Imagine you've just been accused of an academic honor principle violation. Your professor calls you into her office, your work in hand. Your palms are sweating and your stomach is in knots. It could be a missing citation, a little too much collaboration or paraphrasing-turned-plagiarism. She informs you that she is obligated to tell the Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Office about her suspicions. How did this happen?
PRINCIPLE
The academic honor principle harkens back to 1962, when the College faculty voted unanimously and was supported by a student vote to adopt a resolution that "all academic activities will be based on student honor," according to the Dartmouth Student Handbook.
Students are expected to uphold the standards of academic integrity and professors are expected to trust their students. In theory, it's a wonderful idea. In reality, it's a complicated policy, and approximately 25 students run into trouble with it every academic year.
VIOLATION
It was freshman Spring when Mary* '11 began experiencing medical problems that caused her to miss a significant number of classes. She underwent a procedure at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and, immediately upon returning to Dartmouth, had to write a paper for an engineering class.
"I just essentially was really out of it I'd been away from campus for a while, I was on a lot of medicine, depressed, far away from home," she said.
Mary admits that attempting to write the paper for the original deadline was a bad idea and that she should have asked for an extension. The citations in her paper were "off," and some sections of attempted paraphrasing looked more like plagiarism, she said. Mary soon received a call from her professor, who described to her the suspected violation.
Jonathan* '11 said he was "severely depressed" while taking two lab classes during his sophomore Winter. With his parents pressuring him to be pre-med, he took classes he hated and struggled to find direction at Dartmouth.
In order to complete a lab report due at the end of the term, he borrowed a friend's finished report and copied two or three sections of it.
Jonathan's professor called him into her office at the end of the term.
At the end of his sophomore Winter, Bruce* '11 was notified of a problem with a paper he had written by a tearful engineering professor.
Writing the paper from 2 to 5 a.m. the day it was due, Bruce had forgotten to include his citations.
"It was accidental, but I guess it doesn't really matter," he said.
The three students said they do not resent the professors, who they said were simply doing their jobs and were supportive throughout the judicial affairs process. The process had nevertheless been set in motion.
OPTIONS AND SUPPORT
When a student is accused of an academic honor principle violation, he or she meets with Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Office director Nathan Miller. Students are not automatically suspended, but suspension is a possible sanction, according to Miller.
"All academic honor cases are charged at the serious misconduct level because it is a cornerstone of our institution," he said.
UJAO also distributes a packet of information about the judicial process and available resources to every student accused of an academic honor principle violation, according to Miller.
Students who admit fault can request a one-on-one meeting with a senior dean or have a hearing in front of the Committee On Standards. Students who don't admit fault automatically have a full COS hearing. The COS panel consists of two students, two faculty members, one administrator and the non-voting Chair, according to the Dartmouth College Student Handbook. Members of the COS panel rotate for each hearing.
Mary, who gathered support from doctors and a lawyer to help her case, chose to deny fault and opted for a COS hearing. While Mary had heard that the COS was generally more lenient in its sanctions, Jonathan chose to admit fault and meet with a dean one-on-one, because he had heard that deans were not as harsh as the COS. Bruce admitted his mistake and also had a one-on-one meeting with a dean.
Miller said that his office tries to connect students with as many support mechanisms as possible, and helps students tap into the resources offered by each student's campus involvement, such as athletics, Greek affiliation or religious groups.
Bruce found that students who had previously gone through the process were the most supportive, because they understood the uncertainty and shame he felt.
"There's just this pressure, this tension in your chest that nobody can understand," he said. "There's just this huge degree of uncertainty in your whole life."
Mary said her dean was very supportive, but Jonathan said he felt as though there were few places to turn throughout the process. All three students said their parents were supportive, but Bruce added that a friend tried to hide her own violation from her parents for longer than seemed healthy. Another friend of Bruce's who was also accused of an honor code violation was unable to eat or sleep, because she was worried about how the allegation and possible suspension would affect her goal of going to medical school after graduation.
DECISION
After the meetings and hearings, Bruce was suspended for one term, Jonathan for three and Mary for four. Once the decision of suspension is made, students have 48 hours to leave campus and are not permitted to return until they are re-admitted to the College.
Although the students all said they agreed that they deserved some kind of punishment, Mary and Jonathan believed that their punishment seemed too harsh for the violation they had committed.
"It was very much a prejudged situation where the mitigating circumstances were not taken into account at all," Mary said.
Jonathan said he wished more emphasis had been placed on ensuring he got help for his depression. The dean recommended that he see a therapist, but he knew his parents would not support the idea unless it was a requirement, so he never actually talked to a mental health professional.
The students all appealed their decisions, but none was able to change the ruling. As an international student, Bruce was in a particularly precarious position because his student visa status changed with the dean's decision to suspend him. Instead of the usual 48 hours to leave campus, he was given about 18 hours to leave the country.
Although Bruce said he is still undecided as to whether his own punishment was fair, he believes the process has treated some of his friends unfairly.
"The process is unfair in that [deans and COS members] are blind to the needs of students in specific cases," he said. "If a student with less economic resources were in my position, I think the College would have made the same decision and I don't know what that kid would do without money to fly out of this country."
While students who have gone through the process feel that individual circumstances play a insufficient role in the COS's sanctioning considerations, UJAO literature states that certain factors don't count as mitigating circumstances.
"The COS has not tended to view students' carelessness, exhaustion, illness, class year, nationality, financial circumstances, remorse, etc. as mitigating circumstances that should alter a sanction," according to the COS academic honor principle violation sanctioning considerations.
In 79 percent of the 99 academic honor principle cases between 2005 and 2010 for which students were found responsible for the violation, the student received a one to eight term suspension. Of the 120 total cases in that period, 17.5 percent of the students were found not responsible for the violation.
CONSEQUENCES
Jonathan and Mary were able to get internships during their time off campus, but Bruce said the prolonged uncertainty of his case's outcome prevented him from making definite plans for his time away from campus. Instead, he quickly chose a conveniently-located country where he had connections and spent his sophomore Spring reading and training for a marathon.
After their suspensions, students must provide references for re-admittance to the College. The students said the references could be from anyone who vouched that they had done something productive during their time away.
Both Mary and Jonathan said their internships and their time away from campus were valuable experiences, and Jonathan was able to reevaluate his priorities and choose a new major when he returned to campus.
Bruce said his time away also changed his values he came back to the College less focused on social fulfillment and almost single-mindedly focused on academics.
Jonathan said he felt alienated upon his return to Dartmouth because he was no longer on any blitz lists it was like a "black hole." He was also forced to miss his sophomore Summer, and therefore missed an important opportunity to bond with his class.
Mary said her suspension has had no long-term effects whatsoever, while Bruce and Jonathan said it may be too soon to tell whether it will affect graduate school and employment opportunities down the road.
The process is emotionally taxing and difficult for all students, regardless of whether they are suspended, Bruce said.
"I think one thing that it's hard for students to see is life goes on and things work out, one way or another," he said.
*Students' names have been changed due to the sensitive nature of topic.
