{\rtf1\ansi \deflang1033\deff0{\fonttbl
{\f0\froman \fcharset0 \fprq2 Times New Roman;}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;}
{\stylesheet{\fs20 \snext0 Normal;}
}\margl1440\margr1440\margb1461\hyphhotz936\ftnbj\ftnrstpg\aftnnar\viewkind1 \sectd \sbknone\pgndec\headery1440\footery1440\endnhere\endnhere 
{\footer {
\posxc\nowrap{\plain {\field{\*\fldinst { PAGE  }}}}\par}
\par}
{\*\pnseclvl1\pndec\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}
{\*\pnseclvl2\pnlcltr\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}
{\*\pnseclvl3\pnlcrm\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}
{\*\pnseclvl4\pndec\pnstart1{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pnlcltr\pnstart1{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcrm\pnstart1{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl7\pndec\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}
{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}
{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1}

\pard \qc\sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \b\fs25 KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY HONOR SYSTEM\par
}{\plain \b\fs25 \par
}{\plain \b\fs25 Annual Review\par
}{\plain \b\fs25 \par
}{\plain \b\i\fs25 Education, Consultation, Mediation, Adjudication:\par
}{\plain \b\i\fs25 We do it all with student development in mind.*\par
}{\plain \b\i\fs25 \par
}\pard \sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \b\i\fs25 * }{\plain \fs25 The Honor System moto, originated by members of the Honesty and Integrity Peer 
Educators (HIPE)\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25   }{\plain \b\fs25 Article VI of our By Laws (now named }{\plain \b\i\fs25 Investigation & Adjudication Procedures)}{\plain \b\fs25  
requires the Honor System Director to provide an annual report to Student Senate, 
Faculty Senate and the Provost at the beginning of the subsequent fall semester.  This 
report summarizes the activities of the Honor System for the 2004/2005 academic year.\par
}{\plain \b\fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 The primary purpose of the Honor System is to promote academic honesty as the cornerstone 
of our university\'92s academic integrity.  When called upon to help defend academic integrity, 
our secondary purpose is to provide the organizational structure of the Honor Council to 
investigate and adjudicate allegations of Honor Pledge violations.}{\plain \b\fs25 \par
}{\plain \b\fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 During the 2004/2005 academic year there were 123 Honor System Violation Reports 
submitted to our office, involving 162 Kansas State University undergraduate, graduate, and 
distance education students.  The total number of cases increased 38% from the previous 
year.  Of the 162 students alleged to have violated the Honor Pledge, 109 were male and 53 
were female, which supports national research suggesting that males are more likely to violate 
the Honor Pledge than  females.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 Plagiarizing was the single most common Honor Pledge violation and was the chief factor in 
77 cases.  Usually the plagiarized source was from the Internet and faculty have become more 
adept at detecting those transgressions.  Occasionally students plagiarize the work of other 
students, claiming only to want to see, \'93how you completed the assignment.\'94  Students who 
unwittingly share their completed work with other students are usually surprised to discover 
they have provided unauthorized aid and will need to defend their actions before an Honor 
Council Hearing Panel, which will likely take a dim view of the situation.  Numerous faculty 
have mentioned their interest in the University subscribing to Turnitin.com, a web site which 
detects plagiarized work.  The Provost is aware of that interest although the cost of 
subscribing is approximately $12,000 annually for a university of our size.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 Unauthorized collaboration on assignments was the second most common violation.  When 
adjudicating those cases, Hearing Panels examine closely what is stated in the course syllabus 
as well as any written instructions that may appear on the assignment itself or were verbalized 
during class.  We\'92ve discovered that students often take a too casual approach to the specifics 
of course syllabi, not recognizing that the syllabus is a contract and becomes one of the 
factors in determining whether an Honor Pledge violation has occurred.  One faculty member 
was so concerned with this casual approach by students that he began implementing a quiz 
based on the course requirements as stated in the syllabus.  The reader may be interested in 
the strategies of other KSU faculty by going to our web site <ksu.edu/honor> and clicking on 
\'93Faculty Tips\'94 and then on \'93Best Practices.\'94  Those faculty who encourage and allow 
collaboration should read Rich Fogg\'92s carefully crafted instructions regarding collaboration 
on assignments.  We constantly remind students, when in doubt about the specifics of an 
assignment, please ask the course Instructor.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 Other Honor Pledge violations included providing false information on an assignment by 
