Honor Council Precedents - Lawrence University

Term	alleged violation	Decision	Circumstances
Winter 2006	Violating parameters, misrepresenting work done on quiz, and plagiarism	1. F in course 2. Educational sanction	Student misrepresented work done by lying to the professor about taking a quiz Student violated exam parameters by speaking during quizzes when it was explicitly prohibited. Student paraphrased and copied verbatim from sources that were improperly cited or not cited at all. The Educational Sanction was assigned to teach proper paraphrasing technique.
Winter 2006	Violating exam parameters	1. Two letter grade deduction on exam	No evidence of cheating but by student’s own admission had spoken during the test, which had been explicitly prohibited
Winter 2006	Cheating on exam	1. No violation	Not enough evidence of cheating on the mid-term.
Winter 2006	Plagiarism	Zero on the assignment F in course Recommendation to Faculty Subcommittee for separation from University	Sufficient evidence of a completely plagiarized paper. Third violation.
Winter 2006	Plagiarism	1. Zero on the assignment 2. F in the course	Entire paper was taken verbatim except for the concluding paragraph.
Winter 2006	Plagiarism on extra credit assignment	1. Zero on the assignment 2. Two-letter grade reduction in the course	Student plagiarized an extensive amount of an essay directly from an online source. Did provide the name of the source but did not give sufficient credit to the author. The Council did not take the fact that it was an extra credit assignment into consideration
Winter 2006	Plagiarism	1. Zero on the assignment 2. Two letter grade reduction in the course	Student used the structure, phrasing, and ideas from another student's previously submitted paper in his/her paper
Winter 2006	Plagiarism	1. Zero on the assignment 2. Two letter grade reduction in the course	Student used the structure, phrasing, and ideas from another student's previously submitted paper in his/her paper. The sanction was the same as that for another student who committed the same violation in the same term

Term	alleged violation	Decision	Circumstances
Spring 2006	Plagiarism	1. Zero on the assignment 2. F in the course	Majority of student's paper was taken directly from an outside source with no attempt at citation
Spring 2006	Cheating on exam; Violating exam parameters	1. Zero on the exam 2. F in the course	Student used unauthorized materials on the exam and, more importantly, deceived the professor by changing his answers and the professor's corrections in an attempt to gain extra points on the exam.
Spring 2006	Plagiarism on a draft	1. Zero on the draft 2. 2-letter grade reduction in the course 3. Recommendation to Faculty Subcommittee for a one-term suspension from University 4. Educational Sanction	The draft was extensively plagiarized: a large portion of the paper was a compilation of almost verbatim passages from various sources. The suspension was for second violation. The educational sanction was to meet with Dean Gajewski before the submission of the student's next paper
Spring 2006	Plagiarism on a draft	1. Zero on the draft 2. F in the course 3. Recommendation to Faculty Subcommittee for a one-term suspension from University 4. Educational Sanction	With the exception of the introduction and the conclusion, the draft was basically a reproduction of an article (mostly verbatim). The student copied both the text, the argument and the structure of the article. The suspension was for second violation. The educational sanction was to meet with Dean Gajewski before the submission of next paper
Spring 2006	Unauthorized collaboration on a take home midterm	1. Zero on assignment 2. 1-letter grade reduction in the course	The Student discussed the approaches to one section of the exam with another student. A fairly large amount of the work on that section was nevertheless done independently by both students, which made the offense less egregious.
Spring 2006	Unauthorized collaboration on a take home midterm	1. Zero on assignment 2. 1-letter grade reduction in the course	Student discussed the approaches to one section of the exam with another student. A fairly large amount of the work on that section was nevertheless done independently by both students, which made the offense less egregious.