87.6 F
Davis

Davis, California

Wednesday, July 17, 2024

Campus judicial report

Go To Class!

An Animal Biology major was referred to SJA for allegedly completing and submitting an in-class assignment that bore the name of the student’s friend, who was absent from the class that day. Initially, the student denied the allegations, but eventually the student admitted that he had been asked by his absent friend to complete and turn in the assignment. The student agreed to be placed on disciplinary probation through Fall Quarter 2012 and to complete 10 hours of community service.  If the student is found in violation again for further misconduct while on probation, there would be grounds for suspension or dismissal. The student who had his friend complete the assignment for him was also referred to SJA.

“A Lack Of Moral Fiber”

The UC Davis Police referred a sophomore student for stealing a laptop from a bathroom in Shields Library. Instead of taking the computer to the lost and found, the student kept the laptop and the student had his roommate erase all of the owner’s content and information. The referred student agreed to a “voluntary withdrawal” from the university for Spring Quarter 2012. This means he withdrew from the university in lieu of receiving a suspension. He will be on deferred separation status upon his return to school.

A MiSiNteRprEtaTion

A senior student in a genetics class was reported to SJA by his professor for having a suspicious answer on a midterm that suggested he might have copied from another student during the exam. The professor reported that while the student was given one version of the midterm, the student’s answer to one of the questions reflected information found in the same problem for the second version. Specifically, the midterm exam required the writing of upper-case and lower-case letters to designate dominant or recessive genes.  In this case, the particular letter the student used as his phenotype triggered the professor’s suspicion of copying off someone else because the student used the phenotype given in the other version of the exam. However the student  gave a logical and convincing explanation for why he had used the particular phenotype. The student was not found in violation and the charges against him were dropped.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here