Introduction

Both Bart and Lisa were asked to contact Honor Council by their Computer Science professor Homer. Professor Homer suspected that one of the students had copied the other's Project 3 folder, as the work turned in by both students was very similar, and, for functions #3 and #4, the work was identical. Professor Homer spoke with both students about his concern, and both students denied any wrongdoing on their parts. Because he could not tell which student had copied, but was sure that one file was copied, Professor Homer asked both Bart and Lisa to take the matter to Honor Council.

Honor Council met to discuss the situation involving Bart, Lisa, and Professor Homer and reached consensus that a suspicion of violation existed, and that the matter should be resolved in an Academic Trial.

Fact Finding I

Professor Homer's Statement: Professor Homer began by describing the appropriate level of collaboration in his class, that students are encouraged to discuss the lecture material and the projects with other students, but that they are not permitted to write up solutions together or exchange written work or computer files.

Professor Homer said that he was concerned about Bart and Lisa's submissions for Project 3. He was used to seeing students take similar approaches to writing programs, since students were allowed to work together, but he was not used to seeing students taking the same approach to the extent that the details of the programs were the same. The latter was the case in Bart and Lisa's submissions of Project 3.

Project 3 consisted of 4 required functions, and one optional function. Both Bart and Lisa only completed functions 1-4. When comparing these functions, Professor Homer noticed that a similar approach was used for function #1. He was not as concerned about this question, because it was a relatively simple function. Function #2 was very similar (variables were different and one line was different). Function #3 was identical. Function #4 was identical, except for the different names used for variables. There were also non-standard stylistic similarities, specifically odd spacing in the programs. Most alarming to Homer was his finding of five "spurious tabs" in the same spot on both Bart and Lisa's function #3. These extra tabs could only have been added manually. He said that the likelihood of both students adding these tabs in the exact same spot was very slim, confirming his suspicions that the files were indeed copied.

In describing the writing of a computer program, Professor Homer used the comparison of poetry. In that, it might be possible for two students to use similar styles or even include some similar names or images if they worked together. It is extremely unlikely, however, that the two students would have line-for-line, space-for-space identical poems.

Bart's Statement: Bart said that project 3 was due on a Wednesday. Professor Homer always encouraged students to turn in what they had on the due date. Students could also work on the project for a day or so after the due date and turn in a revised copy for less credit. Bart turned in a version of his project on the Wednesday which did not run correctly. He and Lisa got together on Thursday to go over the functions for the project, and Bart submitted his final version of the project on Thursday evening.

Bart explained that initially Professor Homer had said that written notes should not be taken when working with another student, but that later Professor Homer had adjusted these rules somewhat, and said that it was okay to jot down notes as reminders. Bart said that he and Lisa did take notes when working together, but that he did not copy Lisa's project, nor did he let Lisa copy his project. Bart also commented that he had gone in to talk to Professor Homer several times throughout the semester. He felt that he had developed a pretty good relationship with Professor Homer, and Bart found this accusation to be an attack on his character. Bart concluded by saying that he valued the Honor Code a lot, and in no way did he violate the trust between himself and Professor Homer or himself and the community.

Lisa's Statement: Lisa said that she had worked with Bart a few times before. At the point when she and Bart got together to work on the project, Lisa had not submitted any version of her project on the Wednesday due date because she did not have a project that ran properly. She and Bart decided to discuss the project because they were both having problems. They went through all of the functions, spending about two hours total on the project. After they finished working together, Lisa went home and typed up the project. She waited until Friday to submit it, because she wanted to see if she would have more time to make corrections (the project still did not run). Without making additional corrections, she turned in the project on Friday afternoon. Lisa said that, like Bart, she valued the Honor Code and did not do anything wrong.

Questions: The jury asked about Professor Homer's instructions for collaboration. Professor Homer said that he had been vague and had said that students could take notes.

With regards to stylistic similarities, Professor Homer again pointed to several points in both Bart and Lisa's Project 3 functions that were not standard. Much of the spacing and set up of the lines in the program were either odd or unnecessary.

Bart and Lisa both stated that they did not use the same computer to complete the project. They also said that they were working on their own computers and not on temp storage.

Professor Homer said that neither student was in danger of failing, but that both students were not doing well in the class.

The jury asked if either Bart or Lisa still had their files from the project, any disks they used, or the written notes. Neither Bart nor Lisa thought they did, but said they would check. The jury also asked Professor Homer to send copies of Bart and Lisa's previous projects to all jury members, to see if other students used the same nonstandard style regarding indentations, and to see if this nonstandard style was common in both of the students' past projects.

