(note, for easier access, the individual cases are on the right hand side of the page as PDF attachments)
Introduction
The following story contains information concerning procedure and testimony from three Honor Council cases and an overarching evaluation of the Honor Council. It is the result of several weeks of interviews and testimony, and hard work on the part of several members of the Informer staff, Executive Editor Mike Young in particular contributed significantly to several aspects of the story.
The Virginia Informer respects the need for confidentiality in Honor Council cases. However, because of the importance of these cases in particular and the seriousness of the errors therein, we view it as our responsibility to the individuals that have come forward to ensure that their stories do not remain untold. For the sake of their own privacy and reputation, the names of all defendants and concerned parties have been changed.
When contacted for comment several members of the school administration, including Provost Michael Halleran, Assistant Dean of Students Dave Gilbert and Vice President for Student Affairs Virginia Ambler were unwilling to shed light on the proceedings of these cases in particular or the administration of Honor cases generally. We find our sources in this article to be credible and would not have included them otherwise. The Virginia Informer would like to remain a resource for any individual who would like to come forward about other issues in Honor Cases, and we encourage them to contact us at editor@vainformer.com.
Case 1
Case Background
On the morning of November 5, 2009, graduate computer science teaching assistants for Dr. Noonan’s Computer Science 141 class brought three programming projects to the professor’s attention, all of which appeared to contain some sections of similar code. The projects belonged to five undergraduate students who worked in three groups, two in pairs and one individually.
The night before, four of the five were working on the project in a campus computer lab on separate computers, anticipating the next morning’s deadline. Over the course of the night, the computer of Steve Talbot died, deleting a large portion of his project, and graduate lab assistants recommended that Harold Kearney give a copy of his assignment to Steve, so he could continue without having to redo the rest of his assignment.
Nate Davis and his partner Sean Jensen worked late into the night as well. Nate left the lab around 2:30, leaving his partner to finish the project, which at that time, to his knowledge, contained no material that he or his partner didn’t write.
In an interview with the Informer Davis noted, “I never looked at the project before it was submitted. I had no idea [my partner] was getting unauthorized aid from people.”
The assignment was submitted earlier that morning without Davis’ review.
An email exchange went on at some point during the night between Harold Kearney and Sean Jensen, and plagiarized material from Harold’s paper ended up in Jensen and Davis’ assignment.
The class professor charged all five with plagiarism, an honor violation.
Section 3.1.6 of the Honor System bylaws in the Student Handbook states: “The accused shall be provided with the names of the members of the hearing panel at least seventy-two hours prior to the hearing. If the accused wishes to have one or more members of the panel disqualified for bias or interest in the case, the accused must move for disqualification.”
An email stating the names of the panel was sent from Honor Council Chair K. Bailey Thomson to the five students charged twenty-two hours before the hearing.
Sources of Information: Testimony from Harold Kearney and Nate Davis; case appeal review by John Donaldson, sent to Provost Halleran; e-mail from K. Bailey Thomson to Harold Kearney; the Student Handbook
Honor Council Proceedings
All five students were brought before the Honor Council and three were convicted in a hearing that lasted more than 12 hours. Kearney’s sentence was later overturned by administrative intervention.
The charges again Lawrence Zimmerman, Kearney’s partner, were dismissed based on his absence in the room that evening.
Steve Talbot, whose project contained code similar to that found in two others, was let go based on “evidence at the hearing, including testimony relating to authorized help given by the computer lab assistants, [which] served to explain some of the similarities between ST’s paper and that of HK-LZ.”
In Davis’ case, however, the panel concluded that, “(1) Appellant could not have been or remained unaware of the SJ’s solicitation and acceptance of unauthorized assistance and (2) that Appellant, in leaving the computer lab at approximately 2:30 a.m., expecting SJ to complete the project, assumed that SJ would use unauthorized materials.”
The Honor Council decided that because Nate Davis left his partner to finish the project, he had implicitly condoned his partner’s cheating. Furthermore, though his partner testified to Davis’ own innocence during the hearing, this was not enough to overturn the Honor Council’s opinion of the situation.
