Anthropological Cheater
A first-year was referred to Student Judicial Affairs for allegedly plagiarizing an essay in a lower-division anthropology class. The matter came to the teaching assistant’s attention when she noticed that one paragraph of the essay was significantly better written and more accurate than the rest of the essay. The TA then discovered that large portions of the paragraph were copied verbatim from two online articles and noted that the student had not cited these articles. The student admitted to plagiarizing, stating that he did not know how to properly cite sources. The student agreed to the disciplinary action of Disciplinary Probation through Spring 2013. In addition to the probation, the student is required to meet with a writing specialist at the Student Academic Success Center and to commit to five hours of community service.
High on Chemistry
A TA for a chemistry lab reported a student to SJA after the student came to lab apparently intoxicated from using marijuana. In addition, the head TA and another TA reported that the student had also arrived more than half an hour late, had not completed her pre-lab and was being disruptive. In her meeting with a judicial officer, the student stated that she may have smoked marijuana earlier in the day but denied that she was high when she got to the lab. However, she admitted that she had been drinking and may still be under the influence. The student and SJA agreed that the student was “in violation” for engaging in conduct that threatened the health and safety of other students because of the heightened chance of a lab safety mishap. The student, who had been referred to SJA before, agreed to the disciplinary sanction of Deferred Separation. This means that if she is again referred to SJA, she waives her right to a formal hearing and, if found in violation by a judicial officer at an informal hearing, she will likely be suspended or dismissed from the university.
Midterm Collaboration
Three biological science students were reported to SJA for collaborating with each other on a take-home midterm exam by sharing and copying each other’s answers. The TAs who were grading the exams noticed that answers given by these students were especially similar, including nearly identical drawings that were unique to the three students. Each student gave a different description of what happened when they each met with the judicial officer. All three admitted that they had collaborated on the midterm although this was not permitted and agreed to be placed on Deferred Separation status.