Deliberations I

Professor Homer sent a message to the jury members reiterating the suspicious style characteristics that show up in several of Bart's previous projects, but none of Lisa's. This e-mail described additional particularities in the four functions. Function #2 was "extremely suspicious" because of the identical approach and the fact that there was a spurious tab in Lisa's program which matched a tab from Bart's program that preceded a comment he had written to Professor Homer. Function #3 was also "extremely suspicious," because both functions were "completely identical in design, choice of names, and indentation, including five spurious tabs." Function #4 was also "suspicious" because it was "identical in design and indentation, but a different choice of names." Professor Homer also noticed that the locations on the screen of several windows were identical. When the windows are opened in the upper left corner, this is not particularly suspicious, because this is the default location for windows to open. However, when the windows are not in the same place, it indicates that they were moved, in which case one would not expect two students working independently to put them in the same spot. The function #3 windows for both Bart and Lisa were not in the default location, and were in exactly the same place.

The jury members had more questions for Lisa and Bart about file sharing and their level of collaboration. The jury also felt that it needed a second opinion on the information Professor Homer found. The jury decided to meet separately with Bart and Lisa as well as a computer science professor from another school who would be informed of the situation and then asked the following questions:

1. Are these files copied?

2. Can you ascertain who might have copied the file from whom?

--for this question, you can consider the styles from other project assignments, any details in Project 3 that are peculiar, and anything else you feel is relevant

Fact Finding II

Lisa The jury asked Lisa how her computer was set up with regards to file sharing. (Since both students were working on their own computers, it would be unlikely for a file to be copied without the other student's knowledge or permission) Lisa said that she had file sharing active on her computer, but a password was required for access.

Lisa also said that she had taken very detailed notes when working with Bart. She pretty much wrote down programs line for line as she and Bart went through them, but she wrote them in "English language" and not in "computer language." Lisa did not have any explanation for Professor Homer's observation that the windows for her and Bart's functions #3 and #4 were in the same spot. She said that she usually moved windows when working so that she could see better. Finally, Lisa reiterated that, though she could not explain the similarity between the two files, she did not cheat.

Bart The jury asked Bart about his file sharing. He said that he did not know how to set up file sharing, nor did he know if file sharing was turned on for his computer. Bart said that he and Lisa worked together for about two hours in the late afternoon. He took pretty detailed notes - nearly line for line like Lisa did. He used both English and computer language, and then used these notes to write the program. Bart said he could not explain the fact that the files were identical. He also said that it would make no sense for him to copy what he had just written down.

Jury Meeting The jury met briefly after speaking with Bart and Lisa. All jury members felt that the level of collaboration Bart and Lisa described had not been conveyed in its entirety to Professor Homer. Many jury members were also concerned that the level of collaboration may have violated the Honor Code. The jury decided talking to Professor Homer, Bart and Lisa was necessary to discuss the level of collaboration.

Professor Homer, Bart and Lisa Professor Homer reiterated that he explicitly told his class that they could not copy files, write down files word for word, or take extensive notes. Bart and Lisa both told Professor Homer (more or less) the extent to which they had collaborated. (The jury asked them again to look for any of these notes they might still have). Professor Homer did feel that collaboration was probably too extensive. Because he had not been specific, however, he did not feel that the collaboration violated the Honor Code. His main concern was with the copying.

Professor Maggie , 2nd Computer Science Professor Professor Maggie began by saying that the files were definitely copied. She also said that collaboration, no matter how extensive, could not have accounted for the similarities between the two programs.

Professor Maggie also introduced a new piece of evidence called an "unresolved path reference." When she tried to run the projects, both Bart (final submission only) and Lisa's Project 3 programs brought up an unresolved path reference to a student's, Sideshow Bob's, folder named "Sideshow Bob Project 3." Professor Maggie described the unresolved path reference as an electronic footprint which shows up when a file is copied from another program or location. The reference tells the program where the file came from in order to retrieve it. She said that the only feasible way that the "Sideshow Bob Project 3" reference could have gotten into both Bart and Lisa's programs was if one or both of them had copied from Sideshow Bob.

Professor Maggie said that since the reference could not have showed up accidentally, it implicated both students. She was pretty sure that Lisa had copied from Bart, and thought that Bart might have copied from Sideshow Bob (explaining how Lisa also got the Sideshow Bob reference), but was not positive. Professor Maggie also suspected that the file was copied without Sideshow Bob's knowledge; it was more likely accessed from temp storage because you need a password to access someone else's computer.

Jury Meeting After the meeting with Professor Maggie, the jury members were pretty shaken up. The jury decided that they should meet with Bart and Lisa separately again to discuss the Sideshow Bob reference and that the chair should talk to Sideshow Bob about his project. Some specific concerns were whether he used temp storage in working on his Project 3 and whether he let anyone use his Project 3. The jury also wanted to ask Professor Homer if he had noticed the Sideshow Bob reference or had any other explanations for how such a reference could appear in a program.

Conversation with Sideshow Bob The chair contacted Sideshow Bob, asking him about Project 3 and his use of temp storage. Bob said that he most frequently used temp storage to work on his projects, and assumed that he had used temp storage at some time while working on Project 3. The chair also asked Bob if he had let anyone use or look at his file. He said that he had not.

