DATE: January 13, 2022
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. S.E.C. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE: November 12, 2021, via Zoom
Panel Members:
Mr. Christopher Wirth, Chair
Professor Glen Jones, Faculty Panel Member
Mr. Yazan Zamel, Student Panel Member
Appearances:
Ms. Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
The Student
Hearing Secretary:
Ms. Nadia Bruno, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline & Faculty Grievances
NOTE: Case being appealed.
The Student was charged under s. B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”) on the basis that the Student knowingly used or possessed an unauthorized aid or obtained unauthorized assistance in connection with a test. In the alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code on the basis that the Student knowingly represented as her own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in a test. In the further alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code on the basis that the Student knowingly engaged in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage of any kind in connection with a test.
The Student attended the hearing and denied the charges. As a result, the hearing proceeded on the basis that the University bore the burden of proving the charges on the balance of probabilities. The University tendered evidence of four witnesses who provided their evidence by way of affidavit, which was accepted by the Panel pursuant to Rule 61 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Student testified on her own behalf.
The Panel considered the evidence of the Assistant Professor who was the course coordinator for the course in which the test in question was submitted. The Panel noted that a student notified the Assistant Professor that several questions from the test had been posted to Chegg.com during the time period allotted for the test. The University requested information from Chegg.com to investigate the matter. The data obtained by Chegg.com outlined that a subscriber from the University of Toronto with an email address that contained the last and first name of the Student had accessed a question that was on the test. The Panel examined the evidence of the Dean’s Designate. The affidavit of the Dean’s Designate outlined that she met with the Student regarding the alleged academic misconduct. At the meeting, the Student denied that the email address belonged to her, denied that she committed an academic offence, and also denied that her IP address could match those used to access Chegg.com. The Student admitted that she had a Chegg.com account but explained that her account was not associated with the email address that contained her last and first name, and that she used her Chegg.com account mainly for homework.
The Panel reviewed the evidence of the former Director of Faculty Governance (“Former Director”). The Former Director’s affidavit outlined that the Chegg.com’s Honor Code Team provided an Excel spreadsheet which outlined that a “viewer” from the University with an email address that contained the last and first name of the Student accessed the answer to a question on the test and it further outlined the IP address that accessed that question on the day of the test. The Panel examined the affidavit and testimonial evidence of the Director of Academic & Collective Technologies in Information Technology Services (“Director”). The Director’s affidavit outlined that at the request of Assistant Discipline Counsel his team pulled the Quercus Application Page View reports for the Student’s user id. The Student’s Quercus Application Page View report showed that the user id exclusively assigned to a UTORid with the Student’s last name and first initial, accessed the course, including the quiz tool for the test at various times from a computer with a particular IP address. To clarify his affidavit, the Director testified that there are two types of IP addresses, a public and a private one. In response to the Student and Panel’s questions, the Director stated that he had no way of assessing the likelihood of one IP address being assigned to more than one device while using the same router and that each device would have its own private IP address, but it is possible that several devices sharing a common router could have the same public IP address.
The Student testified that the IP address for her on Quercus when she wrote the test is shown as having been from a Macintosh computer, but she did not own one at that time. Furthermore, the email address shown as the one being used to access the answers on Chegg.com was not hers and that email addresses can be created by anyone. The Student furthered by advising the Panel that she lived in a communal house with an unsecured network and given the evidence on how IP addresses work it could have been anyone in that house. She denied accessing the answer on Chegg.com. In cross-examination, the Student testified that the Director’s affidavit accurately set out her University of Toronto user id and email address. She further confirmed that she used her University of Toronto ID and password to write the test and no one else had access to that password. The Student indicated that she is a subscriber to Chegg.com. The Student further confirmed that the Quercus information in the Director’s affidavit shows that someone used her user ID to view the quiz page and the Student has no evidence that Quercus was in any way tampered with. The Panel noted that the Student testified that she had not contacted Chegg.com herself once she was aware of these issues. Based on the evidence and the submissions by Assistant Discipline Counsel and the Student, the Panel considered it to be highly improbable that another University of Toronto student taking the same course as the Student and writing the same test, living with her in the same house and using the same internet, would have created an email address in her name and use that email address to access the answer to the test on Chegg.com and for the IP address which the Student wrote the test to be identical to the IP address to that which accessed Chegg.com to obtain the answer. Accordingly, on a balance of probabilities based upon the clear and convincing evidence, the Panel was satisfied that the Student accessed the answer to the test on Chegg.com and used it to complete the test and thereby committed the academic offence of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with the test contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code. Given this finding, the University withdrew the alternative charges.
During the sanction phase of the hearing, the Student submitted a letter from a doctor which was entered into evidence. She was then cross-examined. She testified that she never provided the letter to the University and stated that when she spoke to the Dean’s Designate, she felt that it was pointless to do so. Furthermore, she did not tell the Dean’s Designate that this matter was impacting her mental health or that she was under the care of a doctor. The Student further testified that she wanted to enter this letter into evidence now to show that the University needs to improve matters and she was not using it for the purpose of obtaining a lesser sanction, but rather to demonstrate how these matters can have an impact on mental health. The University had no reply evidence on sanction. The University made submissions on the appropriate sanction. The Student left the hearing during the University’s submissions and therefore, did not provide her own submissions on the appropriate sanction. The Panel considered the factors and principles relevant to sanction as set out by this Tribunal in The University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case no. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). In addition to these factors, the Panel considered other decisions of this Tribunal involving similar misconduct. However, the Panel remained cognizant of the fact that no two cases are identical and that it is not bound by past decisions of this Tribunal, but the Tribunal does try to develop a consistent body of cases so that students are treated fairly and consistently. The Panel noted that the Student’s adamant denial of the allegations and her refusal to accept responsibility for her conduct was troubling in the context of accessing her character. The Panel was further concerned that there was a real likelihood that the Student would potentially commit a repetition of the offence. The Panel noted that by cheating on the test, the Student undermined the grades-based system of evaluation and broke the honour code that is essential to modern learning. Furthermore, any sanction must denounce cheating on tests and deter others in to protect the academic integrity of the University. Students must understand that this kind of misconduct will have serious repercussions to that they will be deterred from cheating. The Panel accepted the University’s submission that by using Chegg.com, a paid commercial subscription service, the Student committed a more serious form of academic misconduct, and that while normally the sanction for the first offence would be a two-year suspension, the Panel was satisfied that the circumstances of this case combined with this aggravating factor, a three year suspension of the Student from the University was appropriate. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a final grade of zero in the course; a three-year suspension; a four-year notation on the transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.