Duke MBA Appealing Results

jackiexieqia

刚从DUKE商学院官方网站上看到的院长声明。
http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/news/honorcode-0607.html
在被处分的34人中(包括中国和其他国家的学生)有24人上诉，上诉委员会在经过10天的仔细考虑后，决定驳回所有上诉，维持原判。原文并没有说是谁上诉了，但可以推测应该是所有的被开除和休学的学生(9expulsions+15 suspensions = 24)。应媒体要求，院长声明中还详尽地解释了原判罚所使用的尺度，原 调查过程和上诉委员会的组成。
判罚尺度：
1) 开除 -- 期末考试和平时作业或测试中都作弊的； 或是期末考试作弊但死不认帐的。
2) 休学 -- 仅在期末考试中作弊但认罪态度较好的。
3) 不及格 -- 仅在平时作业或测试中作弊的；或是仅在期末考试有作弊但情况极其特殊的。声明还对一些不负责任的失实媒体传闻， 比如处分不公或者是种族歧视，进行了简要的驳斥。DUKE商学院的院长还在声明的最后敦促别的学校能引此为鉴，希望此次事件能成为高等学院道德教育的转折点。


院长声
明全文转载如下：
Statement of Douglas T. Breeden
Dean, Duke University's Fuqua School of Business
June 1, 2007 | To Members of Duke's Fuqua School of Business Community:
As you know, in Term 3 two professors had indications of cheating on case
assignments, quizzes and the final examination of a core course. In total 43
cases of possible cheating were referred to the Associate Dean of the
Daytime MBA program, as required by our Honor Code.
Given the scope of this investigation, we appointed a well-respected faculty
member as an Investigator and “Special Prosecutor” for the likely cases.
The Investigator led an Investigative Committee, which had two current
student members, as well as the Investigator. Decisions to proceed were made
by majority vote of the Investigative Committee.
Pursuant to our Honor Code, the Investigative Committee sent notices of
investigations to 43 students in this class. After the investigations, the
Investigative Committee decided to charge 38 students with cheating, as five
students were found not to have cheated. Those cases were then brought to
our Judicial Board for consideration.
The Judicial Board is composed of three faculty members and three student
members, with a faculty chair who votes only in the case of a tie vote. The
Judicial Board held hearings where the accused students were able to explain
or present their rebuttals of the evidence against them. On April 26th, our
Judicial Board, after extensive investigations and hearings, convicted 34
first year students in our Daytime MBA program of violating our Honor Code,
and four students were found not guilty. The Judicial Board ruled that nine
students should be expelled, 15 should receive a one-year suspension and a
failing grade, nine students should receive a failing grade in the course,
and one student should receive a failing grade on an exam.
Let me briefly explain the categories employed by the Judicial Board to
determine their penalties: Our Honor Code categorizes violations as "Severe,
" "Moderate," and "Minor." The Honor Code also provides a range of penalties
for each violation category to allow for gradations of violations within
each category. Specifically, the penalty for a violation of the Honor Code
that is determined to be a "Severe Violation" is "suspension for not less
than one semester or expulsion." In these cases, the most extreme violations
in the Severe category were termed "extremely severe" and received the
harshest penalty within the Severe category (expulsion). Other violations in
the Severe category (termed "severe") received a lesser penalty within the
range of penalties suggested for severe violations (a one-year suspension in
these cases).
In determining penalties for the Honor Code cases arising out of the course
in Term 3, the Judicial Board applied the following criteria to determine
penalties for each category of conviction:
(1) Students convicted of "extremely severe" violations of the Honor Code
were given expulsion and a failing grade in the course. In this category
were two broad types of violations: (a) cases where the student cheated on
both an examination and one or more other assignments, and (b) cases where
the student cheated on an examination and then, in the assessment of the
Judicial Board, committed a second violation of the Honor Code by lying
about this behavior.
(2) Students convicted of "severe" violations were given a one-year
suspension, a failing grade in the course, and forfeiture of all future
scholarship money. In this category wereor Code also provides a range of
penalties for each violation category to allow for gradations of violations
within each category. Specifically, the penalty for a violation of the Honor
Code that is determined to be a "Severe Violation" is "suspension for not
less than one semester or expulsion." In these cases, the most extreme
violations in the Severe category were termed "extremely severe" and
received the harshest penalty within the Severe category (expulsion). Other
violations in the Severe category (termed "severe") received a lesser
penalty within the range of penalties suggested for severe violations (a one
-year suspension in these cases).
In determining penalties for the Honor Code cases arising out of the course
in Term 3, the Judicial Board applied the following criteria to determine
penalties for each category of conviction:
(1) Students convicted of "extremely severe" violations of the Honor Code
were given expulsion and a failing grade in the course. In this category
were two broad types of violations: (a) cases where the student cheated on
both an examination and one or more other assignments, and (b) cases where
the student cheated on an examination and then, in the assessment of the
Judicial Board, committed a second violation of the Honor Code by lying
about this behavior.
(2) Students convicted of "severe" violations were given a one-year
suspension, a failing grade in the course, and forfeiture of all future
scholarship money. In this category were cases where the student cheated on
an examination and admitted and expressed contrition for the cheating
behavior.
(3) Students convicted of "minor" violations were given failing grades in
the course, and forfeiture of all future scholarship money. In this category
were cases where the student cheated on a single case assignment or quiz,or
where there was cheating on an examination but, in the assessment of the
Judicial Board, mitigating circumstances warranted a lesser penalty than
suspension.
Pursuant to our Honor Code, the convicted students had the right to appeal,
and 24 students elected to do so. They filed many binders of materials
containing their appeals, with the last filings submitted on May 17th. Under
our Honor Code, appeals may be brought on two grounds: (a) substantial new
evidence or (b) the Associate Dean or his appointed Investigator or the
Judicial Board failed to abide by the Honor Code's bylaws.
Again, pursuant to our Honor Code, the Appeals Committee was composed of
three persons: Robert H. Ashton, the L. Palmer Fox Professor of Accounting,
a Class of 2008 Daytime MBA student (a very talented international student),
and me, Dean and William W. Priest Professor of Finance. The Appeals
Committee also asked Jennifer Francis, Senior Associate Dean and a
distinguished professor, and John W. Payne, former Deputy Dean and also a
distinguished professor, to serve as nonvoting staff for the Appeals
Committee, helping the committee gather and understand the issues of the 24
cases. Kate Hendricks, of Duke University's Office of Legal Counsel, served
as counsel for the Appeals Committee and was regularly consulted. The
Appeals Committee considered the appeals on an individual basis and
carefully read and deliberated the issues raised in each appeal. The Appeals
Committee studied the cases and deliberated and questioned key persons
during most business hours of almost every business day over the past two
weeks. Additionally, they read binders and materials over both weekends to
understand the appeals and issues. In addition to carefully reading each
student's appeal submission, the Appeals Committee intensively questioned
the lead professor in the course, as well as the Investigator, the Chair of
the Judicial Board and the Associate Dean in charge of the Daytime MBA
program.
In each instance and after careful consideration, the Appeals Committee
voted unanimously to uphold the individual convictions and penalties imposed
by the Judicial Board.
As required by the Honor Code, we have notified our faculty and Daytime MBA
student body of the decisions of the Appeals Committee.You may have read
press accounts on certain aspects of this case. Because we are restricted by
what we can say, please know that there have been
material inaccuracies in claims made by other parties. It is not breaking
confidentiality, however, to say that those who have received the harshest
penalties (expulsion or suspension) come from three continents and represent
both foreign and domestic students.This has been a regrettable time at
Fuqua, but it also provides us with a valuable reminder that our Honor Code
is what unites us across the diverse nationalities and cultures that we
welcome here at Fuqua. The Honor Code is the embodiment of the essential
principles of trust and integrity that are the essence of our collaborative
and distinctive environment. We will always cherish and protect those
principles.
The Appeals Committee's decisions close the Honor Code process on these
particular cases. At the same time, we are also a compassionate school. The
students involved have made terrible mistakes and violated the trust that we
place in each other. Yet, it is my hope that they will learn from this
experience and make some good for their future out of it. Indeed, those who
have been suspended and those who received failing grades will be welcomed
back as members of Duke's Fuqua community.
I want to express my appreciation for the support that so many of you have
expressed for our school. While no one wanted this incident to have occurred
, I hope that it will serve as a catalyst for strengthening the unique
culture of Duke's Fuqua School of Business that ties us together as such a
vibrant community. I fully recognize the continuing need for us to be
proactive in working with our many constituencies, including our alumni,
corporate recruiters, and current and prospective students. Please know that
we have already begun that process and will aggressively continue it in the
months ahead.
Finally, I would also say that we are pleased by the support of leaders of
many other top universities in our handling of these issues and by the good
that they are trying to do in their schools in discussing and learning from
our experience at Duke. As research has shown, the issues of cheating in our
society seem to be rather widespread in universities, and we hope this is a
turning point towards higher integrity in higher education.