The Council dismissed Davis’ own testimony due to “inconsistencies in testimony regarding computer usage and seating arrangements.”
The investigating committee in an honor case is in charge of gathering evidence before the hearing, and they are required to provide a complete copy of the evidence presented to each defendant. According to both Davis and Kearney, a crucial item on the evidence list was not provided to them. This conflicts with Section 3.1.8 of the College’s Honor System as laid out in the Student Handbook, which stipulates, “the right to inspect, examine and make copies of all documentary evidence related to the case.”
Davis was found guilty and sentenced to a one-semester suspension, removed from the College’s Football Team, given an F-grade in the course along with a letter of apology to the professor, and probation for the remainder of his time at the College.
Sources of Information: Testimony from Kearney and Davis; case appeal review by John Donaldson sent to Provost Halleran; photocopied evidence list; e-mail from K. Bailey Thomson to Harold Kearney; the Student Handbook
Administrative Role
Following a guilty verdict by the Honor Council, an appeals committee recommended administrative review of Davis’ case, specifically addressing the lack of sufficient evidence presented against him, and the undue harshness of the sanction handed down.
Honor Council Chair K. Bailey Thomson independently advocated further review of the case, specifically with regard to Nate Davis’ involvement. The letter written on his behalf was not made available to The Informer, though parts of it are excerpted below in John Donaldson’s brief to Provost Halleran:
“By letter of [sic] December 17th to the Vice President of Student Affairs, Honor Council Chair K. Bailey Thomson, while “not writing to oppose [the panel] decision,” advocates that your office undertake “a thorough review process such that all the complexities of the case are given adequate consideration.” She desires that the “entire case record will be read and heard.with a view to making a “final clarification on [Nate’s] credibility.” [sic] As is evident from the discussion below, much of the evidence of guilt is circumstantial, and thus warrants careful evaluation upon appeal.”
This review was undertaken by John Donaldson, legal professor emeritus and legal council to the Provost, who “identified similarities that were not the focus on [sic] the investigative process and which, though relevant to the assessment of guilt of other participants and the degree of Appellant’s misconduct, received no attention at the hearing.”
While noting the dismissal of Davis’ testimony, the brief makes no further mention of the importance of the defendant’s point of view in the case. Donaldson, who declined any comment when asked by The Informer, maintained the verdict and reasoning of the panel, without any evaluation of the panel’s dismissal of evidence.
The final section of the brief contains Donaldson’s conclusion and the Provost’s response. Ultimately, Donaldson could “find no basis for setting aside the verdict of guilty or for lessening the sanctions that have been imposed in this case. Accordingly, I recommend that you deny Appellant’s appeal, thereby leaving in place the findings of guilt and sanctions heretofore imposed.”
A signed memorandum attached at the end of the brief from the Provost states; “I concur in the above findings and recommendations and deny the appeal.”
After the appeal was denied, Vice President of Student Affairs Ginger Ambler sent a letter to Davis that ended with the following statement:
“I understand that you had an opportunity while I was out of the office last week to talk in more depth with Dean Gilbert about this final decision. I hope that conversation gave you the opportunity to ask any further questions you and your family might have. If not, you are certainly welcome to contact me at 757-221-1236.”
Davis has contacted Ambler by phone several times as well as by mail and has yet to hear a response.
Sources of Information: Testimony from Kearney and Davis; case appeal review by John Donaldson, sent to Provost Halleran; email correspondence between Ginger Ambler and Nate Davis.
Findings
The Honor Council dismissed Nate Davis’ testimony on the grounds that he could not recall minor details more than a month after the fact, and ignored the testimony of Davis’ partner who advocated his innocence.
Legal Counsel John Donaldson did not fully review Davis’ testimony, despite the Honor Council’s questionable dismissal.
A full record of case evidence was not provided to the defendants as required by the Honor Code System.
All five defendants were not provided with the names of the students on the panel until 22 hours before the hearing; the Honor Code System provides those charged with 72 hours.
