USAFA Cheating Scandal

[Scratcher]

So you contend that falconfamily's initial statement about a cadet who admits to the violation having a review of his case at the squadron level is 100% false?

I contend that you should read the Honor System Guide that I posted earlier. I will post it here again for your convenience and direct your attention to the bottom of page 28. falconfamily said that an initial review of the "incident" happens at the squadron level. That is the Sq Honor Officer doing informal or formal clarification. A "case" is handled at the wing level. You really should just read the document. I think you will find that USAFA's honor code is very similar to USMA's honor code.

http://www.usafa.edu/Commandant/cwc/cwch/Handbook_2012.pdf

 

[Luigi59]

....there will be some who face expulsion and others who will not.

So we all agree they were cheating. Can we also agree that cheating is a direct violation of the Honor Code? I'm pretty sure we can all agree to that as well. And we can also agree (inexplicably) that some cadets who cheated will be disenrolled, while other cadets who cheated will not.



And it is also very clear now that there are "degrees" of cheating at the USAFA, and using the internet to get the answers during a difficult calculus test is "just a little bit of cheating," not a real biggie, therefore not worthy of disenrollment.

And you favor that?

I'm nonplussed by all the USAFA "supporters" here who want to keep the cheaters at the USAFA.

 

[usna1985]

Here's my question . . . why should those caught using Spice be dismissed while those who admit to cheating are retained?

Yes, I know I'm mixing conduct and honor offenses, and they are different things. And I understand the "no tolerance" policy for drugs. But in both cases the cadets clearly violated a major school "rule." Is using Spice "worse" than being dishonorable? I would like to understand the disparate treatment.

My gut instinct is that USAFA offered remediation b/c they weren't prepared to dismiss hundreds of cadets -- which is the same position I believe all of the SAs would take under similar circumstances. I believe that, if this "scandal" had involved only 5-10 cadets, they would all have been dismissed. But that's merely my sense of things.

 

[bruno]

I'm as familiar or more than anyone else on this site when it comes to an honor system with but a single punishment, and I support that. (And for the poster who earlier implied that such a system isn't workable- it most assuredly is alive and functions at VMI. Lying, cheating or stealing are black and white with no degrees of guilt - you either are or aren't guilty and a little lie is still punished with dismissal with no possibility of remediation or readmission. It sometimes appears brutal, and to the outsider (which includes parents) often seems to be overly harsh compared to the seriousness of the offense and I can tell you that it is heart wrenching to tell a Cadet that they are immediately dismissed and are to leave the post with no possibility of appeal. But it is supported by virtually all Cadets and Alums and the very black and white nature of the Honor code makes it a line that one crosses knowing full well the penalty. So I have a really hard time with the concept of remediation for a black and white case of cheating at an Academy.

But I am also pretty strongly in favor of making sure that you know all of the facts before you render judgement on anyone. I guarantee that despite all of the internet blabber- we DO NOT know all of the facts and at this point my understanding is that the authorities are still ascertaining them. Before some pass judgement based on barracks rumor, you might pipe down for a while and make sure that you aren't condemning the innocent along with the guilty, because at this point all we know is what has been released to the media. When they finish the investigation and assign punishment- if it then appears that the USAFA administration are letting guilty Cadets avoid dismissal, then at that point it seems like you have something concrete to comment on or disagree with. Until then - you can legitimately debate on whether or not any of the Service Academy Honor systems should offer "remediation" as an alternative, but the specifics of this case (you know- that guilty/innocent thing?)aren't available to support speculating on who and how they will be punished- so why don't we put the speculation and outrage on hold until somebody has actually decided something?

 

[Christcorp]

I'm nonplussed by all the USAFA "supporters" here who want to keep the cheaters at the USAFA.

You are beyond wrong. Not one, I repeat, Not ONE person here said any such thing. They've simply said; numerous times; that you, scout, me, nor anyone else here knows all of the facts. (Although you continue to believe you know ALL the facts). Must be nice to be so full of wisdom. Anyway; what has been said is that we trust the academy, and whatever their investigation finds, and whatever their decision is, we trust and have faith in. If for "Whatever Reason" they retain or dismiss a cadet; then we accept that. What we don't accept is your premise that everything is black and white, and that you know ALL the facts. You don't. Stop trying to keep pretending you do. You don't.

