58.8 F
Davis

Davis, California

Thursday, October 21, 2021

Campus Judicial Report

A first-year student (Student A) was referred to Student Judicial Affairs (SJA) for possibly collaborating with or giving assistance to another student during an exam (Student B). Specifically, during the exam the proctor noticed that Student B was copying from the person sitting next to her, namely Student A. However, the proctor was unsure if Student A, the one being copied from, was intentionally allowing it, so both students were referred to SJA. In her meeting with a Judicial Officer, Student A stated that she had not known she was being copied from and did not in any way assist Student B. She said that she had been wholly focused on completing her own exam. Since there was no evidence of her having helped the other student, the university decided that Student A was innocent and no disciplinary sanctions were pursued against her.

A student was referred to SJA on suspicion of providing unauthorized assistance to another student in connection with a lower division class. In particular, the student was observed to be answering questions on two clickers, one for himself and one for someone else. In his meeting with a Judicial Officer, the student admitted that he had been answering the questions for his friend, who couldn’t be in class, even though the instructor had expressly stated that this is considered academic misconduct. The student agreed to accept a Censure, which is a formal warning that outlines the policies of the university, and to do some community service. If the student violates the Code of Academic Conduct again, he will face more serious disciplinary sanctions.

A student was referred to SJA for possible unauthorized assistance on his homework assignments. Specifically, the instructor noticed that the wording of the homework and the generally high grades of the individual assignments were inconsistent with the student’s test scores. Furthermore, the instructor noticed that the homework assignments were almost identical to the solutions manual. In the meeting with a Judicial Officer, the student admitted to having the solutions manual but claimed he only used it to double check his work. However, the student eventually admitted that although he didn’t think he was copying as he completed the homework, it was likely that he had inadvertently copied due to the close similarity of his assignments with the manual. He agreed to the disciplinary sanction of Deferred Separation.

CAMPUS JUDICIAL REPORTS are compiled by members of Student Judicial Affairs.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here