Following the appeal, university administrators repeatedly ignored Davis as he petitioned that they reconsider his case.
Case 2
Note: This case was covered by Max Cunningham (’13) in the March 2010 issue of the DoG Street Journal.
Case Background
On the night of October 23rd Linda Perez attended a party in a dorm room where alcohol was consumed. Later that night Perez encountered her RA as she was attempting to get back into her room which was locked while she was away. The RA had reason to believe that Perez had engaged in the underage consumption of alcohol and filed an incident report that evening, along with several other reports regarding violations of alcohol and other College policies.
Perez met with her Area Director on November 2nd to discuss the incident in the manner set out in the informal resolution method for adjudication options described in the Student Code of Conduct. Instead of admitting the truth, Perez lied to her Area Director, telling her that while alcohol was consumed at the party she had not consumed any herself. In an interview with the Informer Perez explains, “I literally had never been in trouble before. Elementary, middle, high school – I had never found myself in that position. I just panicked and said no. I knew right then it wasn’t the right thing to do. I still know it was the wrong thing to do, I shouldn’t have lied.”
That evening in the dorm Perez confided in a group of students, including her roommate, the guilt she felt over having lied about drinking alcohol. Perez had, “a strained, unsatisfactory, and increasingly hostile relationship” with her roommate.
When Perez left the group her roommate continued the conversation speaking in a loud voice intending for the nearby RA to overhear the truth and inform the Area Director that Perez had openly acknowledged her lie.
The Area Director met with Perez on November 6th and informed her of the new information they had received. On November 16th Perez was formally accused of violating the Honor Code and advised by her Area Director to turn herself into the Honor Council. Perez was notified via e-mail on the evening of December 13th of her Honor Council trial, which was scheduled for December 16th.
Sources of information: Testimony from Linda Perez, case appeal review by John Donaldson sent to Provost Halleran, Student Handbook
Honor Council Proceedings
In a unanimous decision Linda Perez was found guilty of violating the Honor Code and given sanctions of “(1) suspension for the coming (spring) semester, (2) required letters of apology, (3) submission of a “reflection” paper and (4) completion of an alcohol education program.”
According to Section 3.1.8 of the Student Handbook the accused has “A right to inspect, examine, and make copies of all documentary evidence related to the case not less than seventy-two hours prior to the hearing.” However, Perez received a document that included only the numbered pages 1 and 3. The missing pages contained relevant case evidence from Perez’s roommate and RA.
While Perez was being accused of violating the Honor Code for lying to her Area Director, the focus of most of the questioning surrounded the original incident before the Honor Council became involved. Perez’s roommate was asked personal questions about her relationship with Perez that, according to Perez, “were irrelevant and gave her the opportunity to completely trash me and make me out to be a bad character.” She was also given no information that her roommate would testify against her.
Perez had also unknowingly signed a wavier of her various “72-hour” rights that include receiving all documentary evidence related to the case before that 72 hour time period. When Perez went to pick up her investigation report she was also presented with forms to sign. These forms turned out to be a waiver of the rights the accused has before the Honor Council. Perez admits, “I probably should have read the forms, but I also felt obligated to sign them. I had no one there advising me on whether or not I should sign them.” Perez signed the waiver of her rights without reading and without knowledge of their implication.
The Council’s decision relied heavily on the testimonies of Perez’s RA and roommate, evident in the fact that their reasoning for imposing the sanction of suspension was due to Perez’s “failure to adequately address the matter of the impact of her behavior on ‘the other students involved in the alcohol violation in question, and her other hall mates.'”
Sources of information: Testimony from Linda Perez, case appeal review by John Donaldson sent to Provost Halleran, Student Handbook
Administrative Role
After being found unanimously guilty, the case went before an appeals committee that recommended that the case be reviewed and the sanctions changed in light of a procedural irregularity in the hearing. The irregularity in question was the failure to provide several pages of evidence to the defendant.