Conversation with Professor Homer The chair spoke to Professor Homer about the reference who said that he had only seen the reference once before in a student's program, and this reference had not turned out to be suspicious of copying because the two programs in question were quite different. Professor Homer also said that he had seen the reference to Sideshow Bob's file, but had discounted it based on this past experience. He understood Professor Maggie's concerns, but did not feel that he personally could say for sure that the Sideshow Bob reference was incriminating.

Meeting with Bart The jury explained the discovery of the Sideshow Bob unresolved path reference to Bart, which, according to Professor Maggie, could only have appeared by consciously adding it. The jury asked Bart if he had any explanation for this reference. Bart said that he had worked with Bob on some projects, but that he had not worked with Bob on Project 3. He did not know how the reference could have gotten into his file.

The jury also asked Bart questions about how he and Lisa worked together. He said that he had only worked with her during the process of completing his second draft. They didn't really work on questions one and two, because those were pretty self explanatory (*Note: in Bart's first statement he said they went through the entire project). Bart also said that he saved everything to disks, so as to have a backup copy of things, and that no one had access to that disk. The jury asked Bart if he still had this disk, and he did not think he did.

Meeting with Lisa The jury also explained the Sideshow Bob unresolved path reference to Lisa and asked her if she could explain the reference. Lisa stated that she did not know how the reference could have gotten in her program and that she did not know who Sideshow Bob was.

The jury also asked Lisa about the time frame of when she worked with Bart. Lisa said that they worked on the entire program, function by function, sitting together for about two hours. Lisa thought they were working in the middle of the day.

The jury explained to Lisa that both Professors Homer and Maggie believed that the files were copied and that she copied from Bart. The chair read the list of evidence from Professors Homer and Maggie out loud to Lisa and asked if she could explain what happened. She said that she could not, and she reiterated that she did not cheat.

Deliberations II

After talking to Bart and Lisa, the jury met to begin discussing whether or not a violation of the Honor Code occurred. The issues that the jury was considering were the level of collaboration, whether Bart or Lisa copied from the other, and how the Sideshow Bob reference could be explained. Most jury members felt that the files were copied and that collaboration had gone too far. The list of evidence that Professor Homer had given the jury was really too much to ignore, and the Sideshow Bob reference was also significant. If there was no way for the reference to show up accidentally, then the reference meant that both Bart and Lisa were involved in the copying to some extent.

Collaboration was also an issue. Many jurors felt that Professor Homer still did not understand the extent to which Bart and Lisa collaborated, that they had gone through the project line for line. Many jurors were also feeling that, regardless of Professor Homer's lack of clarity in his collaboration policy, Bart and Lisa should have known that collaboration to the extent that they had was not acceptable. The only consensus in the room was that the jury was not hearing everything in the case, that information was being withheld. It was clear that all of the jury members felt that something did happen that violated the Honor Code, but that they were having difficulty determining exactly what. To help clarify, all of the facts from the case were written on the board:

Evidence supporting:

Collaboration

Bart and Lisa worked on Project 3 together for 2 hours

Bart and Lisa both took line-for-line notes on the programs

Files are Copied

#3 is identical

#4 is identical, with different variable names

#2 is very similar (one command missing; variables have different names)

The windows are in the same non-default spots

5 spurious tabs in function #3

1 spurious tab in function #2

In function #2 both used spaces instead of tabs to indent

Lisa Copied from Bart

Lisa turned in her project after Bart

Bart uses the stylistic abnormalities in his other projects; Lisa does not

There is a spurious tab in Lisa's function #2 that matches a tab before a comment in Bart's function #2. This tab had to be added, because it follows the line where both students used spaces to indent.

In function #4 Lisa uses two different names for her function, while Bart is consistent in naming his function.

From the first two facts, the jury members were able to decide that the level of collaboration violated the Honor Code and that the files were copied. Jury members were pretty sure that Lisa had copied from Bart, but could not explain how that might have happened. Bart did not have file sharing open on his computer, and the disk with Bart's Project 3 was in his room. The Sideshow Bob reference was also problematic. If the Sideshow Bob reference was evidence of the use of a third student's file, then both Bart and Lisa (to some extent) were responsible for the copying because the reference showed up in both their files. However, though Professor Maggie thought that the reference was evidence of the use of a third student's file, Professor Homer was unsure whether the reference was suspicious. These inconsistencies made the jury reluctant to place the blame of copying on either student and reluctant to find that both students somehow responsible for the copying. Because Professor Homer was out of town and it was not possible for Professor Homer and Professor Maggie to talk about the reference, the jury agreed to have the chair talk to another computer science professor about the reference to see if this third professor would find the reference suspicious.

--at this point one jury member removed him/herself for personal reasons.

Conversation with Professor Appu The chair spoke with Professor Appu, another professor very familiar with that type of programming. Professor Appu confirmed that the path reference could not be accidental, and that Sideshow Bob's file had to have been used consciously.

