Sample Cases

Fundamental Standard

A student was charged with stealing credit cards from two roommates and using them to make unauthorized purchases totaling over $900. The student did not contest the charges. A judicial panel found her responsible for two violations of the Fundamental Standard.

Sanctions: Four-quarter delay in the conferral of degree and restitution to the roommates.

A student was charged with violating the Fundamental Standard by continually disrupting a class and preventing an effective class section by shouting, yelling, debating, screaming, imploring, and by other verbal and non-verbal means. The student contested the charges. A judicial panel found him responsible for violating the Fundamental Standard, stating, “The infraction was severe in its disruption of a central mission of the university.”

Sanctions: One-quarter suspension (suspension suspended while on three-quarter probation), plus 40 hours of community service.

A student was charged with unlawfully possessing and using alcohol during a University activity and with causing injury to another student. He admitted to violating the University’s Alcohol Policy but contested the Fundamental Standard charge. A judicial panel found him responsible for violating the Fundamental Standard.

Sanctions: One-quarter suspension and one-quarter probation. If the terms of the probation are violated, then another one-quarter suspension goes into effect.

A student was charged with installing a fake login program on several computers in a public cluster, capturing user names and passwords of other students, using them to read personal correspondence, and then attempting a cover up by placing the fake login program into the account of one of the “captured” students. The charge was not contested. A judicial panel found the student responsible for violating the Fundamental Standard by misusing University property; by accessing an account without authorization; by invading others’ privacy; and impersonating other students.

Sanction:

1. Conditional suspension: Student shall remain suspended through the end of the next Quarter in which student was academically eligible to re-enroll.
2. One-quarter of suspended suspension.
3. Eighty hours of community service
4. Probation until the conferral of the terminal degree. If the student is found responsible of another Fundamental Standard violation, then the one-quarter suspension will go into effect.

A graduate student was charged with forging the names of two university officials on a Leave of Absence petition. The student did not contest the charge.  A judicial panel found her responsible for violating the Fundamental Standard.

Sanctions: 60 hours of community service. Probation until the conferral of degree. If the student violates the Honor Code or Fundamental Standard again, a one-quarter suspension will go into immediate effect, in addition to any new penalties assessed for the second offense.

A student was charged with a Fundamental Standard violation based on her aggressive and abusive behavior towards her TA, including spitting on and swearing at him during his office hours. The student did not contest the charge. A judicial panel found her responsible for violating the Fundamental Standard.

Sanctions: 40 hours of community service. Probation until the conferral of degree. If the student violates the Fundamental Standard again, a one-quarter suspension will go into immediate effect, in addition to any new penalties assessed for the second offense.

Back to top

Honor Code

A student was charged with violating the Honor Code by submitting a Master’s degree thesis paper plagiarized from three published works. In addition, he was charged with violating the Fundamental Standard by submitting the unauthorized photocopied signature of his thesis advisor to indicate approval for the paper. The student contested the charges. A judicial panel found the student responsible for violating both the Honor Code and the Fundamental Standard.

Sanction: The judicial panel recommended expulsion. That decision was reviewed by the Provost, as required by the Charter, and upheld.

Two students were charged with violating the Honor Code by turning in computer science programs containing substantially identical code. They admitted discussing the assignment and reviewing class notes together (both being permitted).  One student claimed she gave her completed assignment to her friend/classmate because he needed help on the assignment. The friend/classmate copied substantial portions of the code. The latter student did not contest receiving unpermitted aid; the former student did contest giving unpermitted aid. The judicial panel found both students responsible for violating the Honor Code for their respective roles in this case.

Sanctions: Both students were given a one-quarter suspension. In addition, the “giving” student was assessed 40 hours of community service, and the “receiving” student was assessed 60 hours.

A student was charged with submitting a final examination for regrade that contained altered material. The student contested the charges. The judicial panel found that he had photocopied the exam with slips of paper covering the original answers and had then written in new answers and grading notations. The panel found him responsible for violating the Honor Code.

Sanctions: One-quarter suspension and 40 hours of community service.

