These public summaries are meant to better inform the University student body about the workings of the Honor System in regard to the major issues brought forth at Honor hearings. These summaries are in no way meant or permitted to be used as a system of precedent, binding or otherwise. Per the Honor Committee’s By-laws, Public Summaries are not relevant evidence at Honor hearings. Each case reported to the Honor Committee is judged independently on the specific facts of that case at each stage of the adjudicative process.
The male pronoun is used only for consistency. All public summaries are meant to be gender-neutral.
Public Summaries from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Conscientious Retractions
The Honor System permits a student to atone for his or her mistakes by filing a Conscientious Retraction (CR). A valid and complete CR involves the admission of a possible Honor Offense before the student has reason to believe that such offense has come under suspicion by anyone.
CR 1: In January, a student submitted a CR for using a cell phone as unauthorized aid during an exam.
CR 2: In January, a student submitted a CR for lying in the process of the application for a leadership position in a CIO.
CR 3: In February, a student submitted a Conscientious Retraction for lying about a timestamp to avoid a grade deduction.
CR 4: In March, a student submitted a Conscientious Retraction for cheating on a take-home midterm by using unauthorized aid.
CR 5: In August, a student submitted a Conscientious Retraction for stealing from the University Bookstore.
CR 6: In September, a student submitted a Conscientious Retraction for cheating on a take-home quiz by using unauthorized aid.
CR 7: In November, a student submitted a Conscientious Retraction for lying.”
CR 8: In December, a student submitted a Conscientious Retraction for lying about class attendance.”
CR 9: In December, a student submitted a Conscientious Retraction for lying by signing a class attendance sheet on behalf of another student.”
CR 10: In December a student submitted a Conscientious Retraction for cheating on a final exam by copying off another student.”
CR 11: In December, a student submitted a Conscientious Retraction for cheating on a French assignment.”
CR 12: In December, a student submitted a Conscientious Retraction for cheating on an iClicker question.”
Informed Retractions
The Informed Retraction (IR) permits a student to atone for his or her mistakes after an Honor Report has been made. An IR is predicated on a student taking responsibility for the commission of an Honor Offense and making amends with all affected parties. A student must then take a two-semester leave of absence from the University.
IR 1: In January, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for cheating by plagiarizing in a paper.
IR 2: In February, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for plagiarizing on a creative writing assignment.
IR 3: In February, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for using unauthorized materials in completing a homework assignment.
IR 4: In February, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for cheating on a final exam through unauthorized collaboration.
IR 5: In February, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for cheating on a final exam by attempting to look at the exam of his neighbor.
IR 6: In February, a student submitted an IR for cheating on a final exam by using unauthorized aid and looking at the sheet of a neighboring student.
IR 7: In February, a student submitted an IR for lying about attendance in a class.
IR 8: In February, a student submitted an IR for lying to a professor about the submission of a final paper.
IR 9: In May, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for cheating on a homework assignment by using unauthorized sources.
IR 9: In June a student submitted an Informed Retraction for cheating by submitting another student’s assignment as his/ her own work.
IR 10: In October, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for plagiarizing elements of an English paper ”
IR 11: In November, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for plagiarizing elements of an Religion paper."
IR 12: In November, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for cheating by using unauthorized resources on an exam"
IR 13: In November, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for cheating on an exam ”
IR 14: In November, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for cheating on an exam”
IR 15: In December, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for cheating on an exam by copying from another student.”
IR 16: In December, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for cheating on an exam by copying from another student.”
IR 17: In December, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for lying by falsifying a doctor’s note.”
IR 18: In December, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for cheating by plagiarizing an assignment.”
Leaving Admitting Guilt
At any point during the Honor process, a student may waive his or her right to an investigation and/or hearing and Leave Admitting Guilt (“LAG”).
Honor Hearings
Hearing 1: In April, a student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of cheating on a midterm exam in a religion course by pre-writing answers in the test booklet he brought with him into the exam. The case was reported by the professor. The Community argued that the student had previously prepared answers to the exam questions, which were provided in advance, and that the student entered the test with these responses in hand. The Accused Student argued that the evidence indicative of pre-written answers in exam in question was a part of his particular method of writing and organizing his exam. A panel of randomly selected students and Honor Committee members found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.