 

[raimius]

And it is also very clear now that there are "degrees" of cheating at the USAFA, and using the internet to get the answers during a difficult calculus test is "just a little bit of cheating," not a real biggie, therefore not worthy of disenrollment.

I'm almost insulted at the weakness of this strawman.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Yes, I know I'm mixing conduct and honor offenses, and they are different things. And I understand the "no tolerance" policy for drugs. But in both cases the cadets clearly violated a major school "rule." Is using Spice "worse" than being dishonorable? I would like to understand the disparate treatment.
Violating the honor code is a 'school rule'. The honor codes(concepts) are written, implemented and enforced by cadets/mids at their respective academies. As with many schools, if you break certain rules you may be expelled. If you are found guilty by the honor board a recommendation is made to the administration (Superintendent) who makes the final determination and signs off on the separation.
Being expelled for violating the honor code does not necessarily a70-80ffect your discharge status. In other words, it is very possible to get an honorable discharge.

Using Spice not only is against the administration rules of each academy - it is a violation of the branch of service. If you violate the rules of the AF (etc) they may kick you out of the AF and thus the academy. This certainly would affect your discharge code.

My gut instinct is that USAFA offered remediation b/c they weren't prepared to dismiss hundreds of cadets -- which is the same position I believe all of the SAs would take under similar circumstances. I believe that, if this "scandal" had involved only 5-10 cadets, they would all have been dismissed. But that's merely my sense of things.
Agreed. When this many cadets are involved it rises to the level of 'scandal'. I also agree that the administration is probably hesitant to kick out 70-80 cadets knowing it would probably become political.
The USNA EE scandal in 1994 became political as did the West Point cheating scandal of 1976. In that case Congress sent a special committee to investigate the implementation of the WP honor code and some cadets who had been dismissed were re-instated.

 

[scoutpilot]

I contend that you should read the Honor System Guide that I posted earlier. I will post it here again for your convenience and direct your attention to the bottom of page 28. falconfamily said that an initial review of the "incident" happens at the squadron level. That is the Sq Honor Officer doing informal or formal clarification. A "case" is handled at the wing level. You really should just read the document. I think you will find that USAFA's honor code is very similar to USMA's honor code.

http://www.usafa.edu/Commandant/cwc/cwch/Handbook_2012.pdf

Your desire to avoid answering the question makes me think you aren't quite sure...

 

[LineInTheSand]

I am disturbed by the number of Zoomies defending dishonorable cadets in this forum. That alone speaks to some of the cultural issues that plague USAFA.

As a cadet I hated honor offenses. They damaged the Corps of Cadets and hurt morale.

I put two cadets up for honor offenses, one was voted 5-4 against, the other 9-0 against. I don't regret it for a second.

As an officer, issues with honor hurt the trust of the crew on a ship.

Now, as an alum, and veteran, my views on honor have not changed. Burn them. I don't care if their Coast Guard Academy cadets or Air Force Academy cadets. They know honor, and if they give away their honor, sacrifice it, then they are welcome to see themselves to the door. Lying cheating stealing service members do nothing but destroy the trust and productivity of an operational unit.

 

[flieger83]

I am disturbed by the number of Zoomies defending dishonorable cadets in this forum. That alone speaks to some of the cultural issues that plague USAFA.

As a cadet I hated honor offenses. They damaged the Corps of Cadets and hurt morale.

I put two cadets up for honor offenses, one was voted 5-4 against, the other 9-0 against. I don't regret it for a second.

As an officer, issues with honor hurt the trust of the crew on a ship.

Now, as an alum, and veteran, my views on honor have not changed. Burn them. I don't care if their Coast Guard Academy cadets or Air Force Academy cadets. They know honor, and if they give away their honor, sacrifice it, then they are welcome to see themselves to the door. Lying cheating stealing service members do nothing but destroy the trust and productivity of an operational unit.

Not all "zoomies" are that way.

I've been very involved personally with the honor system both as a cadet and later as an officer. Sadly...the latter was a huge embarassment to me and my fellow graduates.

Short version: I caught 7 2Lt's cheating on a test in RTU...that's "Replacement Training Unit" or "Initial Qualification" for their aircraft. It was a "not really important" test...but they'd boosted a copy of the answer sheet.

Long story short: they were given UCMJ Article 15 punishments, had "Unfavorable Information Files" opened in their records, and were then "removed" from training.

