Author: Isabelle Stid

Abstract X32-01

Philosophy B 2XX: Magic and Spellcasting 

Student Arthur and Professor Merlin

Professor Merlin reached out to the Honor Board with concerns about plagiarism for Student Arthur on an essay via the use of AI. Professor Merlin noticed that the writing style of this essay was very different from the style of Student Arthur’s previous essay in the course and that this essay lacked any citations. Professor Merlin checked multiple sections of the paper with multiple online AI detectors, which came back with unusually high results (>90% likelihood of being written by AI). Professor Merlin met with Student Arthur and Student Arthur admitted to relying on AI to write the paper and presenting the AI-generated paper as their own original work.

During the hearing, Student Arthur expressed their desire to take full accountability for their actions, which they recognize were in violation of the Honor Code and do not reflect Student Arthur’s own values. Student Arthur shared with the Board about various challenging circumstances surrounding physical and mental health that had made this semester uniquely challenging for Student Arthur, including feeling unsupported by their Dean.

The Board resolved that Student Arthur receive a 0.0 on the essay. Additionally, the Board recommended that Student Arthur meet regularly with their professors, major advisor, and support system; consider setting up a writing partner through the Writing Center for the following academic year; request a formal Dean change; and continue meeting regularly with their counselor.

Abstract X32-03

Biology B 2XX: Capture the Flag

Student Percy and Professor Jackson

Professor Jackson reached out to the Honor Board with concerns about the academic integrity of senior Student Percy’s work throughout Biology 2XX: Capture the Flag, particularly regarding all of the course’s closed-book exams and single writing assignment, together worth 85% of the final grade in Biology 2XX: Capture the Flag per the syllabus. Professor Jackson ran Student Percy’s answers through multiple online AI detectors and received unusually high results (>90% likelihood of being written by AI) for many of the answers. Professor Jackson also noticed that the course Moodle logs showed that Student Percy had accessed course materials during all of the exams in Biology 2XX: Capture the Flag. Prior to reaching out to the Honor Board, Professor Jackson met with Student Percy to express these concerns, during which Student Percy denied utilizing AI or relying on the course materials during exams.

During the hearing, Professor Jackson shared that their vision of a fair and proportionate resolution in this case would not involve going beyond Biology 2XX: Capture the Flag itself, such as preventing Student Percy from walking at Commencement. Rather, Professor Jackson felt that a grade of 0.0 in the course would be reasonable.

During the hearing, Student Percy continued to deny utilizing AI to produce responses for any of the exams or for the written assignment and relying on course materials during the exams. Student Percy continued to deny that their work was produced in an academically dishonest manner, even after the Board presented the Moodle logs with the analysis of a LITS expert demonstrating that the Moodle logs could not appear as they do without Student Percy having actively clicked on the course resources while taking the exams. Student Percy expressed that they did not believe a violation of the Honor Code had taken place, and threatened legal action if the Board provided a resolution more severe than lowering the grades of the exams (and not the writing assignment).

The Board resolved that Student Percy receive a grade of 0.0 in Biology 2XX: Capture the Flag, and that Student Percy will be required to report this infraction to graduate/professional schools on applications.

Hello all,

I am writing to you all in my capacity as Co-Head of the Honor Board this year. Per section II. A. 2. C. vi. of the Honor Code the Head of the Honor Board at the end of the semester is to inform the student body of the cases that took place that semester. I admit that this is a practice that has fallen off the radar in recent years (and considering I am only sending out the Spring ‘25 recap in December, I am clearly not immune as well), so if it seems unfamiliar or new that is why. However, I think sharing the number of cases and abstracts is incredibly important, both as a measure for students to hold the Honor Board accountable, and to inform us all of what life looks like under the Honor Code at any given time. Please note, I have organized these cases by type, and have anonymized cases to the best of my ability. 

Spring 2025: 

Total cases (Academic and social that were referred and addressed/adjudicated through typical Honor Board processes between 1/1/25 and 5/16/25): 11 cases

• Academic: 10 cases
  • Alternative resolutions meetings (when confronted and confronting parties share an interpretation of events and the confronted party has taken accountability): 8 cases
    • The majority of cases resulted from students using AI when against course policies. The typical outcome from these is often dependent on what the professor has written in the syllabus (such as if using AI results in an automatic zero, etc), but was usually a zero on an assignment, or at times a chance to redo the assignment, etc. 
  • Honor board hearings (when the confronted and confronting party do not share the same interpretation of events, and the Honor Board has additional questions): 2 cases
    • Both cases resulted from students using extensive AI on a final paper/capstone project which was against course policy. Resolution was inline with course syllabi of a zero on the final paper/capstone, (note, however, that a zero on a final paper may have additional ramifications resulting from it, such as a student receiving a below merit grade or not completing a program). 
• Social cases adjudicated through honor board processes: 0
• Social cases referred to Dean’s Panel process (in typical Honor Board processes): 1
  • The head of the Honor Board served on zero Dean’s Panels in Spring 2025

Finally, I have attached (and copied below) case abstracts. These cases have been anonymized, and occurred no less than two and no more than six semesters ago. Please note, one of these abstracts would now likely be resolved through an alternative resolution (Philosophy B 2XX), as the confronted party took full accountability and shared the confronting party’s interpretation of events. However, at this point in time the Alternative Resolution Process had not been officially added to the Honor Code (as it is now!)

Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or concerns.