-
A
alicesuper Michael Wechsler alicesuper wrote on Michael Wechsler's profile.
I am a first year part-time student of common law section of one law school. One professor of that law school who teaches ADR course brought an academic fraud allegation against me. The allegation indicates that I copied legal principles without giving citations in a legal memo assignment I submitted for that course from assigned reading for this exercise.
I attended the hearing held by the committee of inquiry appointed by that law school pertaining to the allegation. During the hearing, I explained the reasons why I copied directly from the reading material assigned by the professor for the legal memo assignment in question. I honestly believed that by doing so, I was fulfilling the assignment requirement otherwise I would not have copied the legal principles from the reading material the professor assigned to us for the assignment. Although the committee of inquiry has accepted that I made an innocent mistake about the legal memo assignment, it recommended the sanction of zero mark for the memo itself because the committee's understanding is that it has no discretion to recommend anything short of one of the sanctions listed in that university's regulation. This recommendation has been upheld by the Executive Committee of that law school. Although this sanction is the mildest one according to the academic fraud regulation, I think it is very harsh on me given that it is an honest and innocent mistake. My mistake is explained by the confusion concerning the expectations and instructions of that course's professor and by the fact that I am a first year law school student from another country who is still learning to adapt to the North American education system.
The original source document which the Professor alleged that I conducted academic fraud with was included in the course materials distributed to students of that ADR course. Moreover, it was assigned reading for the legal memo assignment itself. If I conduct fraud, why do I use the distributed course material and assigned reading for the assignment? I used the legal principles summarized in the assigned reading textbook in my assignment because I honestly believed that is what I need to do for this assignment. For this legal memo, the professor did not teach the legal principles and indicated that we needed to read the assigned materials to learn the principles on our own. My understanding of the legal memo assignment was that I needed to teach myself the legal principles by reading the assigned materials and identify the relevant principles to answer the questions in the assignment instruction. Because the instruction to that legal memo assignment is only half page and very unclear, I even specifically asked that professor what she wanted us to do since it was my first legal memo in law school. She told me that I need to use the relevant legal principle to answer the legal issues she asked in the instruction. So my understanding is that the legal principles are summarized in the assigned materials to help us understand the legal rules and for this assignment purpose the students should use those principles to answer the four questions asked. I really did not think that copying from the material assigned by the professor was fraud since the professor designed the course knowing the course materials inside out and expecting us to remember and know the legal principles stated in this material.
Also some students asked that Professor in the class whether we needed to provide footnote citation for the assignment. Two other students and myself heard the professor say in the class that we could do footnoted citations but that we were not required to do so. This is why I did not give footnoted citations in my assignments.
Another issue is that I voluntarily informed the Committee of Inquiry during the hearing that I made the same mistake for another assignment in that professor's class. This assignment was a client letter. That professor has already marked that assignment without noticing that I made the same mistake with this client letter assignment. I voluntarily informed the Committee of Inquiry about this because I am as honest as possible with the school and was willing to rectify this mistake in order to meet the professor's expectation. I did this also out of the respect for the academic nature of the University, a place where people can learn and are encouraged to admit their mistakes so that they can improve. It is only after having received the report from the Committee of Inquiry that professor realized that I had made the same mistake in the client letter assignment. Following this, that professor informed me via email that she will bring another allegation of academic fraud against me.
I am totally confused and lost. The professor might want to follow the university rules no matter the circumstances but I will be punished for telling the truth! Does the western university regulation intend to penalize students who told the truth or try to help the students to learn from their mistakes when they come to school for education?
I have submitted my appeal to the Senate Committee of that University and Right now, I am preparing for the appeal hearing. I believe the purpose of a sanction in the university's regulation is to punish students who viciously plagiarize rather than to be used in punishing morally innocent students. I should not be punished by making innocent mistake during my learning curve. I cannot afford to hire a legal counsel to represent me in the hearing. So I really hope that in this forum, some legal experts can provide me some suggestions and advice about how I should defend myself and win this case.
I attended the hearing held by the committee of inquiry appointed by that law school pertaining to the allegation. During the hearing, I explained the reasons why I copied directly from the reading material assigned by the professor for the legal memo assignment in question. I honestly believed that by doing so, I was fulfilling the assignment requirement otherwise I would not have copied the legal principles from the reading material the professor assigned to us for the assignment. Although the committee of inquiry has accepted that I made an innocent mistake about the legal memo assignment, it recommended the sanction of zero mark for the memo itself because the committee's understanding is that it has no discretion to recommend anything short of one of the sanctions listed in that university's regulation. This recommendation has been upheld by the Executive Committee of that law school. Although this sanction is the mildest one according to the academic fraud regulation, I think it is very harsh on me given that it is an honest and innocent mistake. My mistake is explained by the confusion concerning the expectations and instructions of that course's professor and by the fact that I am a first year law school student from another country who is still learning to adapt to the North American education system.
The original source document which the Professor alleged that I conducted academic fraud with was included in the course materials distributed to students of that ADR course. Moreover, it was assigned reading for the legal memo assignment itself. If I conduct fraud, why do I use the distributed course material and assigned reading for the assignment? I used the legal principles summarized in the assigned reading textbook in my assignment because I honestly believed that is what I need to do for this assignment. For this legal memo, the professor did not teach the legal principles and indicated that we needed to read the assigned materials to learn the principles on our own. My understanding of the legal memo assignment was that I needed to teach myself the legal principles by reading the assigned materials and identify the relevant principles to answer the questions in the assignment instruction. Because the instruction to that legal memo assignment is only half page and very unclear, I even specifically asked that professor what she wanted us to do since it was my first legal memo in law school. She told me that I need to use the relevant legal principle to answer the legal issues she asked in the instruction. So my understanding is that the legal principles are summarized in the assigned materials to help us understand the legal rules and for this assignment purpose the students should use those principles to answer the four questions asked. I really did not think that copying from the material assigned by the professor was fraud since the professor designed the course knowing the course materials inside out and expecting us to remember and know the legal principles stated in this material.
Also some students asked that Professor in the class whether we needed to provide footnote citation for the assignment. Two other students and myself heard the professor say in the class that we could do footnoted citations but that we were not required to do so. This is why I did not give footnoted citations in my assignments.
Another issue is that I voluntarily informed the Committee of Inquiry during the hearing that I made the same mistake for another assignment in that professor's class. This assignment was a client letter. That professor has already marked that assignment without noticing that I made the same mistake with this client letter assignment. I voluntarily informed the Committee of Inquiry about this because I am as honest as possible with the school and was willing to rectify this mistake in order to meet the professor's expectation. I did this also out of the respect for the academic nature of the University, a place where people can learn and are encouraged to admit their mistakes so that they can improve. It is only after having received the report from the Committee of Inquiry that professor realized that I had made the same mistake in the client letter assignment. Following this, that professor informed me via email that she will bring another allegation of academic fraud against me.
I am totally confused and lost. The professor might want to follow the university rules no matter the circumstances but I will be punished for telling the truth! Does the western university regulation intend to penalize students who told the truth or try to help the students to learn from their mistakes when they come to school for education?
I have submitted my appeal to the Senate Committee of that University and Right now, I am preparing for the appeal hearing. I believe the purpose of a sanction in the university's regulation is to punish students who viciously plagiarize rather than to be used in punishing morally innocent students. I should not be punished by making innocent mistake during my learning curve. I cannot afford to hire a legal counsel to represent me in the hearing. So I really hope that in this forum, some legal experts can provide me some suggestions and advice about how I should defend myself and win this case.
