The complaint for this case has been formally withdrawn at the request of the complainant.
The Hearing Board for this case contained the following members:
Hearing Board Chair: Sage Curry-Wynne
Hearing Board Members: Kenneth Vounzi, Nicole Chan, Alondra Loza, Iris Zhang
Procedural Aide: Riley Ellis
The Judicial Board adjudicated a complaint alleging a student violated the Academic
Conduct Policy and Honor Principle by collaborating with another student on an exam
and providing various differing accounts of what had happened. The board found it more
likely than not that the respondent had committed a minor violation of the Academic Conduct
Policy but not the Honor Principle by providing exam answers but not altering their own
answers. Due to the finding of a minor violation, the board suggested that the respondent
attend two meetings with the Honor Council to develop an understanding of the Honor
Principle and discuss boundaries and collaboration in coursework. The board also
recommended that the record of the incident may not be included in their disciplinary
file. The Vice President for Student Life’s designee altered this recommendation by
encouraging a review of the Honor Principle and code, in addition to clarifying that
information regarding this matter will be filed but not released to third parties, unless
subsequent academic misconduct violations are found.
The Temporary Hearing Board adjudicated a complaint alleging a student violated Reed’s Alcohol and Other Drugs policy, Solicitations policy, and the Honor Principle. The complaint alleged a student violated the said policies by possessing and/or distributing prohibited substances within residence halls. The board found it more likely than not that the respondent had violated the solicitation policy by selling prohibited substances in a residence hall. It was also found more likely than not that the respondent had committed one minor and two serious violations of the Alcohol and Other Drug policy by a combination of possessing and distributing a combination of minor and major prohibited substances. The Board found more likely than not that the respondent did not violate the Honor Principle due to their demonstration of responsibility and contrition through cooperation during campus staff interactions and personal statements. The board recommended the respondent meet with the Assistant Director of Residence Life, the Associate Dean of Student for Health and Well-Being, the Honor Council, and that the respondent will only be able to sign a 2023-2023 Reed housing contract once all the sanctions have been completed. The record of the incident is to be kept confidential in their file. The board also encouraged the respondent to seek out campus resources and complete a reflection after meeting with the Honor Council. The Vice President for Student Life’s designee altered the recommendation by adding that failure to complete any of the additional sanctions result in dropping from registered classes in any subsequent academic terms(s). In this event, the respondent would only be able to re-enroll upon completion of the requirements.
The Temporary Hearing Board adjudicated a complaint alleging a student violated a No Contact Order and the Honor Principle by accessing a space in which a third party who had priority in the no contact order was occupying as well as providing incorrect information to Community Safety. The board found it more likely than not that the respondent had violated the No Contact Order by repeatedly accessing the same space as the third party, and violating the Honor Principle by causing distress to the parties in the No Contact Order. The board recommended the respondent meet with either the Dean of Students, Associate Dean for Student and Campus Life, or Assistant Dean for Student Rights and Responsibilities to discuss the terms of a No Contact Order, and that in the event the respondent is found of another violation of the No Contact Order, that their housing contract be terminated and prohibited for registering from housing henceforth. The record of the incident is to be kept confidential in their disciplinary file. The Vice President for Student Life’s designee upheld the recommendation.
The Judicial Board adjudicated a complaint alleging that a student violated the Academic Misconduct policy by failing to cite, as well as plagiarizing works not of their own in numerous written assignments for their Humanities class. The board found it more likely than not the respondent had violated the Academic Misconduct policy, but not the Honor Principle by repeatedly soliciting work from outside sources in their assignments as well as failure to cite the sources they used to obtain this information. The board recommended the respondent to meet with members of the Office of Academic Support once per quarter for the duration of the following academic year. Within these meetings, the board recommended that the respondent and the member of the Office of Academic Support develop an academic plan for the respondent’s completion of their Humanities class using resources such as office hours and tutoring, that the respondent attend either drop-in or individual tutoring sessions with a Humanities, Writing, or Study Skills tutor and that a record of the incident not be included in their disciplinary file. The Board also suggested the respondent meet with their academic advisor to discuss the impact of retaking the class on their coursework. The Vice President for Student Life’s designee upheld and altered this recommendation by adding that if the respondent should fail to complete any of the sanctions as noted, they will be dropped from all registered classes in any subsequent term(s).
The Temporary Hearing Board adjudicated a complaint alleging a student violated the Honor Principle by committing vandalism and causing unnecessary trauma and harm to other students. The board found it more likely than not that the respondent had violated the Honor Principle by obstructing another student’s ability to practice their own beliefs and acting dishonorably in person and virtually via group messaging. The board recommended the respondent meet with Claudia Ramirez Islas in their role as Assistant Dean of Students and Campus Life to have a conversation about honorable behavior in community spaces, in-person and virtually, and how to honorably express personal beliefs without affecting others’ ability to express themselves. The board also recommended that a No Contact Order prioritizing the complainant be put in place and that the respondent volunteer with SEEDS for 4 hours a month for the duration of one semester (a total of 16 hours for one semester). A record of the incident will not be included in the respondent’s disciplinary file. The Vice President for Student Life’s designee altered this recommendation to offer the complainant a No Contact Order rather than having one automatically put in place as previously recommended.
The Judicial Board received a complaint for a case alleging a student violated the Academic Conduct policy, however, due to the timing of the complaint, the case was forwarded to the Administration Committee abiding by the Judicial Board Code 1. L.