In an open honor trial yesterday, a 10-person panel of random students found third-year Engineering student Steve Gilday not guilty of cheating in submitting an altered test for a re-grade, but guilty of act, intent and seriousness for lying to the professor when asked about the legitimacy of the resubmitted test.
The jury found Gilday not guilty of cheating on the question of act and intent.
The requisite four-fifths of jury members then found Gilday guilty of act and intent to lie.
Because the case was initiated before the spring referenda elections, the voter-approved "triviality" clause was not in effect. Therefore, a second vote, decided by a simple majority, was taken on the criterion of seriousness. Gilday was found guilty under this criteria as well.
Gilday's trial was the second open honor trial this school year. Before an open trial held in November, Honor had not held an open trial since October 2002.
A student found guilty on act, intent and seriousness is permanently dismissed from the University.
Gilday is currently an officially dismissed student and has until Wednesday to file an expedited appeal. Gilday is permitted to stay in class until a decision is rendered on the appeal, Honor Chair David Hobbs said.
Gilday was accused of cheating in BIOL 301, "Core 2: Genetics and Evoloution," last November when he turned in a fraudulent request for a re-grade and it appeared he had altered his answer to the last question of the test. He was also accused of lying about the legitimacy of his re-grade request submission.
The case was initiated by Biology Prof. Laura Galloway after Gilday's teaching assistant, Francis Kilkenny, was given a re-grade request for an exam that both Galloway and Kilkenny thought had been doctored.
Gilday claimed during the trial the original exam became wet and illegible after he left it out at the frog laboratory in Gilmer Hall, where Gilday was employed. Gilday said he then blocked out his answers with white paper and scanned the page that contained the short answer in question. Gilday said he copied his answers word-for-word onto a new copy and then made the same marks as his TA in the same colored pen.
"My goal in doing that was to create a new, clean page," Gilday said in his testimony before the panel. "I didn't think this was dishonest at all because I wasn't changing anything except the paper. To this day I still don't think it's cheating."
Janelle Smith, manager of the lab, confirmed Gilday was working at the lab during the day in question and also that his story was "actually very likely" because the lab processes 5,000 gallons of water a day.
According to evidence presented in the investigation panel, Galloway had a strict policy of only accepting written requests for re-grades and not discussing changes, which Gilday cited as the reason he did not approach Galloway about the problem in the first place.
Galloway said she and Kilkenny sat down with all of the exams submitted for re-grades and became suspicious when the handwriting, type and pen ink "didn't look quite right." Both Kilkenny and Galloway testified they believed they had given Gilday a zero on the test's final question. After she became suspicious, Galloway spoke with Gilday in her office following class. According to testimony, Gilday denied having changed the paper to gain more points and then asked Galloway if she was "questioning his honor." According to Gilday, Galloway said she was not but that she did not know what she would do about the grading of the test's last question.
"I have no recollection of saying anything," Galloway said when she was recalled for questioning by the panel.
Following the meeting, Gilday said he felt increasingly guilty and about two to three hours after the meeting wrote Galloway a detailed e-mail explaining the explanation he would later present to the jury Sunday.
"I felt that it was the best thing to do because I hadn't cheated on the test," Gilday said. "I made sure I emphasized I hadn't cheated and I asked for her forgiveness. I even said since I wasn't honest I would take whatever punishment she thought was right."
Nikki Cowing and Sam Leven, counsel for the accused, likened the e-mail to a conscientious retraction.
According to the Honor Committee by-laws, a conscientious retraction must describe the act in question and admit that such act was intentionally committed. The student must also agree to make amends for the act. The student must then provide a signed statement from each affected individual stating that the amends have been made. This process must take place before the student "has reason to believe that the relevant act has come under suspicion by anyone."
"Mr. Gilday went away believing he was under no threat of being taken to the Honor Committee," Leven said in closing arguments. "Gilday felt so bad that he felt it necessary to send [Galloway] an e-mail apologizing for his action. This is the spirit of a conscientious retraction."
Counsel for the Community Alex Sooy said the conscientious retraction "cannot be valid under the by-laws of the Honor Committee" because there was no signed statement agreed upon by Gilday, Galloway and Kilkenny.
Students who are asked to leave the University on account of Honor offenses are offered assistance in transitioning out of the University by the office of the vice president of student affairs, Hobbs said.
Read More
Student Council passes resolution to uphold student voices during presidential search
By Lauren Seeliger | 20 hours agoThe resolution requests that five students be included on the search committee, and that the Board of Visitors provides key updates to the student body throughout the search process.
Senior VP for Operations Colette Sheehy looks back at her career at the University
By Brandon Kile | 2 days agoSheehy’s role involved overseeing the work of around 2,500 University employees, including custodians, architects and engineers.
Will the Faculty Senate’s no-confidence vote impact the U.Va. Board of Visitors?
By Brandon Kile | 3 days agoIn many cases, a no-confidence vote may soon be followed by steps taken to remove the leadership that may be acting against the wishes of a community.
