The following are letters sent to students brought before the Honor Council during Term II, 2000-2001
Dear _________:
You have been found in violation of the Lawrence University Honor Code for extensive use of another student’s work for your final exam and term paper in ________.
As discussed and agreed upon during the sanctioning conference on January 16, 2001, your sanction will be a zero on each assignment and F in course. Be advised that should you be found in violation of the Honor Code in the future, the information contained in this letter will be used in determining an appropriate sanction.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. The Council trusts that you recognize the seriousness of the violation and the threat it poses to the Lawrence University Honor System. Please do not hesitate to contact any member of the Honor Council or Dean Hemwall (x6530) with any questions or concerns you may have.
Sincerely,
The Honor Council
Dear _________:
You have been found in violation of the Lawrence University Honor Code for allowing another student to copy extensively from both your term paper and final exam in _______. It is the Council’s assessment that:
1. giving your paper to another student didn’t follow the spirit of the guidelines allowing for the discussion of ideas;
2. being willing to provide help on a test when it is explicitly forbidden suggests that you may well have allowed your paper to be used inappropriately by the other student;
3. giving a student your entire assignment even on one occasion is an extensive violation of the Honor Code.
Through your actions, you have intentionally impeded the academic pursuits of other students and violated the mutual trust between students and faculty upon which the university depends.
As discussed and agreed upon during the sanctioning conference on February 1, 2001, your sanction will be “0” on assignment and “F” in course. The sanction represents the severity of the violation and is consistent with the sanctions attached to similar violations in the past. Be advised that should you be found in violation of the Honor Code again, the contents of this letter may be used in determining an appropriate sanction.
Please do not hesitate to contact any member of the Honor Council or Dean Hemwall with any questions or concerns regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
The Honor Council
March 22, 2001
Dear _________:
You have been found in violation of the Lawrence University Honor Code for your involvement in the misrepresentation of your own work in your lab notebook, as well as for the falsification of official excuses during Term II of the 2000-01 academic year in ________.
First, it is the Council’s assessment that within your lab notebook:
1. You crossed the line between collaboration and copying. Both you and your partner had verbatim and identical conclusions in your labs. Because of this, it is impossible to tell the difference between your work and your partner’s. This unfairly advances your own academic effort and representative performance level.
2. You fail to recognize the considerable contributions of your lab partner, as your labs do not indicate independent work, thought, or ideas. Professor ______ explained [their] expectations of a lab notebook as one that contained highly personal and subjective versions of a lab session; obviously the data within a lab group will be identical, but subjective portions of a lab (i.e, introduction, conclusion, general observations) should not be.
3. Under questioning, you explained that you understood the difference between copying and collaboration on a paper or other assignment, but did not in a lab notebook. This lack of integration of these facts is alarming to the Council.
Second, it is the Council’s assessment you did, indeed, falsify documentation for unexcused absences:
1. The letter from ______ was determined to be false after a careful study of the dates involved, cross-examined with evidence from other documents and your own testimony.
2. The letter from ____ was also determined to be false by the Council. Your explanation that you created the document and simply brought it in to be signed on March 15, 2001 seems to be unlikely, due to a previous admission within your testimony. The date you cited as getting the document signed was two days later than the day the letter is dated. In addition, you declined to get an official document from ________.
By these infractions, you have unfairly advanced your academic performance and violated the mutual trust between students and faculty upon which the University depends. Consequently, the Council has assigned a sanction of a zero on your lab notebook for your misrepresentation of work and an “F” in course for the falsification of documents. These sanctions represent the severity of the violations and are consistent with the sanctions attached to similar violations in the past. Be advised that should you be found in violation of the Honor Code again, the contents of this letter may be used in determining an appropriate sanction.
Please do not hesitate to contact any member of the Honor Council or Dean Hemwall with any questions or concerns regarding this matter. You may appeal this decision to the President of the University within one week of receiving this letter.
Sincerely,
The Honor Council
March 22, 2001
Dear _______:
You have been found in violation of the Lawrence University Honor Code for your involvement in the misrepresentation of your own work in your lab notebook, as well as for a false explanation to obtain an excused absence during Term II of the 2000-01 academic year in _________.
First, it is the Council’s assessment that within your lab notebook:
4. You crossed the line between collaboration and copying. Both you and your partner had verbatim and identical conclusions in your labs. Because of this, it is impossible to tell the difference between your work and your partner’s. This unfairly advances your own academic effort and representative performance level.
5. You fail to recognize the considerable contributions of your lab partner, as your labs do not indicate independent work, thought, or ideas. Professor ______ explained [their] expectations of a lab notebook as one that contained highly personal and subjective versions of a lab session; obviously the data within a lab group will be identical, but subjective portions of a lab (i.e., introduction, conclusion, general observations) should not be.
6. Under questioning, you explained that you understood the difference between copying and collaboration on a paper or other assignment, but did not in a lab notebook. This lack of integration of these facts is alarming to the Council.
Second, it is the Council’s assessment you did, indeed, misrepresent the reason for missing your quiz on Friday, February 23 to Professor _______.
By these infractions, you have unfairly advanced your academic performance and violated the mutual trust between students and faculty upon which the University depends. Consequently, the Council has assigned a sanction of a zero on your lab notebook for your misrepresentation of work and a two letter grade reduction in course for misrepresenting the reason for missing your quiz. These sanctions represent the severity of the violations and are consistent with the sanctions attached to similar violations in the past. Be advised that should you be found in violation of the Honor Code again, the contents of this letter may be used in determining an appropriate sanction.
Please do not hesitate to contact any member of the Honor Council or Dean Hemwall with any questions or concerns regarding this matter. You may appeal this decis
ion to the President of the University within one week of receiving this letter.
Sincerely,
The Honor Council