Jury meeting The chair began by describing the conversation s/he had with Professor Appu. With this information, and the fact that it was nearly impossible that the reference would appear in both files, the jury felt confident that some degree of copying had occurred that implicated both students. The jury was sure that copying of Project 3 had occurred, and was nearly convinced that Lisa had copied from Bart. However, because there was no feasible explanation for how Lisa could have copied from Bart without his knowledge, the jury did not feel comfortable singling out Lisa as the one who copied. Because the jury members were sure that copying to some degree occurred, the jury members also felt that Lisa and Bart had lied about some aspects of the case.

After discussing copying and lying, the jury members reopened the question of collaboration. The jury did believe Bart and Lisa's testimonies about the way they had worked together, and decided to look at whether or not they felt that the level of collaboration violated the Honor Code. The Honor Code says, "As students, we are responsible for proper conduct and integrity in our scholastic work. We must follow a professor's instructions as to the completion of tests, homework, and projects, and must ask for clarification if the instructions are not clear" (III.A.). The jury agreed that regardless of Professor Homer's wavering with his instructions on collaboration, Bart and Lisa had not exercised proper conduct in their scholastic work. Several jurors also felt that Bart and Lisa should have asked for clarification as to Professor Homer's collaboration policy before working so closely together.

Initial Statements of Violation

The jury reached consensus on the following statements of violation, with one jury member standing outside because he was feeling unsure as to the role of both Bart and Lisa in the copying.

1. Bart and Lisa collaborated inappropriately on Project 3 to a level that violates community standards as outlined in the Code.

2. Because both Bart and Lisa are somehow responsible for the copying of files, both students violated the Honor Code by failing to maintain academic integrity.

3. Moreover, Bart and Lisa violated the trust of Professor Homer, the jury, and the community by withholding information and lying about some aspect of what occurred.

Presentation of Statements

**Before the presentation of the statements, Bart spoke to the chair about his concerns regarding the statements. He told the chair additional details about the day he and Lisa worked together, and that he was taking the class pass/fail. Because new information had been raised, the chair decided that the presentation of statements meeting would not include circumstantial evidence, and that the jury needed to decide whether, in light of the new evidence from Bart and anything Lisa might have to add, the statements of violation were still accurate.

Presentation of Statements The chair began by reading through the statements of violation and explaining some of the jury's reasoning behind the statements. The chair then asked Bart and Lisa if they had anything else to add or any questions for the jury.

Bart began by outlining the timeline for his working on the project. Bart said that he worked on the project the preceding week and turned in a copy of the project on Wednesday. He then spent all day Thursday working on his project, trying to revise it. He had functions for all of the questions, but his project was not running properly. He and Lisa got together that evening and went over the project. He told Lisa what he had done, and what he had problems with. His computer was also turned on, and his project was pulled up. Later that evening a friend came to visit him, so Bart left the room for 10-15 minutes to tell his friend that he was not finished working on his project and asked the friend to come back. Bart went back up to his room, and worked with Lisa for a little longer. Lisa left, and he tried to work on a little more on the last two functions, but when his friend came back, he turned in his project. (*Note: This detailed timeline was completely new information to the jury. Also, in prior statements, Bart and Lisa both said that they worked together in the late afternoon, not in the evening.) Bart also said that he had no reason to cheat on the project, because he was taking the class pass/fail and was not in danger of failing. He wanted to learn the material, which was why he worked with Lisa for so long, but he had no reason to do it dishonestly.

Lisa said that she did not have any questions. She said that she remembered the evening pretty much the same as Bart. She stressed that she followed Bart out of the room when he went to talk to his friend and did not return to the room before Bart did. She said that she did not copy Bart's file, and that, because she was not in danger of failing either, she did not have any motive to copy.

Both Bart and Lisa thought that it was unreasonable for the jury to be considering collaboration as a violation of the Honor Code when Professor Homer did not consider it to be a violation.

The jury was concerned that Bart had not told them this information earlier. Bart said that he thought the details of the evening were more circumstantial evidence, and that Professor Homer was not supposed to know that he was taking the class pass/fail.

Jury meeting The jury members discussed the information from Bart and Lisa for a while. All were feeling very uneasy about the statements and that they needed more time to think. The jury also wanted Professors Appu and Maggie to talk to see if they could come to a consensus about the use of the Sideshow Bob reference.

--at this point, another jury member removed him/herself from the jury for personal reasons

Professors Appu and Maggie meet Professors Appu and Maggie met to look at the Sideshow Bob reference and see if they could figure out why the reference was there. They both agreed that the reference was valid. In Sideshow Bob's case, one or two files were copied from the larger program folder. With Project 3, either the entire program folder was copied and renamed or text from one program was copied without copying the actual files.

There are several explanations for how the Sideshow Bob reference could have been copied, but, in all cases, Bart had to know that he was using Sideshow Bob's file.

