In the first open honor trial in three years, third-year College students Joe Schlingbaum and Lindsay McClung were both found not guilty of unauthorized collaboration on homework assignments.
The jury of 10 found Schlingbaum and McClung not guilty of violating the seriousness clause, after the jury found the pair violated the honor code for act and intent.
In order to convict a student of an honor offense a four-fifths majority of the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the student committed the act and the student had dishonorable intent, meaning he or she knew or should have known the act violated the honor code. If found guilty on act and intent, the jury then votes on seriousness. A simply majority of juror members is needed to find a student guilty on seriousness.
The students were charged with collaboration on three response questions assigned as homework in PLPT 302, Modern Political Theory, taught by Politics Prof. Stephen White. A teaching assistant for the class, Sarah Henary, reported the case.
Henary said she reported the case after noting a similarity in the essays' argument structure, use of language and in one case the use of an outside example. These similarities aroused her suspicion that an honor violation had occurred. It was almost impossible, Henary said, that similarities were coincidental.
Although the students admitted to collaborating on the assignments, they did not believe they violated the honor code as stated on the syllabus for the class.
The syllabus of the class reads, "you are to answer these questions without anyone's help."
Schlingbaum and McClung contend that they interpreted the statement as a prohibition against consulting objective sources, such as the Internet or students who had previously taken the course.
"I never envisioned that consulting with a fellow student could be in violation of the honor code," Schlingbaum said.
Henary said that White clearly stated in class and on the syllabus that working with other students on the homework assignment was prohibited.
"Professor White wanted to highlight the importance of non-collaboration," Henary said.
The students denied White ever talked about the policy in class. White was not present at the trial, but in an interview conducted by honor counsels said that the honor policy for the class was on the syllabus. Counsel for the Accused Ben Sachs said this was an important omission.
Students in the PLPT 302 were expected to complete thirty response assignments over the course of the class, of which ten were collected and graded on a scale of satisfactory/unsatisfactory. The ten graded assignments collectively made up 20 percent of the final grade.
Sachs emphasized the fact that the three responses in question counted for six percent of the final grade.
However, Henary said that because the responses were assigned in lieu of a large paper, the charge could be likened to plagiarizing the last three pages of a ten-page essay.
Sachs argued Henary's comparison was irrelevant, because the two situations were not comparable.
Another issue of contention was the nature of Schlingbaum and McClung's collaboration. Henary said it was her belief that Schlingbaum was primarily writing the essays and McClung was copying them.
Both accused students denied this statement and said neither student did more work than the other and if they had not worked with each other, they would have received the same grades. They emphatically denied outright copying took place.
The students said the similarities between their responses could be attributed to their exhaustive discussion of the material.
"Basically after an hour-and-a-half of debate we were on the same page," Schlingbaum said.
Henary said the students tried to conceal their collaboration by changing a few specific words in the assignments.
Schlingbaum and McClung called on their respective roommates to testify, both of whom said the accused students did not try to hide their collaboration from their peers.
"None of us thought it was in any way a violation of the honor code," Schlingbaum's roommate Lee Thomas said.
Much of the trial focused on the honor code as it related to the response questions. Both sides sought to ascertain whether it was the students' intent to gain an unfair advantage.
"Essentially this case focuses on one question: Was the policy explicit?" Counsel for the Accused Nicole Cowing said in her closing statement.
Ultimately the jury found the students' actions violated the honor code in act and intent. The jury did not find the acts serious enough, however, to constitute an honor violation.
The Honor Committee definition of seriousness, according to Vice Chair for Trials Stewart Ackerly, is "if open toleration of the act in question would result in the dissolution of the community of trust."
McClung said that she was surprised that jury had come to the conclusion that she had violated the honor code in act and intent after a seemingly short period of deliberation. The jury deliberated for about an hour and a half.
Neither Schlingbaum nor McClung did not learn the reason of their acquittal until late last night. In spite of the outcome he reiterated his belief that he abided by the honor code.
"I'm glad that overall, justice was done in the larger context," Schlingbaum said. "I'm glad the jury saw the big picture"
Read More
Shots fired reported at 100 block of Harmon Street, no injuries reported
By Thomas Baxter | 4 days agoThis is the first community alert of June.
Full Board discusses financial aid challenges, medical research and entrepreneurship
By Thomas Baxter | 5 days agoBoard members discussed the Pan-University Entrepreneurship Initiative, a project that aims to help develop more entrepreneurial ventures at the University.
Finance Committee approves 2024-25 operating budget and Major Capital Plan
By Zackary Holt | 5 days agoThe proposed 2024-25 fiscal year budget for the Academic Division includes a 6.8 percent increase in spending over the previous year.