A student was charged with copying from another student’s exam during an in-class test.   Another classmate complained to the TA that the student had moved into the seat next to him despite a request for alternate seating. The student moved when asked, but then sat directly behind a third classmate. When the TA was in the room to answer questions, he noted that the student appeared to be looking at the third student’s exam.  After the exams were turned in, the TA compared the exams of these two students and found many striking similarities. There was no evidence that the third classmate had any knowledge of the copying. The first student contested the charge. A judicial panel found the student responsible for violating the Honor Code.

Sanctions: Because this student had a previous Honor Code violation, the judicial panel assessed a three-quarter suspension, effective immediately, and 60 hours of community service.

Two graduate students were charged with giving and receiving unpermitted aid on a take-home quiz. The class directions specifically required individual work. The misconduct came to the instructor’s attention by a fellow student who found and turned in a printout of email exchanged between the two students discussing the quiz question. The suspected receiver of aid contended she was only trying to clarify the exam question with her friend/classmate. The suspected giver of aid contended that he had only wanted to help his friend but had not specifically given her the answer. A judicial panel found both students responsible for violating the Honor Code.

Sanctions: Both students were given a one-quarter delay in the conferral of their degree and 60 hours of community service.

A student re-enrolled in a course she had taken the previous year. The instructor emailed her, explaining that using the previous year’s solution set would be considered a violation of the HonorCode. Subsequently, the student submitted two problem sets utilizing the problem set solutions from the previous year. She did not contest the charge. A judicial panel found the student responsible for violating the Honor Code.

Sanctions: Because this student had a previous Honor Code violation, this judicial panel assessed a three-quarter suspension; however, the third quarter was suspended and the student was placed on probation for the remainder of her Stanford career; in addition, the student was assessed 60 hours of community service.

A student turned in a final exam that was strikingly similar to the answer key. The similarities included omissions, errors and multiple answers to questions. Each question on the exam exactly modeled the answer key. It was unknown how the student gained access to the answer key. The student contested the charges. A judicial panel found the student responsible for violating the Honor Code.

Sanctions: One-quarter suspension, 40 hours of community service and loss of computer privileges, effective immediately.

A senior, writing the final paper of his Stanford career, turned in a paper that did not properly identify quotations or cite sources. He admitted the paper was not his best effort, but maintained there was no attempt to pass off the words of others as his own.  The student agreed that the citations could have been better, but claimed they were unintentional errors and should not be considered a violation of the Honor Code. A judicial panel found the student responsible for violating the Honor Code, stating, “the transferring of words and sentences of another, without appropriate citation or acknowledgment” is plagiarism and a reasonable student should have known that this was unpermitted.

Sanctions: If the student received a passing grade in the course and was thus eligible to graduate, the sanction was a two-quarter delay in the conferral of the degree and 40 hours of community service. If the student did not pass the course, the sanction was a one-quarter suspension and 40 hours of community service.

A student submitted a project that was virtually identical to that of another student in the course. The misconduct was discovered when a TA contacted the other student, asking why she had not submitted her project. This student claimed she had submitted it prior to the deadline and immediately brought in copies of her drafts. The TA recognized the drafts were substantially similar to work turned in by the first student.  In a follow-up project due several days later, the assignment turned in by the first student did not follow the format of his original submission. He contested the charge that he had violated the HonorCode. A judicial panel found him responsible.

Sanctions: Because this student had a previous Fundamental Standard violation, the judicial panel assessed him a five-quarter suspension and 80 hours of community service. The judicial panel took into consideration, as aggravating circumstances, that this student copied an assignment in its entirety, that he had jeopardized another student’s class standing by removing her project from the grading box and submitting it as his own work, and had lied about his whereabouts throughout the judicial process.

A non-matriculated student was charged with using unpermitted aid by taking and submitting a late exam that was strikingly similar to the answer key (which already had been posted on the web in order for students to request regrades). Students who were permitted to take the exam late had promised not to view the answer key prior to completing the exam. The student contested the charges. A judicial panel found the student responsible for violating the Honor Code, stating: “Taking into account both our own evaluation and all of the witness’ opinions, we find the similarities between the student’s test answers and the answer key – in style, structure and precise wording – and the discrepancy between the performance on this exam and on others, to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. [The student]…did not provide adequate explanation to counter the above.”

Sanctions: One-quarter suspension and 40 hours of community service.