Deliberations III

The jury met to discuss reactions of the presentation of statements meeting and from Professors Appu and Maggie's meeting. All jury members were feeling uncomfortable with statements of violation as they stood, and felt that Bart and Lisa's involvement in the copying needed to be separated. Several jury members (though not the weight of the room) were also feeling uncomfortable with considering collaboration to be a violation of the Honor Code.

All jury members felt confident at this point that Lisa had copied from Bart. Because Bart had left his room for 10-15 minutes, it was possible that Lisa could have copied his file without his knowing. Bart said that he had mainly worked on question #5 after Lisa left. Therefore if Lisa did copy Bart's file, her version would have been nearly identical to the one Bart turned in at that evening. Though the jury members were not certain as to whether or not the coping occurred with Bart's permission, the evidence they already had pointed to Lisa. The fact that Bart never had access to Lisa's computer and that the possibility was there for Lisa to have access to Bart's computer enforced the jury's conviction that Lisa had copied from Bart.

The jury members felt generally unsure about Bart's involvement in the copying. Most could not ignore the Sideshow Bob reference, but it was still troublesome that Professor Homer did not find the reference suspicious. Most jury members also felt that even if they could say that Sideshow Bob's file was used, they should give Bart the benefit of the doubt and not assume it was used inappropriately. Then the question was also raised that if Bart did not use the file inappropriately, could he be found in violation of the code? The jury agreed to have the chair talk to Professor Homer about their concerns and see if he could offer any new insight.

Conversation with and Messages from Professor Homer Professor Homer searched for other unresolved path references, and found only two students that had references to their own previous projects, the student that he had found earlier in the semester that he mentioned before, and Bart and Lisa's references to Sideshow Bob. This made Professor Homer very suspicious that the unresolved path reference was not something that he could just write off.

In the meantime, the jury members looked through Sideshow Bob's Project 3 to see if there were any suspicious similarities between Bob and Bart's Project 3 files and if there were major differences between Bart's two submissions, considering that the first submission did not have the Sideshow Bob reference. The jury compiled a list of similarities between the two projects and changes that Bart had made, which were mostly regarding question #1. Although these similarities were present, Professor Homer said that these similarities could not be used as concrete, conclusive evidence because these changes between Bart's first and second submissions were either minor or ones he felt confident Bart could have made on his own.

Because the file that calls up the reference was no longer in the project, it could not be determined if the addition of a Sideshow Bob file was appropriate. It was clear that it was used, however, for a file cannot be added without getting a message saying "are you sure you want to add this?"

Because of this information, the jury did not feel comfortable finding Bart in violation for the use of a Sideshow Bob file. However, since it was impossible for the reference to show up accidentally and without his knowledge, the jury did believe that Bart was in violation of the Code for failing to explain the reference when asked by the jury.

At this point the jury reopened the question of collaboration. Seven jury members felt strongly that the collaboration violated the Honor Code. Two jurors were feeling ambivalent. One juror felt strongly that the collaboration was not a violation. Without a clear or strong feeling from the weight of jury members, the jury decided that, though it still remained a concern, they could not agree on a statement of violation about the level of collaboration.

Final Statements of Violation

The jury members reached consensus on the following statements of violation:

1. a) Lisa violated the Honor Code by copying Bart's Project 3.

b) Lisa violated the Honor Code by lying about some aspects of what occurred.

2. A reference to Sideshow Bob's Project 3 appeared in Bart's final submission, proving that Bart used Sideshow Bob's project in the completion of his own project. Because Bart's testimony failed to explain the appearance to the Sideshow Bob reference, Bart violated the Honor Code by lying to the jury.

Presentation of Statements/Circumstantial

The jury met with Bart and Lisa to present the statements of violation and begin the circumstantial portion of the trial. The chair began by reading the statements of violation and explaining the jury's reasoning behind changing the statements, with several jurors adding their own reasons. The chair asked Bart and Lisa if they had anything to add or any questions to ask. Lisa expressed her frustration that she felt that the only way one of them could be found not in violation of the Code was by implicating the other person. Lisa reiterated that she went outside of his room when Bart went to talk to his friend, and that she did not copy his file. Bart expressed his concerns that he did not know where the reference came from and that he had no reason not to tell the jury about it. He said that if he had any explanation he would have said so.

After hearing Bart and Lisa's concerns, the jury agreed to begin the circumstantial portion of the trial. Because Professor Homer could not be present, the chair read a statement that he had prepared. Professor Homer commented that both Bart and Lisa had been doing poorly in the class at the middle of the term, though neither were in danger of failing. The chair asked Bart and Lisa if they had any other circumstantial evidence to add. Neither did.

The jury asked Bart if he was planning to uncover his grade, and he said he was not. The jury also asked if Bart or Lisa were under considerable stress with other work. Both Bart and Lisa said that they did not have any more work than usual.

