Council recommended the standard sanction of an F in the course and a two-year mark on his record. In an appeal, the student accepted responsibility for the violation but asked the Honor Council to modify the sanction to a passing grade so he would not fall behind in completing his major. The sanction was reduced to a zero on both assignments and a two-year mark on the record.

The Honor Council found a junior responsible for academic misconduct after allowing another student to look at a completed assignment to help generate ideas. The professor found that their assignments were nearly 50 percent identical. The Honor Council determined that the content must have been copied and pasted since the two papers contained identical phrases and grammatical issues. During a full hearing, the student said they understood sharing content gives other students an unfair disadvantage, but the student reported being unaware that the classmate was copying the assignment verbatim. After a successful appeal, the student received a sanction of a zero on the assignment and a one-year mark on the 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 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.