The officer (0-6 at the time) that did this was a grad...he had ZERO tolerance for a lack of integrity. I don't either. I don't know what ultimately happened to those 7 officers...but I know they were out processed from training.

The 0-6? He retired with 4 stars...and I've done okay. And trust me, we BOTH have made our share of HUGE mistakes...honestly.

You can recover from most any mistake you make; mistakes are honest. Give away your integrity...that you can NOT recover, IMHO.

Steve
USAFA '83

 

[Christcorp]

I am disturbed by the number of Zoomies defending dishonorable cadets in this forum. That alone speaks to some of the cultural issues that plague USAFA.

I don't believe there are a lot of zoomies defending dishonorable cadets. At least I'm not defending them. I'm simply acknowledging that I, nor anyone else here, knows all the facts. Therefor, I'm not willing to condemn. I'm willing to trust the academies. There's a lot of "Maybe's" in this case. Because of those "Maybe's", which we don't know, I prefer to wait until the academies has all their findings and they make final judgement.

If most of the condemnations preceeded with "If" they are found guilty......." I could buy that. Unfortunately, many of the opinions and comments are presented with "They ARE guilty; there's no question; there's no reason for an investigation; the academy should have kicked them all out yesterday; why are they taking so long; it's a clear cut case".

Bruno said it most clearly. So no; I don't believe all the zoomies are defending anyone. The ones who you think are defending, are simply taking the opposite approach as some of the others. Half are saying: "We don't have all the facts; we're not in the position to have the facts; therefor we'll let the academy determine the guilt and innocence of each of the individuals and the appropriate disciplinary action if any". The other half on the other hand have already made up their mind. They think they have all the facts; there's no reason to continue on; a judgement and decision can be made today. That's the difference in this thread. It's not about defending dishonorable people/behavior.

 

[raimius]

I fully support the concept of giving people who "self-admit" a potential for a second chance. ("Self-admit" being something that would not likely ever be found out, except for the cadet turning themselves in.) Of course, each situation should be looked at, individually. I wouldn't care if they self-admitted stealing $100 out of someone's wallet. That's a case for dismissal. A four-dig not properly documenting something in a paper would probably get leniency from me, if it was a real self-admit type case. (Leniency being Honor Remediation.)

Now, IF things are as they appear and cadets knew full well that Wolfram Alpha was not allowed, used it anyway on their test, and waited until they were confronted to admit, they don't deserve so much consideration.

...all my opinion.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

I don't believe there are a lot of zoomies defending dishonorable cadets. At least I'm not defending them. I'm simply acknowledging that I, nor anyone else here, knows all the facts.

So what I hear YOU saying is that IF any AFA Cadet is found guilty by the honor board in this case of cheating then you will fully support their dismissal?
Just looking to clarify this as I didn't notice this clarification; or would you support remediation in (at least) some cases?

 

[Luigi59]

You are beyond wrong. Not one, I repeat, Not ONE person here said any such thing. They've simply said; numerous times; that you, scout, me, nor anyone else here knows all of the facts. (Although you continue to believe you know ALL the facts). Must be nice to be so full of wisdom. Anyway; what has been said is that we trust the academy, and whatever their investigation finds, and whatever their decision is, we trust and have faith in. If for "Whatever Reason" they retain or dismiss a cadet; then we accept that. What we don't accept is your premise that everything is black and white, and that you know ALL the facts. You don't. Stop trying to keep pretending you do. You don't.

Did they cheat? Yes or no.

 

[Luigi59]

You are beyond wrong. Not one, I repeat, Not ONE person here said any such thing. They've simply said; numerous times; that you, scout, me, nor anyone else here knows all of the facts. (Although you continue to believe you know ALL the facts). Must be nice to be so full of wisdom. Anyway; what has been said is that we trust the academy, and whatever their investigation finds, and whatever their decision is, we trust and have faith in. If for "Whatever Reason" they retain or dismiss a cadet; then we accept that. What we don't accept is your premise that everything is black and white, and that you know ALL the facts. You don't. Stop trying to keep pretending you do. You don't.

Did you miss this post? Or is THIS current C3C lying and thus committing another honor offense?

Long time lurker and rising C3C here,

I took Calc 2 this past semester and will give some facts about the situation.

The test was administered online through USAFA's WebWork page. My teacher made it very clear that no resources were allowed to be used during the FSE; resources being calculators, notes, Wolfram, Google, etc. The only thing that we were supposed to have open on our computers was the WebWork page with the FSE test, nothing else. Since the test was being done online, an internet connection was needed to load the test page and submit the test.


