DATE:
March 23, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. H.Z. ("the Student")
HEARING DATES:
November 30, 2022 and January 9, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Cynthia Kuehl, Chair
Professor George Cree, Faculty Panel Member
Nik Khakhar, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Daniel Goldbloom, Counsel for the Student, Goldbloom Law
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or obtaining unauthorized assistance in an assessment, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. Alternatively, the Student was also charged with one count of knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation or otherwise described in the Code in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage of any kind in connection with the assessment, contrary to section B.i.3 (b) of the Code.
The Panel considered the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts(“ASF”). It noted that the issue before it was whether the Student was the person who had participated in an online review session conducted during the time set aside for the completion of the assignment. The Panel considered evidence that one of the course professors was alerted by a student in the course that Easy EDU, a commercial tutoring service, had held a review session during the submission window during which Easy EDU provided solutions to questions that were nearly identical to the questions on the assignment. The 180 students who had attended Easy EDU’s review session had received a study package of 22 questions, which corresponded directly to questions the professor had written for the assessment. Another student, writing on behalf of other students in the course, had emailed that professor raising concerns about academic integrity and that assignment. That student provided evidence, including a YouTube link, showing the Student’s name on a Zoom screen during the session held by Easy EDU. Based on the evidence, the Panel concluded that the Student had participated extensively during the review session. The Panel found the Student guilty of committing an offence under section B.i.1(b) of the Code, and the University withdrew the alternative charge.
In determining the sanction, the Panel considered the parties’ joint submission on penalty (“JSP”). It was troubled by the attempt to cover up the Student’s misconduct in this case by involving another former student in an elaborate story. While this was the Student’s first academic offence, the Panel was concerned that there was a negative reflection of the Student’s character. The Panel saw the Student’s recognition as an important factor that reduces the likelihood of repetition.
The Student’s submitted that an additional mitigating factor was that they were an international student and the Panel’s decision could affect their immigration status. In response, the Panel accepted the University’s submission that the Discipline Appeals Board had made clear that one does not adjust the sanction based on immigration status. Additionally, the Panel noted that this factor would not have affected its consideration of the JSP because it was otherwise in the reasonable range of outcomes. The Panel also considered the risk to the University’s integrity when a mass cheating incident occurs and noted that it reflects poorly on the University and its safeguards in the asynchronous learning environment. The Panel commented that abuse of asynchronous/online testing is an ongoing issue at the University and has been of particular concern in the last several years. According to the Panel, it is appropriate to send a very strong message to students that the use of unauthorized assistance is academic misconduct to be treated very seriously. The Panel accepted the JSP.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade of zero in the course; a two-year and four-month suspension; a four-year notation on the Student's transcript until their graduation, whichever comes first; and a report to the Provost for publication.