FILE:
Case # 1376 (2022-2023)
DATE:
May 15, 2023, via Zoom
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. J.X. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
February 28, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Douglas F. Harrison, Chair
Dr. Pascal von Lieshout, Faculty Panel Member
Harvi Karatha, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Joseph Berger, Co-Counsel, Paliare Rolan Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Nusaiba Khan, Quasi-Judicial Administrative Assistant, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty of Grievances
The Student was charged under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code for knowingly representing as their own an idea or work of another on a course test (Test 2). In the alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.1(b) for knowingly obtaining unauthorized aid in relation to Test 2. The Student was also alternatively charged under s. B.i.3(b) for knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code to obtain academic advantage in connection with Test 2.
The Student was enrolled in the course in Fall 2020 and Winter 2021. Test 2 was administered online. Students were allowed to use course materials but not permitted to communicate with peers or use external help, including online platforms. After the completion of the test, course instructors found test questions and answers posted on Chegg.com. One of the course instructors found that the Student’s answers to a test question were very similar to answers posted on Chegg.com, with aspects that were virtually identical. The instructor determined that the similarities were extensive and unlikely to have been coincidental.
The Student acknowledged receipt of an email from the chair of the course’s department and denied cheating but did not respond to any other follow-ups. The Student did not attend the hearing and was not represented by counsel. The Panel heard evidence that the University had made serious efforts to serve the Student with notice, through email and telephone, and through courier delivery. The Panel found that reasonable notice of the hearing was provided.
After considering the instructor’s evidence concerning similarities between the Student’s answers and those on Chegg.com, the Panel found the Student guilty of knowingly representing as her own, an idea or expression of an idea or work of another on Test 2, contrary to s. B.i.1(d). The University withdrew the alternative charges.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered similar previous cases and the Provost’s Guidance on Sanctions, available in Appendix C of the Code. The Panel considered the Student's character and extenuating circumstances, finding that there was no evidence to the Student's character nor extenuating circumstances due to the Student’s absence in the proceedings. The Panel also found that though the Student had no prior offences, there was no evidence of remorse. In considering the nature of the offence, the detriment to the University, and the need for deterrence, the Panel found that copying answers from another, improper source onto an exam is an extremely serious offence that can be perceived as an attempt to fraud the University. The Panel noted that the shift to online assessments during the pandemic has resulted in the increase of students using resources like Chegg.com. The Panel observed that online assessments, and the temptation among students to use sources like Chegg.com, will remain part of curricula beyond the pandemic. The Panel therefore found that it was necessary for the associated penalty to function as a general deterrent against such behaviour.
Counsel for the University directed the Panel to similar prior decisions and sanctions where students had submitted evaluation answers similar to answers found on Chegg.com, including a case where the student did not participate in the proceedings.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade assignment of zero for the course; a two-year suspension; a three-year notation on the Student’s transcript; and a report to Provost for publication with the Student’s name withheld.