My personal opinion on the matter is that my teacher was very clear on what we were allowed to use during the test, I would assume that the other teachers were clear on this as well. Additionally, I'm almost positive that for everyone in Calc 2, it was not the first time taking an FSE, because we had one for Calc 1 in the Fall (although on derivatives) and my roommate who was taking Calc 2 at that time said that he had one as well. The rules were the same back then, nothing changed between semesters.

Personally, I was called in to meet my teacher because I viewed Wolfram the day of my FSE, although in my situation I went on to Wolfram the period before I took my FSE to do some last-minute reviewing. The main issue is that too many cadets were using Wolfram to just give them the answer so they could get the FSPAs over with and not take the time to actually learn how to solve the problems. I'll admit that I used Wolfram when I did my FSPAs, mostly on questions that stumped me, but instead of just copy/pasting the answer, I would use the Show Steps button to learn how Wolfram solved it. My teacher warned us in class not to rely on Wolfram, because we'd be screwed for the FSE and the final, but people passing the in-class FSE with nearly perfect scores and failing the FSE on the final with extremely low scores alerted that something was up. It wasn't hard for them to see who used it in class since they keep logs of every single website you visit using the wireless network, but I wouldn't be surprised if some cadets used their phones to get the answers and got away with it.

Overall, everyone knew the rules, any cadet who is trying to spin it to say that it was administered improperly is just trying to snake their way through the fact that they got caught. These cadets brought it upon themselves and I think deserve to get a lot more than just remediation. We took the test on Lesson 35, that's months into the semester and well after Recognition for us freshmen. We were given hundreds of problems to practice so that we'd only have to get 12 questions correct on a single test. The teachers would go over FSPA problems in class that the students were having trouble with and it's not like they weren't available for EI for all 34 lessons prior. Everything was there to help prepare us for this test, which we all knew about since it's in both our syllabus and the course letter. There was no reason that anyone should have cheated on that test. I see the purpose of the honor board in cases where the facts may be a bit more construed and remediation may be the best option, but because the cheating was so blatant and the blame is solely with the offenders, in my opinion disenrollment may be the best course of action.

So either he's lying or he's not. Sounds pretty convincing to me.

 

[Luigi59]

I'm almost insulted at the weakness of this strawman.

Straw man? The USAFA honor Code defines it! If there are different punishments for cheating, obviously there are different degrees of cheating, and clearly some cheating is not as bad as other cheating.

Evidence - Some who cheat get disenrolled, some who cheat get remediation.

Therefore, what other conclusion can you come to other than "there are degrees of cheating" and that some instances of cheating ("severe cheating") are punished by disenrollment while "mild cheating" gets remediation.

Spin it.

 

[bruno]

Straw man? The USAFA honor Code defines it! If there are different punishments for cheating, obviously there are different degrees of cheating, and clearly some cheating is not as bad as other cheating.

Evidence - Some who cheat get disenrolled, some who cheat get remediation.

Therefore, what other conclusion can you come to other than "there are degrees of cheating" and that some instances of cheating ("severe cheating") are punished by disenrollment while "mild cheating" gets remediation.

Spin it.

A few things that you didn't highlight in the 3C's post:

My personal opinion on the matter... I would assume that ... Additionally, I'm almost positive .

You probably ought to be careful about citing one Cadet's opinion as factual when he himself qualifies his post- because what sounds pretty convincing may also not be the whole story.
I agree that really there is only cheating or not cheating, lying or not lying, stealing or not stealing and those are absolute concepts, and that if found guilty, that the Honor Code is either not going to tolerate people with honor violations and dismiss them, or it does in fact tolerate violations. (And, offering some punishment as a remedial option is tolerating).
But, really- we don't know the entire story and the old song: "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" is equally true of rendering judgement based on internet postings. It seems to me that we ought to at least suspend judgement here until the USAFA has completed their investigations and actions. Another useful adage- this from Abraham Lincoln: "Better to be silent and thought a fool then to speak up and remove all doubt". Stridency without facts would seem to fit that category. This should play out before everyone gets themselves all hot and bothered about what and why they took the decisions that they did.

 

[Luigi59]

A few things that you didn't highlight in the 3C's post:
You probably ought to be careful about citing one Cadet's opinion as factual when he himself qualifies his post- because what sounds pretty convincing may also not be the whole story.