The chair explained to Bart and Lisa that both of them needed to suggest appropriate resolutions. S/he also explained that resolutions seek to hold the parties accountable, repair the breach of trust, and educate the parties involved. The chair then read the part of Professor Homer's suggestions for appropriate resolutions. Professor Homer thought that Bart should be given a 0.0 for project 3 or should have his grade reduced. Professor Homer also stated that he could put aside his thoughts that Bart might have had some involvement in the cheating. With regards to Lisa, Professor Homer stated that the only thing that would help to repair the breech of trust would be if Lisa confessed and explained why she did these things. However, he did not feel that a confession could or should be required. Therefore, he thought she should get a 0 for Project 3, if not a failing grade in the course, and that she should be asked to write something showing that she has learned about the importance of the Honor Code.

The jury asked Bart and Lisa to suggest appropriate resolutions. Bart said that he thought that his living with the allegations of cheating for the duration of the trial, his missed sleep, and his missed classes held him accountable. Bart also thought that it would be appropriate for him to fail Project 3 and do it over.

Lisa agreed that living with the allegations for the duration of the trial held her accountable. She also stated that she had become paranoid about working with others, and that group work had always been an important part of learning for her. With regards to repairing the breach of trust, Lisa said that trust went two ways. She felt uncomfortable repairing a trust she did not feel she broke, and she felt that the jury's statements violated her trust in them.

After these statements, the circumstantial portion of the trial ended.

Jury Meeting The jury met briefly following the presentation of statements of violation. The jury decided to take a day to think about their responses to the presentation of statements/circumstantial meeting.

Deliberations

The jury began by discussing how hard it was to see Lisa and Bart react to the statements of violation, but also agreed that the statements should not be changed again. The jury discussed eliminating the statements all together, but felt that the factual evidence in the case was still too strong to ignore. The jury discussed the difficulty of making statements of violation that conflict with the testimonies of the parties involved. After some discussion, all jury members felt comfortable with the statements of violation because they reflected only the facts they knew. Several jurors felt that they needed to add a statement about how the jury did not know if Lisa copied with or without Bart's permission to Statement 1a. The jury agreed to add this statement, reaching final consensus on the resolutions with the following change:

1. a) Lisa violated the Honor Code by copying Bart's Project 3. However, the jury remained uncertain whether the copying occurred with or without Bart's permission.

b) Lisa violated the Honor Code by lying about some aspects of what occurred.

The jury members did not feel that they needed to call in Bart and Lisa again because the change to 1a was a clarification of meaning and not a change of meaning.

The jury then began discussing resolutions. The jury was extremely concerned that Bart and Lisa had lied to them throughout the trial. The jury started by outlining its goals for Bart and Lisa.

Goals for Lisa:

1. Help Lisa to come to terms with the copying and lying

2. Help Lisa to think about her actions

3. Hold Lisa accountable for cheating and lying

4. Educate Lisa about honesty and integrity in academic work

5. Have Lisa learn from this, move on with her life, and be successful at Haverford

Goals for Bart:

1. Hold Bart accountable to the jury for his lying

2. Educate Bart about the proper use of temp storage

3. Repair the breach of trust between Bart and the jury

4. Have Bart come to terms with his lying

The jury first discussed resolutions for Bart, specifically the appropriateness of separation. None of the jury members felt that separation was warranted given that Bart was not found in violation for copying Sideshow Bob's file and that Bart's lying was about one specific incident (as opposed to lying throughout the trial). Instead, the jury tried to brainstorm other ways to address ERA (education, repairing the breach of trust, and accountability). These possible resolutions raised many questions in the jurors minds, namely: how to address that Bart lied to the jury?; how to repair that breach of trust?; is it fair to impose resolutions relating to computers and Project 3 if Bart was not found in violation for the Sideshow Bob reference?; and how do resolutions involving computers or grades work towards addressing the goals for Bart? The jury decided that what Bart lied about was the Sideshow Bob file, so, even if he was not found in violation of copying Bob's file, his lying violation involved computer integrity. The jurors did not feel that failing the course was appropriate, though they did feel that it was appropriate for Bart to fail Project 3, because Bart had lied about the use of Sideshow Bob's file that had to be used in the completion of his own project. As part of addressing education, the jury agreed that it was appropriate for Bart to redo Project 3. The jury felt that the best way Bart could address his lying to the jury and repairing the breach of trust was by coming to terms with the lying. Therefore, the jury agreed that Bart should write a letter reflecting on this incident in several weeks (after he had time to think and reflect). The jury also thought that education could also be addressed by Bart writing a statement about academic integrity in Computer Science classes, focusing on collaboration, copying and the use of temp storage because Bart most likely used temp storage to access Bob's file. The jury reached consensus on the following resolutions for Bart:

1. Bart will receive a 0.0 on Project 3.

2. Bart will redo Project 3 with the assistance of Professor Homer and to his satisfaction.

3. Bart will write a statement on proper academic standards in Computer Science classes. This statement should address how the Honor Code relates to collaboration, copying, and student responsibility. This statement will be available to both Computer Science professors and students.