gracis

很佩服Duke治学严谨！

nd4spd

有纲有度

苞米

Typical Amercian bullshit.

"In addition to carefully reading each student's appeal submission, the Appeals Committee intensively questioned the lead professor in the course, as well as the Investigator, the Chair of the Judicial Board and the Associate Dean in charge of the Daytime MBA program."----This is so funny: I don't conceive any reason that a person in the same or similiar circumstance would testfiy otherwise. Duke is simply re-asking these guys if what they have previous said is true or accurate. In other words, this appeal is simply a procedure and has nothing to do with substantive investigation and re-evaluation.

Were I in those guys' shoes, I won't even bother trying appeal, it's totally a waste of time and it remindes me about another suspended chinese student during the previous year (she's ultimately expelled as well,if am not mistaken). Go to the court, or go home.

dkh222

同意,作弊的人就应该开除

xiaohaha

以下是引用dkh222在2007-6-3 13:38:00的发言：
同意,作弊的人就应该开除

对，作弊的就应该开除！

keepsilent

楼上两个，别嚷嚷了，想想自己要被开除多少次吧。

考GMAT了吧？GWD做了吧？那可都是真题啊！

xiaohaha

以下是引用keepsilent在2007-6-4 6:14:00的发言：

楼上两个，别嚷嚷了，想想自己要被开除多少次吧。

考GMAT了吧？GWD做了吧？那可都是真题啊！

不要把别人都想成和你一样吧，你做了并不代表别人做了。作弊还不被开除，什么样的才被开除呢？再说了，考试考第一第二对以后找工作并没有决定性影响，为了得A得B影响了自己的前途，不值得。

sm0421

唉,真的是很可惜啊!

我刚来这边,有很多东西也不会,但好像没有人作弊.大家就是上课拼命说，教授让我们考试回家做的，他很相信我们。

哎,真是一失足成千古恨啊!! 不知道有没有也在CD上发过帖子的朋友，真是太遗憾了！！

natashaa

就是在CD到处看真题，还有脸说duke学生不好！也不照照镜子！

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-6-5 9:24:52编辑过]