Author: Isabelle Stid

 

Abstract X42-01

Chemistry B2XX: Green Gables

Student Anne and Professor Cuthbert 

 

Professor Cuthbert initiated a positive confrontation with Student Anne after noticing that their Moodle logs demonstrated that they had accessed course resources while taking the closed-book final exam for Chemistry B2XX: Green Gables. Student Anne initially denied having accessed unauthorized materials during the exam and insisted that the logs appeared that way due to the fact that their phone had been hacked, as Student Anne stated that their phone was not on their person while they took the exam. 

 

Student Anne later sent in a revised statement to the Honor Board and Professor Cuthbert taking full accountability for accessing Moodle on their phone during the exam and for lying about not having done so before. Since Student Anne took accountability for violating the Honor Code, the Honor Board decided to pursue an alternative resolution conversation to address the situation. 

 

The Honor Board resolved that Student Anne receive a 0.0 on the final exam in Chemistry B2XX: Green Gables, as Student Anne and Professor Cutherbert were in agreement that this was a fair and proportionate resolution in this case. Since this 0.0 brought Student Anne’s final grade in the course below a merit grade, the Board also resolved that Student Anne would be permitted to re-take Chemistry 2XX: Green Gables at Haverford and complete the Green Gables course sequence there.

 

Abstract X42-02 

International Studies B1XX: High School Musical

Student Ryan and Professor Troy 

 

Professor Troy initiated a positive confrontation with Student Ryan after noticing that Student Ryan’s essay was nearly entirely plagiarized, without any citations, from various online sources. During this conversation, Student Ryan expressed confusion at the charge of plagiarism and suggested that it was an issue of inadequate or improper citations. Due to the lack of agreement and consistency across Student Ryan and Professor Troy’s statements and Student Ryan not taking full accountability for plagiarizing the essay, the Honor Board decided to pursue a traditional Honor Board hearing. 

 

In the hearing, Student Ryan expressed that their intention in the conversation was not to deny any wrongdoing but genuinely to learn more about citation practices on account of coming from a different educational background as an international student. Student Ryan shared that in the intervening time since the conversation with Professor Troy, Student Ryan had read the Honor Board website, which had information about what constitutes plagiarism, including the failure to cite one’s sources, and had a clearer understanding of what went wrong in their essay. Professor Troy emphasized that they hoped that this experience could be a restorative, non-punitive learning experience for Student Ryan and suggested that part of the Honor Board’s resolution could include asking Student Ryan to write a reflective essay about the values of the Honor Code and the meaning of academic integrity. 

 

The Honor Board found that Student Ryan had committed a violation of the Honor Code by plagiarizing their essay in International Studies B1XX: High School Musical. The Honor Board resolved that Student Ryan receive a 0.0 on the plagiarized essay and meet with the Writing Center at least twice during the remainder of the semester for continued support with writing assignments and deepening Student Ryan’s understanding of plagiarism and citational practices. The Honor Board also resolved that Student Ryan write a 1,500 word reflective essay on the values of the Honor Code, what plagiarism is, and the meaning of academic integrity and send it to honorboard@brynmawr.edu and Professor Troy within two weeks of receiving their resolution letter. Additionally, the Honor Board recommended that Student Ryan reach out to the Counseling Center for mental health support. 

 

Abstract X42-03 

Geology B1XX: Shadowhunting

Student Clary and Professor Magnus 

 

Professor Magnus initiated a conversation with Student Clary after noticing that answers to Student Clary’s exams referenced material that had not been covered in class and would only be understood by advanced undergraduates or graduate students. Professor Magnus inserted the exam questions into ChatGPT and found that the generative AI source outputted the same anomalous content. Student Clary admitted to using ChatGPT for the exam, took responsibility for her actions, and indicated that she would accept the appropriate resolution decided by the Honor Board.

 

Since Student Clary took accountability for violating the Honor Code, and Professor Magnus and Student Clary’s statements were in agreement about the course of events, the Honor Board decided to pursue an alternative resolution conversation to address the situation.

 

The Honor Board resolved that Student Clary receive a 0.0 on the exam in Geology 1XX: Shadowhunting, as both Professor Magnus and Student Clary were in agreement that this was a fair and proportionate resolution. The Board also recommended that Student Clary continue or begin utilizing various resources, such as tutoring, meeting with Academic Support, time management systems, and the Counseling Center.

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. 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. As the Honor Board aims to be a restorative system, we do not have set resolutions for certain violation types, and rather take all the circumstances into consideration as we craft a resolution, circumstances we consider but are not limited to include extenuating circumstances, class year, history of appearances before the Honor Board, responsibility taken, etc. You will see there are many more cases this semester than last semester, a 122% increase, mostly due to unauthorized AI usage. I will be sending out further communication regarding this later in the week.

 

Cases adjudicated between December 10th, 2025 & Tuesday, April 28th: 20 cases

 

• Academic: 20 cases
  • Alternative Resolutions meetings (which occur when confronted and confronting parties share an interpretation of events and the confronted party has taken accountability): 17 cases
    • The majority of these cases, 10,  resulted from students using AI when against course policies. Other cases, 7,  included accessing class materials/notes on closed book exams. The typical outcome for Alternative Resolutions 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 either specific questions, the broader assignment/exam, or at times a chance to redo the assignment, etc. In a few specific incidents, a student received a zero in the course due to previous Honor Board appearances and because they falsified information. In Alternative Resolutions, the confronting and confronted party craft the resolution themselves, and the Honor Board presence is only to facilitate.
  • Honor Board Hearings ( which occur when the confronted and confronting party do not share the same interpretation of events, and the Honor Board has additional questions): 3 cases
    • All cases resulted from an allegation of unauthorized AI usage. In one case, the Honor Board found that the student did not commit a violation. In another case, the outcome was that the student received a zero for the exam. In yet another case, the outcome was the student was able to complete a redo assignment for a limited number of points.

 

Social cases adjudicated between 12/10/25-04/28/26: 0, including alternative resolutions, social hearings and deans panels 

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.