Lawyers for a student who claims he was unfairly suspended for a 1989 cheating incident said the University failed to properly publish changes in the judicial system, leading to an unjust hearing in the case. But University Associate General Counsel Neil Hamburg derided the new claims as a "hypertechnical ridiculous argument" which avoids the issue of the student's guilt. Wharton junior Mark Wallace filed suit against the University in federal court last month, claiming that his suspension was unfair because the case was heard before the University Hearing Board instead of the Honor Court, as University policy mandates. The Hearing Board has fewer student members than the Court. In November 1989, Statistics Professor Edward Lusk charged Wallace with cheating on his Statistics 101 exam. The Hearing Board supported his claim, and Wallace was suspended last semester. Wallace's suit seeks over $50,000 in damages from the University. The University's Code of Academic Integrity was changed in September 1989 so that the Hearing Board, and not the Honor Court, hears all cheating cases. But Wallace's lawyer, Weldon Williams, contends the changes were improperly publicized and should not apply to Wallace's case. Williams' argument centers on an introduction to the University's Policies and Procedures that states that "new and revised policies are published in Almanac and take precedence over the material published in this booklet if they are published after the date of revision below." Williams contended that because the introduction's date is September 1989, any new changes must be published after the last day of September. The September 5, 1989 issue of Almanac printed the change in the Code of Academic Integrity. "It [the introduction] says after September 1989, so the amendment has to be as of October 1 and the Almanac was September 5," Williams said. Williams further added that University policy requires that the provost publicize the Code of Academic Integrity each year, and that the full text of the code be published in its amended form. Williams said there is no publication that contains the full text of the code as it is amended. "They have been distributing this to students since 1989 and no one has taken any steps to delete or update it," Williams added. "People are walking around campus with the policies they think are covering University life, but they don't really." The University's filed response stated that it "has followed its own procedures scrupulously" and the University's system follows legal precedent.Comments powered by Disqus
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.