April 26, 2017

Page 1

Speed kills

A series of firsts

Jeremy McDuffie is shining on the track as he adjusts to a new position in football | Sports Page 11

Mike Morgan recounts how Duke prepared him to be a justice on the State Supreme Court | Page 2

The Chronicle T H E I N D E P E N D E N T D A I LY AT D U K E U N I V E R S I T Y

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2017

WWW.DUKECHRONICLE.COM

ONE HUNDRED AND TWELFTH YEAR, ISSUE 83

‘They did everything they could to make me feel guilty’ Student conduct case raises questions about fairness of the process Gautam Hathi This is the first story in a multi-part series on the student conduct process. The Chronicle has changed the name of the student referred to as Jane Doe due to the sensitive nature of the story. Doe’s account is based on interviews with her as well as documents she provided to The Chronicle from the student conduct process. Jane Doe received an email last April that no student wants to open. The message, from a dean at the Office of Student Conduct, explained that she was under investigation for allegedly cheating on a series of public policy quizzes. After five months, Doe was found not responsible for cheating. But Doe doesn’t think what happened during those five months was fair. “The burden of proving that I was innocent was clearly on me,” she said. In the 2015-16 school year, the Office of Student Conduct handled 1,076 reports of possible student misconduct, and 47 students were suspended for community standard violations, a much larger number than that of Duke’s peer institutions. Each of these reports wound its way through one of several student conduct processes, from faculty-student resolutions to conduct boards. Students and legal experts interviewed by The Chronicle have raised further questions about the fairness and robustness of how conduct investigations are handled. ‘A lot of evidence’ Doe’s case was one of 170 brought against students in 2015-16 for allegedly cheating in class. Almost 77 percent of students accused of all types of academic dishonesty—including cheating, plagiarism and lying—in 2015-16 were found responsible in the student conduct

Chronicle File Photo The Office of Student Conduct hears more cases involving academic dishonesty than any other issue besides alcohol violations.

|

|

Carolyn Sun | The Chronicle

The Chronicle

process. OSC sees more cases involving academic dishonesty than any other issue besides alcohol violations. In order to be found responsible for academic dishonesty, there must be clear and convincing evidence that a student has cheated, lied or plagiarized, according to the Duke Community Standard. But Doe got the impression early on in the process that it would be hard to convince OSC that she hadn’t cheated. Doe’s professor, Evan Charney, associate professor of the practice in the Sanford School of Public Policy, accused her of consulting unpermitted help while taking weekly in-class quizzes on her laptop using a special testing software called Electronic Blue Book. Charney based this accusation on logs from the testing software, which appeared to show that Doe had taken an unusually long time when completing the quizzes or had taken the quizzes outside of class time. But EBB was supposed to lock down Doe’s laptop when she was taking the quizzes and not allow her to run any other programs or visit any websites. And yet, Doe was able to give OSC records of her web browser history showing that she had been doing other things—from working on other classwork to browsing Amazon—at the times when the EBB records supposedly showed that she was taking the quizzes. Doe also obtained statements from friends who were at group meetings or

|

|

INSIDE — News 2 Sports 11 Classified 13 Crossword 13 Opinion 14

|

doing work with Doe when the EBB records indicated she was taking quizzes. “I immediately went back and went through every single quiz date and looked for evidence to support my argument, because I knew that no one was going to believe me if I just said, ‘I didn’t do it,’” Doe said. “And thankfully I was able to find a lot of evidence.” Doe provided more than 10 pages of documentation to OSC supporting her claims and arguing that she could not have been taking the quizzes at the times indicated in the EBB logs. She insisted that there must have been an issue with EBB. She provided evidence from a forensics expert, an Apple support technician and the developer of EBB suggesting that adware on her computer could have caused an issue with EBB. OSC forwarded Doe’s document to Charney. In response, he insisted that the evidence Doe had assembled was all a lie. “You are curious to hear my response? I believe that this entire document is an elaborate and well thought out deception,” Charney wrote in an email to Associate Dean of Students Leslie Grinage, who was handling Doe’s case. “No such ‘glitch’ regarding time stamps has ever occurred during [the Sanford information technology manager’s] 10 years of using EBB. We checked the timestamps of all of the other students who took quizzes at the same time as [Doe] and they all show expected start and stop times.”

Serving the University since 1905

|

Charney did not respond for request to comment Tuesday evening. Doe also claimed that she repeatedly offered to let OSC have her laptop for investigation, but they declined the offer. OSC did, however, take logs from EBB that were stored on Doe’s computer and send those logs to the developer of EBB for analysis. James Coleman, John S. Bradway professor of the practice of law and co-director of the Wrongful Convictions Clinic at Duke, noted that in Doe’s case, OSC could have done a forensic investigation of Doe’s laptop at the outset, rather than leave it to Doe to find a forensics expert. “A thorough system would have done the forensic investigation first,” he said. “If there’s a possibility that what’s going on here is that the software is not working, then that ought to be eliminated as an investigation before you bring charges against somebody.” Doe added that she met with Grinage to discuss her case, and during the meeting, Grinage asked her questions about seemingly unrelated topics, such as whether she was actually sick during classes that she had used short term illness forms to get excused. Robert Ekstrand, a Durham lawyer who has worked on hundreds of disciplinary cases involving students at Duke and other institutions, was involved in the lacrosse case and helped Doe with her case, said that he has seen many cases in which either OSC or an Undergraduate Conduct Board has dismissed evidence that appears to exonerate a student as irrelevant or fabricated. “I can’t recall a case where compelling evidence of innocence is presented to OSC administrators and they said, ‘Oh gosh, never mind,’” Ekstrand said. “I hope it happens, but you would think that I would have seen one or two of those.” The hearing Several weeks after classes ended, Doe’s evidence was indeed dismissed, and her case was sent to an Undergraduate Conduct Board, which decides serious cases of alleged Community Standard violations. Because Doe had assembled so much evidence that she wanted to explain in person, she decided to fly back to Duke for a July hearing and face the board rather than attend via a video call. “I thought it was really important that I be there during the hearing,” Doe said. “Part of the story is that [the process] incurred a lot of costs for my family—flying up, rental car, hotel.” However, Doe told The Chronicle that on the day of the hearing, OSC notified her of potential problems with the panel. First, OSC told Doe that some of the documentation she had provided supporting her claims

@dukechronicle

|

See CONDUCT on Page 3 © 2017 The Chronicle


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.