4. Bart will write a letter to the community after completing resolutions 2 and 3. This letter must address, but is not limited to: the incident in question, resolutions 2 and 3, and how temp storage is symbolic of the trust exists in the Haverford community.

Feeling confident about the resolutions for Bart, the jury began to discuss resolutions for Lisa. The jury referred back to its goals for Lisa and opened discussion on separation, an issue on which the jury was divided. Two jury members felt very strongly that separation was warranted, because Lisa had copied a file and lied about it both to the jury and Professor Homer. The rest of the jury members were very worried about where Lisa could best come to terms with her copying and lying, feeling that, though separation may have been warranted, it was not the best option in this case. Because of this split on the question of separation, the jury decided to discuss other resolutions that would address ERA and the above stated goals effectively at Haverford. The jury came up with a lengthy list of resolutions including failing the class, redoing the project, writing two letters to the community following the trial and at the completion of resolutions, keeping a reflective journal, and talking to a support person about the trial. The jury members were concerned about not overwhelming Lisa with things to do. The goal of all of the resolutions was to help Lisa come to terms with the fact that she copied. With all of the things she was being asked to complete, there was no way Lisa would have time to think about her copying or her lying. The jury was concerned that Lisa needed someone at Haverford to talk to, especially since she had no support person throughout the trial. The jury did not feel comfortable specifying exactly who Lisa must talk to, and decided that she must talk to a person of her choosing at least four times throughout the course of the semester. This person may be a dean, the EEOC officer, a professor, a person from Psych Services, or another person approved by the jury.

After looking at these statements, the jury reexamined whether the above suggested resolutions effectively held Lisa accountable for her copying and lying. Two jurors still felt that Lisa was not being held accountable, but the weight of the jury was against separation. Most jurors thought that Lisa would not be able to come to grips with things at home. Her home did not have the Honor Code, so she would be separated from the living document the jury wanted her to understand. Though the jurors recognized that they could not take all effects of all resolutions into account, several jurors felt strongly that separation might nullify all other resolutions (aimed towards education and repairing the breach of trust) because Lisa would be away from the community in which she needs to fulfill them.

The jury spent a lot of time trying brainstorm alternatives to separation that would allow Lisa to stay on campus but would also address accountability. The jury agreed that all other options would either jeopardize Lisa's confidentiality or give her too much busy work to really be able to think about her copying and lying. However, all jury members did agree that the resolutions as they stood did not address accountability. As a possible means to address accountability, the jury also discussed having a mediated conversation with Lisa. This conversation would address the jury's individual concerns throughout the course of the trial, the deliberation process, and Lisa's future as a community member at Haverford. Though all jury members liked the idea of a mediated conversation and thought that it had the potential to help Lisa come to terms with her actions, two jury members still did not feel this resolution effectively addressed accountability.

Because the jury seemed to be at an impasse, the chair wanted to identify exactly what was making people feel uncomfortable with separation: was it Lisa's actions, the circumstantial evidence, or Lisa's character that was preventing people from thinking that separation was best? The jury agreed that copying an entire project and lying to a jury warranted separation, and that the circumstantial evidence was not significant enough. It was after considering how separation would affect Lisa personally that most jurors felt uncomfortable with separation.

Each juror took time to check his or her own biases, to look at why being home would be better or worse than being at Haverford. Some jurors raised the point that they were selected to serve on the jury because they did not know Lisa, and therefore, had no way of knowing what was best for her. Other thoughts about the value of space away from a space were raised, that time away can help one gain a new perspective. Some also raised the point that there was a certain level to which Lisa might need a shock to finally come to terms with copying and lying. Still other jurors felt that Lisa could not do the reflection she needed to do while also carrying a full course load, working, participating in activities, and fulfilling the resolutions. At the end of the meeting, two jurors felt strongly in favor of separation, two jurors felt strongly against separation, and six jurors were in the middle though leaning towards separation. The jury members decided to take a break to think about the question of separation.

Upon reconvening, eight of the jury members felt that separation was warranted and two jury members still felt that Lisa should be at Haverford. The jury discussed why the six wavering jurors decided that separation was appropriate. Many felt that separation was the only appropriate, feasible option. The two students that had felt strongly about separation all along also raised the concerns that separation was warranted given the severity of her actions and that several people who plagiarized (severely) and admitted to it were separated for a semester or more. The question was raised as to the fairness of Lisa not being separated when she plagiarized extensively but didn't admit to it. One juror also felt that copying a file and then changing variable names (a reference to the fact that several of Bart and Lisa's functions were identical, but had different variable names) was malicious and represented an attempt to deceive Professor Homer. The two jurors who were uncomfortable with separation said that they were seeing both sides. They did not feel comfortable being part of a consensus, but would not block consensus.