The Student Handbook in Section 5.4 also states “The investigators shall meet with the accused, the accuser, and all material witnesses. They shall seek to gather all relevant evidence and shall prepare a written report detailing all facts and evidence discovered during their investigation.” John Donaldson, who reviewed the case, found that “The record reveals that the initial report submitted by the Investigating Committee to the Sufficient Evidence Panel was considered by the Panel to be vague and imprecise and that additional information was requested. This request apparently resulted in preparation and submission of a more complete revised report.”
In the brief on Perez’s case, Donaldson cites Perez’s personal appeal and her sentiment that “Interviews were conducted and I did not have the benefit of the investigator’s notes. This error prevented me from being able to adequately prepare for my hearing or to respond to the witnesses’ testimony.” Donaldson also notes the severe damage the roommate’s testimony had on Perez’s case and how it was “evident from the audio recording that Appellant had not anticipated such damaging testimony from RM and was unprepared to address the issue.”
In regards to the effects this unknown testimony had on the case Donaldson writes, “I find that had Appellant been furnished the data contained in the missing pages of the Investigating Committee’s report and enjoyed the concomitant opportunity to more fully anticipate adverse testimony, the hearing may have resulted in imposition of less severe sanctions.”
In his conclusion Donaldson states that the previous sanction of suspension was tainted by the procedural irregularity regarding the evidence report. Donaldson recommended that the sanction of suspension be lifted and a sanction of a year’s probation be imposed instead, keeping all other sanctions in place.
Sources of information: Testimony from Linda Perez, case appeal review by John Donaldson sent to Provost Halleran, Student Handbook
Findings
Lack of advising and communication with the defendant.
Defendant unknowingly waived her right to know the names of the members of the Honor Council panel.
Defendant was not provided with complete evidence report.
Decision relied upon the testimony of a biased witness.
Case 3
Case Background
At one off-campus Swim Team party, roughly twenty undergraduate students were present, some consuming alcohol. As had become customary at many of the team’s past gatherings, pizza was frequently ordered on various members’ flex dollar accounts. As names were passed around for someone who would buy pizza that particular day, Anthony Dixon sent a text message soliciting the ID number of another student who had flex dollars to spare. Theresa Williams’ flex number was provided by a third party and another undergraduate student, Nathan, ordered the pizza with an understanding that Theresa would be informed her flex had been used. Nearly all twenty students in the room had full knowledge of this transaction, saw it took place, partook in eating the pizza, and did not perceive the transaction as underhanded or unethical – rather as common practice for their regular gatherings.
However, unlike in past circumstances, Theresa was not immediately informed that her flex was used. Not knowing it was used for pizza by fellow Swim Team members, she reported it missing to the police several days later. She made the following statement to the Informer:
“The only reason I went to the police is because I noticed a lot of my flex points were gone and I thought maybe someone had found my card and written my number down. I didn’t even think about it being the team. In the past the team has just always shared our flex with each other because we all hang out together every weekend and we would order pizza. Each weekend someone would use their flex to get the pizzas. A few weekends before one of my teammates asked if they could use my flex to pay for pizza and I said yes. I wasn’t even thinking of this when I noticed my flex points were gone. I contacted the police thinking it was a random person that took my ID number.
But as soon as the boys on the team found out about everything going on they called me and said they had used my flex one weekend but they would pay me back. They literally paid me that afternoon. I never wanted to file charges at all and I said that numerous times to the police. I even asked the police not to investigate the situation any further since we had settled everything within the team. I wouldn’t have gone to the police at all if I had realized it was the team who used my flex. But the police went against anything I said and continued to investigate the situation.
When the Honor Council got involved I sent them a letter explaining that everything had been settled and that it was a big misunderstanding. But the Honor Council also ignored anything I said. I think the whole case was very shady on the Honor Council’s part. I testified on behalf of [Anthony] and [Nathan]. I think that shows I had no intention of ever filing charges and I wanted everything to be dropped. I think if I’m the one who originally went to the police then it should be up to me on how the situation proceeds. Instead the Honor Council was really shady about everything and made sure to get the outcome that they wanted.”
