In the Case of Imnot A. Cheater

An Honor Board convened in Room 2114 Mitchell Building on November 31, 1997 to hear an alleged case of academic dishonesty in Dr. S.I. Newton's ASTR 110 course during the Fall 1997 semester. Mr. Cheater is charged with violating section 1(b) of the Code of Academic Integrity: fabrication. Specifically, it is alleged that Mr. Cheater had resubmitted an exam for a regrade after changing several answers. Mr. Cheater pleaded not responsible.

The Honor Board consisted of Michael Paul (undergraduate student), Merilee Hammill (undergraduate student), Robby Friedman (undergraduate student), Dr. Frazier (faculty), and Dr. Seinfeld (faculty). The Presiding Officer was Chris Harris (undergraduate student) and the community advocate was Mark Zimmerman. Also present were Mr. Imnot A. Cheater (respondent), Dr. S.I. Newton (referring party), Mr. Bob Scannit (witness), Mr. Ima Friend (witnesses for the respondent), and Mr. Sparky Teass, the teaching assistant for Dr. Newton's ASTR 110 course.

1. On October 25, 1997 Dr. Newton issued the second exam to his ASTR 110 class. He graded and returned the exam a week later. It was a "Scantron" exam.
2. A week after the exam was returned, Mr. Cheater submitted to Dr. Newton his exam for a regrade. He explained to Dr. Newton that the answers on his "Scantron" sheet do not correspond to the answers he circled on the exam itself. He stated that he answered the questions on the "Scantron" first and then on the exam itself.
3. Dr. Newton was suspicious of this request. He asked Mr. Cheater to submit the exam and the "Scantron" to him for him to consider a regrade. When Dr. Newton received the material he noticed that only a few of the answers corresponded. He then checked his faculty printout sheet of the "Scantron" results. The faculty printout sheet corresponded with the "Scantron" sheet and not the test. Based on this information Dr. Newton submitted the case to the Student Honor Council.
4. Mr. Cheater explained that the misunderstanding arose from the "Scantron" process itself. He stated that his "Scantron" sheet had several dark smudges in the area where one fills in the answers. When he showed this to one of the teaching assistants for the course, the TA told him not to worry about it because it would not affect the scanning of the sheet.
5. After he learned of the charges against him, Mr. Cheater went to the "Scantron" Center. There he spoke to one of the technicians, Mr. Bob Scannit. Mr. Scannit agreed to scan his test for him after Mr. Cheater explained his situation. The scanning job produced another set of answers that did not correspond to the previous scanning or the answer on Mr. Cheater's exam. Mr. Bob Scannit confirmed this during his testimony. Mr. Scannit also testified that the scanners were having problems. The problems with the scanners combined with the smudged "Scantron" sheet could explain the discrepancies, observed Mr. Scannit.
6. Mr. Cheater's other witness, Mr. Friend, stated that he was in Dr. Newton's ASTR 110 course with Mr. Cheater. He stated that Mr. Cheater and he would always answer the exam questions on the "Scantron" and then circle their answers on the exam sheet. After this exam they compared their answers to try and get a sense of how they did. Mr. Friend remembers that Mr. Cheater did much better than he.
7. When the Board tried to determine the origin of the smudges on the exam, the TA admitted to spilling coffee on a portion of the "Scantron" sheet, but thought nothing of it.

The Board determined by a 4 to 1 vote that Mr. Cheater was not responsible for violating any section of the Code of Academic Integrity.

Respectfully Submitted,

Chris Harris
Presiding Officer
December 5, 1997