Hearing 2: In April, a student in the McIntire School of Commerce was accused of Cheating on a final project. The case was reported by a student. The Community argued that any instance of copying material without proper attribution was cheating. The Accused Student argued that he was unaware of the requirement to use original content due to the unclear policies throughout the course. A panel of randomly-selected students founded the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and knowledge.
Hearing 3: In May, a student in the School of Engineering & Applied Sciences was accused of Cheating on two exams in a Commerce class by using another student’s notes to comprise his cheat sheet and having a cheat sheet longer than the allowed number of pages. The case was reported by a teaching assistant. The Community argued a reasonable UVA student should have known that using another student’s notes for their cheat sheet and having a cheat sheet longer than allowed is a violation of the Honor code. The Accused Student argued that his cheat sheet was his own work because he compiled and organized the material and that sharing notes was allowed in this class. He also argued that he had valid reasons for not understanding the page limit for his cheat sheet. A panel of randomly selected students and Honor Committee members found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.
Hearing 4: In November, a student in the School of Continuing and Professional Studies was accused of Cheating on one written assignment. The case was reported by the professor. The Community argued that the student 1) failed to cite one source for two sentences and 2) inappropriately cited a second source for one sentence. The Community further argued that the student admitted guilt through e-mails to the professor. The Accused Student argued that the student had no Knowledge of Cheating on the written assignment when it was submitted and it was as a result of 1) a misinterpreted citation in the student’s note and 2) the three sentences were copied in the final paper from the student’s note. The Accused Student further argued that the Act was not Significant and the student did not admit guilt through email to the professor. A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Act and Knowledge.
Public Summaries from February 17, 2015 to December 31, 2015
Conscientious Retractions
The Honor System permits a student to atone for his or her mistakes by filing a Conscientious Retraction (CR). A valid and complete CR involves the admission of a possible Honor Offense before the student has reason to believe that such offense has come under suspicion by anyone.
CR 1: In April, a student filed a CR for cheating on a homework assignment by collaborating with another student.
CR 2: In November, a student submitted a CR for giving unauthorized aid to two students working on a take-home exam.
CR 3: In November, a student submitted a CR for using unauthorized materials on a take home exam
CR 4: In December, a student submitted a Conscientious Retraction for falsifying class attendance on a sign-in sheet.
Informed Retractions
The Informed Retraction (IR) permits a student to atone for his or her mistakes after an Honor Report has been made. An IR is predicated on a student taking responsibility for the commission of an Honor Offense and making amends with all affected parties. A student must then take a two-semester leave of absence from the University.
IR 1: In February, a student filed an IR for cheating on an exam by looking at the paper of a student near him.
IR 2: In May, a student filed an IR for cheating on a computer science homework assignment by copying code from another student.
IR 3: In May, a student filed an IR for plagiarizing his part of a group assignment.
IR 4: In May, a student filed an IR for submitting as her own a student’s assignment from a previous year.
IR 5: In September, a student filed an IR for plagiarizing elements of a final paper in an economics class.
IR 6: In September, a student filed an IR for taking an assignment off of his roommate's computer without his permission, and submitting that assignment as his own work.
IR 7: In September, a student filed an IR for unauthorized collaboration on a take-home final exam that was intended to be an individual assignment.
IR 8: In October, a student filed an IR for lying about an exam grade using a fabricated test in order to have the TA change his grade in the grade book.
IR 9: In October, a student filed an IR for lying about reasons for needing to withdraw from a summer class.
IR 10: In November, a student filed an IR for stealing by finding another student’s wallet and using his credit card to pay for groceries.
IR 11: In December, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for collaborating on an online exam.
IR 12: In December, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for collaborating on an online exam.
IR 13: In December, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for collaborating on an online exam.
IR 14: In December, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for collaborating on an online exam.
IR 15: In December, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for cheating on an assessment by getting the answers in an earlier section of the class.
IR 16: In December, a student submitted an Informed Retraction for cheating on an exam through unauthorized collaboration.
Leaving Admitting Guilt
At any point during the Honor process, a student may waive his or her right to an investigation and/or hearing and Leave Admitting Guilt (“LAG”).
