89.3 F

Davis, California

Friday, June 14, 2024

Campus Judicial Report

Don’t collaborate, but listen

A student was referred to Student Judicial Affairs (SJA) for copying and/or collaborating in a lower division course. Specifically, the student had answers on a take-home final that were markedly similar to the work of some other students. In the informal meeting with the judicial officer, the student admitted that he had worked with classmates on the exam but stated that he did not copy any of the work, and claimed that the professor did not explicitly prohibit collaboration on the assignment. However, the professor actually had stated that he did not allow collaboration. Moreover, if an instructor doesn’t say one way or the other if students can work together, university policy states that students must then assume that they cannot collaborate. The student agreed to the sanction of disciplinary probation, meaning that if he is referred and found guilty again, he will likely be suspended.

That’s what your group is for

A group of upperclassmen were referred to SJA for suspected stealing of another group’s work. In particular, the instructor noticed that the students had submitted a group project that was extremely similar to another group’s assignment, so she referred them to SJA and confronted them. The students admitted that they had looked at the other group’s work and had copied portions of it. SJA received the referral and assigned the sanctions of deferred separation and community service. Unlike disciplinary probation, when a student is on deferred separation status, he or she waives their right to a formal hearing if they are again referred for academic misconduct. Additionally, the instructor gave all of the students in the group a zero for the project.

Getting to the final straw

A student was referred to SJA for providing false information to an instructor in an upper division course. The student gave the instructor some assignments that allegedly had never been turned in. The student claimed that he had submitted the work and it had been graded, but the instructor must have forgotten to record the grades. However, the instructor noticed many suspicious discrepancies and referred the student to SJA. In his meeting with a judicial officer, the student admitted that he had fabricated the work in order to pass the class. Since the student was already on deferred separation due to a previous incident of academic misconduct, he received the sanction of suspension for two years. In addition, he will remain on deferred separation when he returns to Davis, and will likely be dismissed from the university if he is again found in violation of any dishonest conduct.

Campus Judicial Reports are compiled by members of STUDENT JUDICIAL AFFAIRS.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here