Assume you were a member of the panel that presided over the academic misconduct hearing involving Zane Corbin. Given just the information provided in the case, how would you have voted at the conclusion of the hearing? Again, assume you were a member of the five-person panel appointed to review the charge of academic misconduct filed against Zane Corbin. What questions would you have posed to Zane, Professor Herrick, and Professor Goggans during their testimony before the panel? How, if at all, might the answers to those questions have affected your vote at the conclusion of the hearing?
Given the facts available in this case, do you believe the Upchurch Medal awarded to Zane Corbin should have been rescinded despite the outcome of the academic misconduct hearing? Why or why not?
Reportedly, one member of the hearing panel believed Zane was guilty of the charge filed against him but voted to acquit him because the adverse consequences Zane faced if the Upchurch Medal was rescinded far outweighed the severity of the "indiscretion" he had committed. Was that a reasonable or appropriate justification for voting to acquit Zane? Defend your answer.
The second member of the hearing panel who voted to acquit Zane was not convinced the available evidence demonstrated "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Zane was guilty of the charge filed against him. Was that an appropriate justification for voting to acquit Zane?
Describe how an allegation of academic misconduct similar to the charge filed against Zane Corbin would be dealt with at your institution. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the system in place at your institution to address such matters.