falsifying an interview; falsifying a returned test, claiming it was inaccurately graded; falsely 
claiming to have completed an exam in a large lecture class; or falsely claiming to be present 
in class by having a friend sign the attendance roster.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 Subsequent forms of cheating involved unauthorized notes during an exam or copying the 
exam of a neighbor.  In most large lecture classes where monitoring tests can be difficult due 
to crowded classrooms and close proximity between students, most faculty provide multiple 
versions of the same exam so that test copying is discouraged, although we continue to 
receive cases involving students who unwittingly copy test answers of a neighbor who has a 
different version of the exam.  In addition, some faculty require that students write the names 
of those persons sitting to the left, right, front and back, so that test cheating is more likely to 
be detected and/or curtailed.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 Faculty should also be aware of recent electronic innovations such as cell phones that can 
create and transmit pictures or text messages to other like devices.  I believe our Faculty 
Senate Technology Committee should consider placing a university sign in all classrooms 
that requires electronic devices to be turned off during class so that they don\'92t cause a 
disturbance and can\'92t be used for purposes of unauthorized aid.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 We have observed that students are becoming more involved in detecting Honor Pledge 
violations and initiating occasional action to curtail it, usually alerting the Instructor of the 
problem.  Frequently, a student may serve as the catalyst by calling the Instructor\'92s attention 
to a possible Honor Pledge violation; the Instructor, however, becomes the Reporter for the 
case, while the student likely would become a witness to the occurrence.  In one case, a 
student caught another student plagiarizing a piece of art created by the first student.  Because 
the incident took place outside of a classroom, the Honor System did not have jurisdiction to 
decide the matter, however, both the new Director and Associate Director helped to negotiate 
a reasonable settlement between the involved parties.  Another case involved a stolen photo, 
used as part of a class assignment.  A third case involved a student who stole the class notes 
of another student.  After consulting with KSU police, it was determined that the reported 
action may have constituted burglary and theft; the reporting student, however, declined to 
press charges and the case was dropped.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 The most serious breach of the Honor Pledge involved a student, also employed as an ITAC 
technician, who gained access to an Associate Professor\'92s electronic grade book and altered 
grades.  The Associate Professor discovered the grade alterations and confronted the student.  
The student admitted changing grades in the course and received an XF as a result, plus the 
recommendation by the Associate Professor that the student be dismissed from the University.  
The student was also relieved of employment with ITAC.  An Honor Council Hearing Panel 
heard the case and recommended to the Provost that the student be suspended from the 
University for a period of one year, after which the student would be allowed to re-enroll in 
classes.  In addition, the student was required to immediately enroll in just the Academic 
Integrity course.  During the 2006-2007 academic year, the student will perform community 
service by making 10 speaking presentations to a variety of student groups on the importance 
of honesty and integrity in one\'92s academic work.  The Provost is expected to follow the 
Hearing Panel\'92s recommendation.  The Director of ITAC also demanded written apologies to 
various supervisors including Vice Provost Unger and in addition, implemented a code of 
ethics which all ITAC employees must agree to abide by and sign a letter of acknowledgment.  
ITAC will also notify all faculty who have an ITAC employee in their class, of that person\'92s 
name and that the student knows not to access the course grade book or any other information 
which would constitute a breach of ethics.  ITAC also intends to monitor ITAC employee 
logs to help insure the integrity of our electronic data.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 Students who violated the Honor Pledge had the following majors, placed in descending 
order by college:\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}\pard \qc\sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \fs25 Arts & Sciences 45\par
}{\plain \fs25 Engineering 37\par
}{\plain \fs25 Agriculture 21\par
}{\plain \fs25 Human Ecology 18\par
}{\plain \fs25 Business Administration 14\par
}{\plain \fs25 Open 11\par
}{\plain \fs25 Education 9\par
}{\plain \fs25 Technology & Aviation 4\par
}{\plain \fs25 Architecture 3\par
}{\plain \fs25 Distance Education 2\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}\pard \fi-1440\li1440\sl250\slmult1\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \fs25 The number of reported Honor Pledge violations, however, occurred in descending order by 
college:\tab \par
}\pard \sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \fs25 \par