Before proceeding, the jury stopped to consider whether it could have any members standing outside of consensus. Only two members are permitted to stand outside of consensus. Two people had left the jury, but these people left the jury before the final statements of violation were made and before any resolutions were discussed. The trial had also continued for quite some time from when the first juror removed him/herself and almost that long from when the second juror removed him/herself. All of the jury members felt that it was not fair to count those two jury members as standing outside of consensus because they were not at all a part of the jury or the decisions being made. The jury members recognized that eight out of ten jury members thought separation was appropriate and two jury members recognized the arguments for separating Lisa but were not sure what would be best for her. The jury agreed that the weight of the group thought separation was appropriate, and thus to proceed with the discussion

Most jurors thought that separation was appropriate because it gave Lisa time to think away from Haverford. The jury also agreed to ask Lisa to keep a sort of reflective journal. The jury discussed requiring a certain number of entries, but decided it did not want to put constraints on Lisa's reflection. The jury also agreed that having Lisa redo Project 3 would be unreasonable, because she cold not redo it until she returned. The jury still felt strongly that failing the class was appropriate, and that writing a letter to the community upon her return to campus was important. The jury also wanted to recommend, but not require, that Lisa talk to someone about her thoughts and reflections when returning to Haverford before writing the letter to the community. The jury reached consensus on the resolutions for Lisa listed below.

1. Lisa will receive a 0.0 for her final grade the class.

2. Lisa will be separated for one semester. The jury feels Lisa needs time away to come to terms with the severity of her actions and the extent to which she damaged the trust of the community. While away, Lisa will keep a journal reflecting on community standards of honesty and integrity and her responsibility as a community member to uphold these standards.

3. Lisa will write a letter to the community. This letter must include, but is not limited to, Lisa's reflections on the trial, the statements of violation, and the incident in question. Also as part of this letter, Lisa will reflect upon the essay she wrote on the Honor Code when applying to Haverford and how her perceptions of the Honor Code have changed.

4. The jury recommends that Lisa talk to a Haverford Community member of her choosing before writing the letter.

Presentation of Resolutions/Final Consensus on Resolutions

The chair read the resolutions for Bart aloud, gave jurors time to explain their reasoning behind the resolutions, and asked Bart if he had any questions or concerns. Bart said that he was disappointed and concerned that everyone thought he was lying. The chair also voiced a concern of Professor Homer regarding Bart's redoing Project 3. Professor Homer was worried about Bart not having the time to redo the project, or, if he took the time, sacrificing his other school work.

The chair read the resolutions aloud for Lisa, gave jurors time to explain their reasoning behind the resolutions, and asked Lisa if she had any questions or concerns. Lisa said that she thought that separation would be really detrimental to her life at Haverford. Lisa was also concerned, because she thought that the jury members had doubted her word from the very beginning. Several jurors told Lisa and Bart that they had trusted them up until the point of deciding statements of violation. Every juror wanted to trust them, but the evidence against them was just too great to ignore.

After Bart and Lisa left the jury discussed the concerns raised. The jury agreed with Professor Homer's concern about the redoing of Project 3, and decided to make it a recommendation. The jury also discussed separation again in light of the concerns raised by Lisa. The jury still felt comfortable with its original decision, and thought it was the best decision possible. The jury agreed that Lisa could not come to terms with her actions at Haverford and that the severity of her actions warranted being separated for a semester. One of the jurors who had originally stood outside of consensus felt that at this point s/he was comfortable being part of consensus. The jury reached final consensus on the resolutions with the following change:

2. The jury recommends that Bart redo Project 3.

All jury members were part of the consensus on Bart's resolutions. Nine jury members reached consensus on Lisa's resolutions; one jury member stood outside.

Lisa appealed the decision to the President of the College, and it was upheld in its entirety.

Questions:

1. When does collaboration become a violation of academic integrity?

2. To what extent is a professor responsible for outlining his/her specific guidelines for collaboration?

3. Is it reasonable for a jury to consider a student's academic conduct improper under the Code if their professor does not believe it is?

4. Should copying a computer program be treated the same as plagiarizing a paper? What constitutes gross plagiarism of a computer program?

5. Did the jury proceed appropriately in dealing with the lying of the confronted parties?

6. How can a jury take into account what is best for the person on trial (particularly with regards to separation) when jury members are chosen because they do not know the person involved?

7. Can the breach of trust with the community be repaired if the confronted party does not admit to violating the Honor Code?

8. Can anyone stand outside a of a ten person jury? How many jurors should be necessary for a decision? What constitutes the weight of the group? If jurors leave should the trial be allowed to continue?

Comments:

If you have any further comments or questions about this abstract, Honor Council offers the opportunity for you to discuss this abstract with an actual member of the jury. Please contact the Honor Council at 642-CODE or code@haverford.edu for more information. If you have general comments about this or any other abstract, please contact your local Honor Council representative..