What part of his post do you think is untrue?

Let's look at what you highlighted and what he said - you have a problem with him saying "I would assume" and "my personal opinion" when he is talking about a teacher's instructions? Does that have any bearing on the cadet conduct and should be an excuse for the cheating? Even if the teacher DIDN'T instruct them not to use the website, did the cadets do the right thing or not?

And his statement "I'm almost positive" refers to whether or not the cadets had ever taken that test before. Does that have any bearing on the cheating?

I agree that really there is only cheating or not cheating, lying or not lying, stealing or not stealing and those are absolute concepts, and that if found guilty, that the Honor Code is either not going to tolerate people with honor violations and dismiss them, or it does in fact tolerate violations. (And, offering some punishment as a remedial option is tolerating).

I agree that "cheating is cheating." Some here apparently don't believe that, despite their protests.

They seem to believe that "whatever the USAFA decides to do or how to punish the cheaters" should not be questioned as "they know best." So if they (honor board) decide to retain every cheater who was found to have cheated, they (those here who don't want to allow anyone to question the judgement of the USAFA honor board) will be satisfied with that outcome.

It really does come down to this: Did they cheat? Yes or no?

Are some cheaters going to be disenrolled, and are some going to be given "remediation"?

If so, my original post is accurate - there are "degrees" of cheating, and the USAFA makes allowances to punish cheating differently.

And the USAFA is tarnished by allowing cheaters to remain as cadets.

But, really- we don't know the entire story and the old song: "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" is equally true of rendering judgement based on internet postings. It seems to me that we ought to at least suspend judgement here until the USAFA has completed their investigations and actions. Another useful adage- this from Abraham Lincoln: "Better to be silent and thought a fool then to speak up and remove all doubt". Stridency without facts would seem to fit that category. This should play out before everyone gets themselves all hot and bothered about what and why they took the decisions that they did.

As to comments about "fools" - a fool is someone who smells smoke, sees bright red/orange light, hears crackling, feels heat, and denies a fire is nearby.

 

[Scratcher]

Your desire to avoid answering the question makes me think you aren't quite sure...

No I'm very sure of the Honor Code and the Honor System. I gave you the Honor System Guide. Your wrong! Your just trying to get me to say that falconfamily is wrong instead of you being wrong. YOUR WRONG! If you mistakenly followed someone else's wrong information to make your weak argument, that's on you. You should verify your fact before you use them in YOUR argument. Your just as bad as the reporters in the press who use false facts to make a news story. ScoutPilot your wrong and you do not understand how the USAFA Honor System works.

 

[usna1985]

I can't speak for the other SAs, but for quite a few years now, USNA has offered "honor remediation" for certain mids under certain conditions. My general understanding of the program is that the decision to offer remediation (vs. dismissal) must ultimately be approved by the Supe. Usually, the program is offered to first and second year mids (vs. more senior mids). And, the facts of the individual case also weigh heavily in the decision.

The person who is remediated gets something along the lines of 100 demerits (meaning 100 hours of room tours/marching), restriction (no leave/liberty) for about 6 months, and is assigned an honor mentor (an O-5/O-6) who works with the individual on honor by meeting with the mid, assigning readings, essays, etc. Failure to complete any of the program is grounds for dismissal. At the end of some period of time (6 months to a year), the mid is retained only if the honor mentor recommends it (and the Supe approves).

This program has come under a lot of scrutiny (the reasons are beyond the scope of this thread) and it's my understanding that the program has been scaled back under the current administration.

My point in mentioning the above is NOT to start a debate on USNA's program but to point out that USAFA is not the only SA to offer honor remediation. There is not a "single sanction" at USNA, so it's not fair to suggest that USAFA is alone in not having one.

HOWEVER, IMO, if honor remediation is offered, it should be individually decided and also be a big deal -- as it is at USNA. Thus, I would be curious to know what is meant by "honor remediation" at USAFA. I would be surprised if it is the same as at USNA only because I can't imagine putting such a program in place for 70-100 cadets. I could well be wrong in that assumption.

So, I could see different sanctions for different cadets depending on the individual facts of each case. I would be disappointed if all the offenders (assuming they admit guilt or are found guilty) are basically given a slap on the wrist and told to retake the test. THAT, IMO, would teach entirely the wrong lesson.