}\pard \qc\sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \fs25 Arts & Sciences 102\par
}{\plain \fs25 Engineering 27\par
}{\plain \fs25 Agriculture 15\par
}{\plain \fs25 Human Ecology 9\par
}{\plain \fs25 Business Administration 6\par
}{\plain \fs25 Technology & Aviation 4\par
}{\plain \fs25 Education 1\par
}{\plain \fs25 Distance Education 2\par
}{\plain \fs25 Architecture 0\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}\pard \sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \fs25 Based on those numbers, one supposition might be that students are more likely to cheat in a 
class which is not in their major; most likely an Arts & Sciences course.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 Faculty reported Honor Pledge violations in the following ratio:\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}\pard \qc\sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \fs25 Professors 14\par
}{\plain \fs25 Associate Professors 31\par
}{\plain \fs25 Assistant Professors 30\par
}{\plain \fs25 Instructors 21\par
}{\plain \fs25 Lab Directors 1\par
}{\plain \fs25 GTAs 25\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}\pard \sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \fs25 Violations were reported in the following ratio by class size:\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}\pard \qc\sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \fs25 Large class (100 plus students) --20 cases\par
}{\plain \fs25 Medium class (25-99 students) --49 cases\par
}{\plain \fs25 Small class (1-24 students) --82 cases\par
}{\plain \fs25 Distance Education (Internet course) --2 cases\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}\pard \sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \fs25 Violations were reported in the following ratio by year in school:\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}\pard \qc\sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \fs25 Freshmen 42\par
}{\plain \fs25 Sophomores 29\par
}{\plain \fs25 Juniors 44\par
}{\plain \fs25 Seniors 38\par
}{\plain \fs25 Graduate Students 8\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}\pard \sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \fs25 In most cases, faculty who discover violations of the Honor Pledge handle the matter 
themselves by sanctioning the student(s) and then filling out the Honor System Violation 
Report Form (available at our web site <ksu.edu/honor>.  When the report is received, the 
Director writes the student(s) a letter informing them of the allegation and providing the 
student(s) the right to contest.  The student(s) is also invited to make an appointment with 
Helene Marcoux, the Associate Director, who reviews the report with the student and 
explains their rights under the Honor System.  If the student wishes to contest the allegation, 
the Director is informed and the investigation and adjudication process is initiated.  Students 
can only contest whether there has been an Honor Pledge violation; they cannot contest the 
severity of the sanction imposed by faculty.  Most cases are settled without the need of an 
investigation and hearing.  Of our 123 cases, 104 were handled entirely by faculty and 
reported to the Honor System.  Most of the remaining cases went through the case 
investigation and adjudication stage.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 Faculty also have the option of turning a case over to the Honor System for investigation and 
adjudication.  Some faculty do not wish to be burdened with the sanctioning decision or 
otherwise believe that an Honor Council Hearing Panel will arrive at a more fair decision.  
One exceptionally difficult case involved a GTA who determined that one student copied the 
exam of another student in the class.  The student adamantly denied the allegation, however, 
during a lengthy investigation, inconsistencies began to arise and it appeared that two other 
students may have been involved in the conspiracy.  The Case Investigator\'92s report 
eventually totaled twelve pages plus additional documentation which convinced the Hearing 
Panel that the accused student was not telling the truth and they doubted the veracity of the 
other two students as well.  The Hearing lasted for 3 and one-half hours followed by another 
90 minutes of deliberation.  The accused student was suspended from the University until 
spring 2006 semester, although the student was allowed to take the Academic Integrity course 
during summer 2005.  The other two students were not charged due to insufficient 
information.  The suspended student later admitted to the Director that all three had lied about 
what had occurred.  \par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 In five cases it was discovered that the student had received a second Honor Pledge violation 
which automatically calls for an Honor Council Hearing Panel to determine whether an 
additional sanction would be appropriate.  None of the five students had previously taken the 
Academic Integrity course.  In two cases Hearing Panels recommended that the Provost 
suspend the students for one semester from the University.  The students will be allowed to 
re-enroll in classes at the end of the suspension period.  Another student was expelled for one 
year after falsely claiming to have taken exams in two classes for which there was no record.  
