1. Amount and degree of plagiarism; extent of use of unauthorized materials, assistance, or collaboration; and extent of data falsification or fabrication of sources.
2. Cooperation of student during all phases of the adjudication process
3. Extraordinary extenuating circumstances
4. Purposeful and demonstrated misleading of Hearing Panel
Factors not taken into account
5. Weight of assignment (percent of course grade)
6. Long-term consequences of sanction
7. Emotional Duress
. The Academic Honor Council will consider the amount of the assignment affected by behavior found to violate the Honor Code.
Explanation: This differentiates cheating on, for example, one math problem versus many math problems. In the instance of plagiarism, sanction mitigation would be warranted if the plagiarized text represented a very small proportion of the complete paper or did not contribute significantly to the overall argument of the paper.
The Academic Honor Council will consider the accused student's cooperation during all phases of the adjudication process.
Explanation: Whether or not an accused student pleads "responsible" or "not responsible," a student who in a spirit of cooperation attempts to assist both the Honor Council's Student Case Presenter and the Honor Council's Hearing Panel in understanding exactly what happened. Lying to the Student Case Presenter or to the Hearing Panel is evidence of non-cooperation.
3. The Academic Honor Council will take into account the possibility of extraordinary extenuating circumstances.
Explanation: This norm is intended to take into account truly extraordinary extenuating circumstances that may have contributed to the student's violation of the Honor Code. Such circumstances need to be distinguished from "emotional duress" (see 7 below), in that the extraordinary extenuating circumstances will be found to be largely beyond the student's control and which can reasonably be interpreted as seriously undermining the student's ability to make sound ethical decisions. In such situations, the student must provide compelling evidence of the extraordinary circumstances.
This evidence may include documented mental health cases that led the student to seek counseling and advice prior to the violation of the Honor Code or extraordinary physical health conditions. The evidence is not limited to documented mental and physical health issues; it could also include documented personal trauma issues.
4. The Academic Honor Council will regard the purposeful and demonstrated misleading of the Hearing Panel as an aggravating factor.
Explanation: This norm applies to situations where an accused student attempts to mislead either the Honor Council's Student Case Presenter or the Honor Council's Hearing Panel by misrepresenting or concealing relevant factors, or lies about his or her actions in relation to the accusation. The norm also applies to an accused student who attempts to mislead the Hearing panel through rude and aggressive behavior towards members of the Honor Council or to the person filing the charge.
5. The Academic Honor Council will not consider the weight an assignment has in a course (percent of course grade) when determining sanctions.
Explanation: This norm reduces inconsistency in sanctioning.
6. The Academic Honor Council will not consider the long-term consequences of its assigned sanctions.
Explanation: This is for the sake of consistency only. If the Honor Council considers long term consequences, a senior and a first-year student in the same course could get two different sanctions for the same offense.
7. The Academic Honor Council will not consider emotional duress on the part of the student.
Explanation: Many violations of the Honor Code are due to the emotional duress of falling behind in work, often the result of being overwhelmed with the demands of multiple responsibilities such as social, athletic, and other extracurricular activities, as well as other course assignments. These are part of normal college life and students need to learn how to deal with these in more constructive ways than taking short-cuts that violate the Honor Code.