Sources of Information: Testimony from Anthony Dixon, Theresa Williams
Honor Council Proceedings
Since Theresa never brought a formal accusation against anyone on the Swim Team, charges were levied from Associate Dean of Students Dave Gilbert. Gilbert sought the owner of the cell phone that was used to solicit the flex number and order the pizza. To do this he came in contact with Matt Shoulders, the captain of the Swim Team, and demanded that Shoulders give up the names of those students who owned the cell phone in question. Shoulders, while not in the room at the time of the solicitation or order, gave the name of the two students ultimately charged with honor violations.
Dixon and Nathan were then brought in and questioned by the Dean. According to Dixon, “I went in, I told the whole truth, and I told him I didn’t feel like I had done anything wrong. He then said he thought there ‘may’ be an Honor Council issue, never formally accusing me. That’s a technicality I guess, but he never went through the formal procedure he’s supposed to go by in the Student Handbook. The next thing we knew, we were in front of the Honor Council.”
Section 5.2 of the Honor Code in the Student handbook states that “the respective Honor Councils have no jurisdiction over alleged Honor Code violations until a personal accusation or a good faith and diligent attempt to make a personal accusation has been made, and a written charge has been filed.” Neither had taken place and Dean Gilbert levied charges with full knowledge that the ‘victim’ in the case did not perceive the action as stealing.
Both students were found guilty and lost the ability to participate on the College’s Swim Team. The Honor Council claimed that this action was for “the betterment of their moral character.”
Sources of Information: Testimony from Anthony Dixon, Theresa Williams, Student Handbook
Administrative Role
Dixon wrote a letter of appeal and John Donaldson also evaluated his case. According to Dixon, Donaldson recommended the denial of his appeal, on the grounds that any procedural issue was ‘minor’ and would not have affected the outcome of the case.
Additionally, the sentence was sustained because Dixon was found to be in violation of the Honor Code at the time of the flex transaction, because the student had not been notified at the time that her flex was going to be used.
Sources of Information: Testimony from Anthony Dixon, Theresa Williams
Findings
Dean Gilbert undertook investigative measures and charges against a student concerning a matter that had already been privately resolved with no outstanding grievances.
There was no accuser or complainant in this case.
Dixon never made the call to order pizza using Theresa’s account, the actual act of alleged ‘theft’ in which Dean Gilbert levied charges.
It is highly questionable as to why this incident was not considered a trivial offense. A trivial offense is defined in the Honor Code System, found within the Student Handbook, as “a matter of no possible consequence to a matter of legitimate concern of the academic community, or one with no tendency to undermine trust within the community.”
Evaluation: The Honor Council is a Clear and Present Danger to Students’ Rights
According to their own bylaws, the Honor Council has a duty to “treat every participant in the hearing fairly and equitably.” This is a central tenet that ensures the fair administration of Honor Council proceedings, and above any individual procedural error, this is the tenet to which the Honor Council has most egregiously failed to adhere.
The 22nd Right of the Accused, in section 3.1 of the Honor Code is the “right to be presumed innocent and to be found guilty of an Honor Code offense only if his or her guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Given the facts of these cases, can anyone honestly believe that this right was upheld?
Each of these cases shows at least one instance of the Honor Council ignoring or dismissing relevant facts. Universally, the defendants and individuals who speak on their behalf have been treated as if they are untrustworthy – indeed, that they were already violators of the Honor Code. If the goal of an Honor Council hearing is primarily to determine guilt, the testimony of the defendant would seem to be an extremely important component.
How does such an important tenet, one on which our entire legal system is based, get thrown out the window? The answer lies in the institutional culture of the Honor Council. Here are a few facts:
Incumbents filled thirteen of the sixteen seats on the Council for the Class of 2011 and 2012 in the election this year.
The Honor Council conducts all of its training internally, and the Procedural Advisors are drawn from its own ranks.
The only oversight on Honor Council cases comes when Student Conduct Council members are borrowed for cases on which too many Honor Council Members are disqualified due to conflicts of interest.