The Professors and Assistant Professor for both classes established a thorough and reliable 
system for tracking students and their exams and it was clear that the student\'92s claim of 
having taken the exams was obviously false.  The remaining two cases resulted in the 
student\'92s having to immediately enroll in the Academic Integrity course and complete 
community service in the form of a series of speaking engagements to various student groups 
on the importance of academic honesty and integrity.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 In two cases, the Honor Council Case Investigators were able to conclude that sufficient 
information did not exist to support the charge of an Honor Pledge violation.  When that 
happens, the Reporter is asked to meet with the Case Investigators so that they can explain 
how they arrived at their conclusion.  In both cases, the faculty Reporter accepted their 
decision and the cases were dropped.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 During this past academic year, the Honor Council was asked to consider and approve the 
following constitutional change:\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 \tab Article I. #2 of the Honor System Constitution: }{\plain \i\fs25 In order to provide students the right 
to address allegations of academic dishonesty, }{\plain \fs25 all members of the academic community, both 
students and faculty, }{\plain \strike\fs25 are urged to}{\plain \fs25  report violations of the Honor Pledge }{\plain \i\fs25 to the office of the 
Honor System.  Violations that result in an academic sanction being imposed must be 
reported.  An academic sanction is any action that would lower a student\'92s grade on an 
assignment or for the course.\par
}{\plain \i\fs25 \par
}{\plain \i\fs25 \tab An Honor Pledge violation must be reported when:\par
}{\plain \i\fs25 \par
}{\plain \i\fs25 \tab \tab a.  A faculty member alleges a violation and imposes an academic sanction.\par
}\pard \li1440\sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \i\fs25 b.  A faculty member alleges a violation and requests an investigation and 
hearing.}{\plain \fs25 \par
}\pard \li1440\sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \i\fs25 c.  A student or faculty member suspects an Honor Pledge violation and 
requests an investigation.  The case investigation concludes once a decision 
has been made whether there is sufficient information to proceed to the 
adjudication stage.\par
}\pard \sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \i\fs25 \par
}{\plain \i\fs25 \tab An Honor Pledge violation may }{\plain \i\ul\fs25 not}{\plain \i\fs25  need to be reported when:\par
}{\plain \i\fs25 \par
}\pard \li1440\sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \i\fs25 a.  A faculty member alleges a violation and issues a warning but imposes no 
academic sanction.}{\plain \fs25 \par
}\pard \li1440\sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \i\fs25 b.  A faculty member alleges a violation, issues a warning and provides the 
student an opportunity to correct the transgression, but imposes no academic 
sanction.}{\plain \fs25 \par
}\pard \li1440\sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \i\fs25 c.  A faculty member alleges a violation, issues a warning and provides an 
opportunity for the student to redo  the assignment or exam, but imposes no 
academic sanction.}{\plain \fs25 \par
}\pard \sl250\slmult1 
{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 The primary reason for this amendment is to provide students the right to contest allegations 
of Honor Pledge violations, to have the allegations investigated and adjudicated according to 
established Honor System procedures.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 The second reason for this amendment is to be able to track repeat Honor Pledge violators.\par
}{\plain \fs25 The third reason for this amendment is to protect faculty from legal redress by following 
established academic procedures.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 The fourth reason is to help promote academic integrity and to help students grow in ethical 
development.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \tab \par
}{\plain \fs25 This amendment will require the approval of both Faculty Senate and Student Senate.  I have 
also asked the new Director, Dave Allen, and the Associate Director, Helene Marcoux, to 
offer this amendment once again to the current Honor Council for their approval.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 I would like to once again express my sincere thanks to former Provost James R. Coffman for 
his trust in naming me the first Honor System Director.  His original charge and hope was that 
the Honor System would become part of the Kansas State University culture within five 
years.  I believe we have met that goal.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 Provost Duane Nellis named former Honor Council member Dr. Dave Allen to be the new 
Honor System Director, beginning fall 2005 semester.  Dr. Allen proved to be one of our most 
effective Honor Council members, frequently serving most capably as a Case Investigator and 
on Hearing Panels.  Whenever we had a particularly difficult or sensitive case, we called on 
Dr. Allen to play a key role in helping resolve the issue.  I have no doubt that Dr. Allen will 
prove to be an outstanding choice as Honor System Director.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 And finally, I\'92d like the university community to know of my admiration, respect, trust and 
fondness for Helene Marcoux, the Associate Director, who has been involved in every aspect 
of the Honor System\'92s development during its first seven years and who is truly the heart and 
soul of our Honor System.  Helene, and the new Director, Dave Allen, have already 
established a strong working relationship and I believe their partnership will improve and 
enhance academic integrity at Kansas State University.\par
}{\plain \fs25 \par
}{\plain \fs25 Phil Anderson\par
}{\plain \fs25 Honor System Director 1998-2005\par
}{\plain \fs25 September 2005\par
}}