LAG 1: In October, a student Left Admitting Guilt for stealing medical equipment during his medical rotations.
LAG 2: In December, a student Left Admitting Guilt for plagiarizing on several writing assignments in an English class.
Honor Hearings
Hearing 1: A student in the College of Arts & Sciences was accused of Cheating on four laboratory reports in a Chemistry class. The case was reported by the professor. The Community argued that the student plagiarized significant portions of text and figures from a previous year’s student. Moreover, the Community argued that the student admitted to committing an Honor offense in an exchange of emails with the professor. The Accused Student argued that scientific writing is restrictive and reports are expected to have similarities. The student met with the previous year’s student to gain clarity on the structure and format of the lab reports and to learn how to concisely write the reports. A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student guilty.
Hearing 2: A student in the College of Arts and Sciences was accused of cheating on a final exam by using unauthorized resources. Another student in the course reported the case. The Community argued that the student was witnessed accessing both electronic and paper resources repeatedly throughout the exam. They argued that the accused student’s recounting of the events in question were inconsistent with the resources turned in at the end of the exam. They argued that the use of these unauthorized resources would constitute cheating and be incompatible with a Community of Trust. The accused student argued that she only used authorized paper resources, including sheets of scratch paper designed for calculations, and that while her electronic resource was not in fact an authorized resource, it was used only for authorized functions. This function included primarily its use as a calculator, and that she derived no tangible benefit beyond what was explicitly allowed for the final exam. A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student not guilty on the basis of Significance.
Hearing 3: A student in the College of Arts and Sciences was accused of cheating on several homework assignments in a computer science class and then lying about his actions. The case was reported by the course professor. After the professor received the homework assignments (all submitted at once after their deadlines had passed), he determined that it was very likely that the Accused Student copied large sections of code from his lab partner. The professor subsequently confronted both students and ultimately decided that only the Accused Student was involved in the act of cheating. The Community argued that the Accused Student copied the work of another student in the class — the Accused Student’s lab partner — and then turned in the work claiming it as his own. The Accused Student, while acknowledging that the assignments were submitted through his email account and likely copied from another student, argued that he did not actually send those emails or even complete the assignments in the first place. The Accused Student then suggested that it was possible another person had access to his NetBadge account and independently submitted the homework assignments. The Community countered that it would be highly difficult for another student to gain access to his NetBadge account, carry on a conversation with the professor over many hours, and know exactly which homework assignments to submit for credit, all without the Accused Student’s knowledge. The Community concluded by arguing the Accused Student submitted the homework assignments knowing that they were copied, and then knowingly lied about it to avoid further consequences, two acts that are detrimental to the Community of Trust. A mixed panel of randomly-selected students and Committee members found the student guilty of both lying and cheating.
Hearing 4: A student in the College was accused of cheating by using unauthorized materials on a closed-book in-class exam in a history class. The case was reported by a student who was sitting behind the accused student. The Community argued that the student had several scraps of paper that appeared to be ripped from a notebook paper and that the student was consistently taking them out of his pocket, shielding them from the students around him and studying the notes on the scraps. The Community also claimed that the student did well on the relatively fact-based portion of the exam because of the notes and poorly on the analytical portion. The Accused argued that the scraps of paper were gum wrappers, and that the student did not cheat on the exam. He simply replaced his gum two or three times throughout the exam period. Because the reporter did not directly see any written material on the scraps of paper, they claimed the student could not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A mixed panel of Committee members and randomly-selected student panelists found the student not guilty because there was not enough evidence outside of the testimony of one eye-witness (the reporter) to prove that cheating occurred beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hearing 5: A student in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences was accused of cheating on an assignment by soliciting unauthorized aid on an online platform of freelancers. The case was reported by the professor for the course. The Community argued that the Accused Student posted on the website in order to have a freelancer complete the final report of his assignment and that the freelancers potentially contributed to his submitted. The Community argued that a reasonable student would know this use of unauthorized aid would constitute an act of cheating. The Accused Student argued he only sought help from freelancers in order to learn from their work and improve his independently-completed assignment, and that he did not ultimately receive any assistance from the freelancers with whom he was in contact. A panel of randomly-selected students found the Accused Student not guilty of cheating on the basis of Act and Knowledge.