Universally, the students in these cases attested that the Procedural Advisors, also members of the Honor Council, were unhelpful.
In the previous school year, the student body rejected the Honor Council’s own proposed changes by a 40% margin.
The training and culture of the current Honor Council has obviously been centered around the Statement of Purpose, excerpted below:
“Honor and integrity are fundamental attributes of our community. We are privileged to live with an honor system, created and administered by students, because it inspires us to achieve our maximum potential without interference from others. Dishonest conduct violates the trust that exists at the College. Therefore, it is imperative that we accept no compromise and allow no action by any student to weaken the community of trust.”
In taking such strong ideology to heart, the Honor Council and the administrators involved in reviewing its appeals have lost sight of the rights of the students involved. If these cases are any indication, the ensuing system is characterized by rampant dismissal and mishandling of evidence and procedure.
Unanimous Silence from the School Administration
When contacted by the Informer, the Provost’s legal advisor John Donaldson expressed that he was, “shocked to find that Honor Council cases have become a matter of public knowledge and I am reluctant to provide any information.”
Assistant Dean of Students Dave Gilbert was contacted via email, as directed by his office, because he was out of town until the 11th. They would not release his cell phone number or a more direct method of contact.
Vice President of Student Affairs Ginger Ambler, when asked about her own involvement offering clarification to student’s case, said “you must understand that federal law, specifically the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), prevents me from commenting on any specific student disciplinary cases.”
Honor Council Chair K. Bailey Thomson also noted that, “we won’t comment on cases.”
Provost Halleran, when approached for comment, responded by saying, “I cannot respond to your questions.”
Recommendations
Provost Halleran, the time for questions is now. Now is the time for gravely serious consideration about the role of the Honor Council at William and Mary. Its goal is to maintain a climate of academic integrity, but the current Honor System has grossly overstepped its bounds, to the point of being a clear and present danger to the very community it is supposed to protect.
While bringing these cases to light may seem to some to some like an undue breach of confidentiality, it is equally true that the same confidentiality has been systematically used to veil abuses.
With the exception of Bailey Thomson, who broke procedure in writing a letter advocating that a case be reviewed, the amount of complicity in light of these facts is extremely disturbing.
Nobody broke step when they saw these errors, or when they saw that important facts and details of cases were not being heard. The entire Honor Council, Dean Dave Gilbert and Provost Michael Halleran, by their complicity or direct action, are culpable for the sanctioning of innocent students. The current system facilitates this abuse and it must be changed immediately, for the sake of our community. A temporary moratorium or outright abolishment of the present Honor Council, while they are both serious measures, deserve to be discussed in light of these facts.
Perhaps most importantly of all, we ask that President Reveley and Provost Halleran review the findings in Cases 1 and 3. There appears to be sufficient evidence to warrant at least an appeal or retrial, if not an outright reversal of the Honor Council’s decision. If there is any possibility that a student was unjustly sanctioned then the decision must be reviewed at the highest possible level.
The recent student body elections ballot included a question aimed at gauging student opinion of the Honor Council, and the results are in – 25 percent of the current would like to see it abolished. Granted, that figure is only a quarter of the students who voted, and total abolishment is a strong opinion to hold, but it is significant that so many would like to see such a storied and high-profile institution no longer exist.
How is this perception going to change in light of these few compelling examples? And trust us, there will be more that come to light as the chinks in the armor of administrative stonewalls begin to show.
Perhaps with a more open and honest Honor Council, with an appropriate modicum of attention given by administrators during the subsequent appeals process, that number wouldn’t be so high. It seems that students are understandably distrustful of an institution that routinely makes a mockery of our own Honor Code and its lengthy tradition.
The Honor Council and their administrative retainers have implicitly lied to the community by leaving these frequent procedural missteps unreviewed. They have cheated our College out of the fair administration of a necessary and useful institution. They have stolen the academic careers, athletic careers, and reputations of many fellow members of the community. Shame on them.
Editor’s note: This article was written by Jordan Bloom, but represents the views of The Informer’s editorial board.