DATE:
July 26, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. X.Q.Y. ("the Student")
HEARING DATES:
December 19, 2023 & February 26, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Christopher Wirth, Chair
Professor Ted Kesik, Faculty Panel Member
David Lio, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Janet Song, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Nadia Bruno, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count of concoction under B.i.1(f) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”) for knowingly submitting academic work in the form of an oral presentation based on a final report containing and describing research inputs, tools, methodologies, data and results that had been concocted. In the alternative, the Student was charged with one count under section B.i.3(b) of the Code for knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage of any kind.
The Student was enrolled in a Course in which students were evaluated on the basis of, among other things, a final report on a supervised research project worth 90% of their final grade, consisting of a written report and an oral presentation. The University tendered the evidence of one witness, Associate Professor David Dubins (“Professor Dubins”), who provided his evidence by both affidavit, which was accepted by the Panel pursuant to rule 66 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), and orally. The Student testified on their own behalf.
Professor Dubins testified that he was the Student’s research supervisor for a project to determine the pedagogical effectiveness of using a computer-generated voice for teaching as opposed to a human voice. The project involved creating two video presentations using the same script with one narrated by a human and the other a computer-generated voice. The videos would be presented to a group of students who would be surveyed, rating and comparing the methods. Professor Dubins and the Student met throughout the fall semester, and he provided comments to the Student as part of a mid-point evaluation expressing concerns that the data for the research project would not be ready by the end of the of Course. Professor Dubins did not see the human-voice video or any of the research inputs before the Student’s oral presentation at the end of the winter semester. When Professor Dubins ultimately received the report, he became concerned with the authenticity of the data for several reasons, including the research methodology and the purported research participants.
During the Student’s oral presentation, over Zoom, Professor Dubin’s requested that the Student share both the human-narrated and machine-generated voice videos. The Student left the call, without explanation, and returned fifteen minutes later. The Student subsequently produced a copy of a low-quality video, without audio, which the Student claimed was the human-voice version of the video. Professor Dubins was concerned that the video had been prepared during the period the Student had left the call, and that the entirety of the research report’s findings had been concocted. These concerns were based primarily on inconsistencies between the video and the description of the human voice video in the report and the metadata of the actual video file.
The Student testified and denied that they had concocted their data. They asserted that the video had been prepared before the presentation, and that they had conducted the study with 20 random participants through WeChat, documenting the results through written notes.
The Panel accepted the evidence of Professor Dubins, finding that his evidence was credible and reliable. The evidence of Professor Dubins combined with the totality of the evidence demonstrated that the final report contained research inputs, tools, methodologies, data and results that had been concocted. Specifically, the Panel noted the fact that there were multiple inconsistencies in the Student’s report, their presentation of it and the data file. These inconsistencies included the identity and age of the research participants, the quality and duration of the video, and the Student’s strange behaviour and disappearances from the presentation.
The Panel noted that the Student did not respond well to cross-examination, offering contradictory evidence and refusing to answer questions. As a result, and based on the other evidence, the Panel rejected the evidence of the Student, finding it to be unreliable and implausible. Accordingly, the Panel was satisfied on a balance of probabilities based upon clear, cogent and convincing evidence that it was more likely than not that the Student had in fact concocted their data, contrary to s. B.i.1(f) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered the submissions of Assistant Discipline Counsel and the Student and the factors and principles relevant to sanction in The University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel additionally considered a chart of prior decisions of the Tribunal involving similar misconduct provided by the University. The Panel gave no weight to evidence provided by the Student, namely a medical note and questionnaire, since they were created a significant length of time after the Student’s conduct, were based upon a self-report, did not provide any formal diagnosis, and did not address the Student’s condition at the time of their conduct. The Panel noted that the Student committed a serious academic offence knowingly and deliberately in a course that was singularly focused on research, and that the University is vulnerable to, and suffers detriment from, the type of offence committed by the Student. The Panel further noted that the Student’s prior offence was an aggravating factor, and that in the absence of any mitigating factors, including an expression of remorse, a severe sanction was required for specific and general deterrence.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the course; a five-year suspension; a six-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.