Two students were charged with collaborating on a take-home exam and on an in-class exam given several days later. The TA grading the in-class exams noted unique similarities in the two exams. The instructor then decided to review the take-home exams of these two students and noted substantial similarities.   The instructions for the take-home exam allowed students to discuss course materials but not how the principles of the course applied to the case study on the exam. The students contested the charges, arguing that the similarities were due to their having been study partners all quarter and sharing the same set of notes. They claimed they had not collaborated on their answers nor shared completed work. A judicial panel found both students responsible for violating the Honor Code, stating, “Although we acknowledge that several sentences were from the textbook and/or the case study, there were other troubling similarities. In particular, there were examples of identical word choice, punctuation, sentence structure, and additions of portions that are not included in the case materials, but which were consistent among the exams. Moreover, there were mathematic idiosyncrasies, mathematical notations, and explanation of mathematical portions that were identical.”

Sanctions: One student received a two-quarter delay in the conferral of her degree and 40 hours of community service. The second student, who had previously been held responsible for violating the Honor Code, was given a three-quarter suspension and 80 hours of community service.

A TA entering an exam room to announce the time remaining to complete the exam noticed a student peering over the shoulder of a classmate.  After the exams were turned in, the TA compared these two exams and noted striking similarities, including identical unique and incorrect answers. The student did not contest the charges. A judicial panel found the student responsible for violating the Honor Code.

Sanctions: One-quarter suspension and 40 hours of community service.

A student was charged with receiving unpermitted aid on an in-class exam. The TA grading the exam noted that on six of the questions the student had either incorrect work or no work shown, yet had the correct answers. The exam instructions clearly stated that all work must be shown. The student told the instructor she had done the work on scratch paper she then discarded. The instructor asked her to work the problems on a black board but she was unable to reproduce the correct answers. The instructor thought the student might have felt too much pressure doing the problem sets in front of him. So he gave her a blank exam and the full exam period to redo the problems. Again, the student could not reproduce the correct answers. The student contested the charge.   A judicial panel found her responsible for violating the Honor Code.

Sanctions: One-quarter suspension and 40 hours of community service.

After two students submitted a computer project that was more sophisticated than anything taught in the course, raising some concerns, a faculty member ran a web search and found a program nearly identical to the one the students turned in. The students denied copying from the web, noting that they had recorded on the information sheet that a friend had given them three of the sophisticated constructs. The students claimed there was only one way to make the particular program run so it was not unusual that their code looked identical to a published program. A judicial panel held both students accountable for violating the Honor Code.

Sanctions: Both students received a one-quarter suspension and 40 hours of community service.

Two graduate students were charged with giving and receiving unpermitted aid in that one of the two questions on a take-home exam showed striking similarities in both structure and actual wording. The instructions allowed students to discuss the exam but clearly stated that students had to individually write their exams. The two students admitted to having each written an outline for the exam answers (a practice which was common in their discipline and arguably permitted under the exam instructions), and that they had exchanged their outlines, but claimed they wrote their papers independently. Both students contested the charges, one on the bases that the exchange of outlines was permitted and that she had not copied from the other student’s outline. The second student contended that the instructions were unclear and arguably permitted what he had done, further claiming that he had treated the provided outline in the same manner as his own outline and that, therefore, there was no violation. The judicial panel found the first student not responsible for violating the Honor Code, on the basis that while she provided a copy of her outline to her classmate, her exam answer did not reflect structural or verbatim similarity to the outline she had been given by the second student. The panel found the second student responsible for violating the Honor Code on the basis that his answer was strikingly similar to his classmate’s outline.

Sanctions: Two-quarter delay in the conferral of degree and 40 hours of community service.

While grading the in-class, open book exams of two students, the TAs noted responses that were substantially identical (and incorrect). Both students were charged with violating the Honor Code, and both contested.  Each student submitted a written explanation detailing how the exam was completed and each provided the notes used during the exam. Evidence presented at the judicial panel hearing included expert opinion on the directionality of the copying, based on the students’ explanations and notes. The panel found that one student had been copied from, without her knowledge or consent and therefore had not violated the Honor Code.  The panel found the other student responsible for violating the Honor Code, determining that he not only had copied from his classmate during the exam, but also had fabricated evidence, had threatened the innocent student/classmate and falsely accused her of copying from him.

Sanctions: Two-quarter suspension and 40 hours of community service.

Back to top