Judge: Mary H. Strobel, Case: 22STCP00587, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Hon. Mary H. Strobel The clerk for Department 82 may be reached at (213) 893-0530.

Case Number: 22STCP00587    Hearing Date: April 25, 2023    Dept: 82

             Petitioner Jane Roe (“Petitioner”) petitions for a writ of administrative mandate directing Respondent The Regents of the University of California (“Respondent”) to set aside an administrative decision finding that Petitioner engaged in academic dishonesty in violation of the UCLA Student Conduct Code and imposing a deferred suspension for five years. 

Background

Petitioner’s Earth Science Course and Midterm Exam # 2

            In Fall 2020, Petitioner was a first-year student in Professor Kevin Coffey’s Introduction to Earth Science course at UCLA.  (AR 119, 132.)  Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the entirety of the course, including examinations, took place virtually.  (Ibid. at AR 74-75.)  The course syllabus included a section titled “Caution Against Academic Dishonesty,” which warned that any student suspected of academic dishonesty would be reported to the Office of the Dean of Students for possible discipline.  The syllabus included a link to the UCLA Student Conduct Code, “for more information on UCLA’s policies and procedures on academic honesty,” including the definition of “plagiarism.”  (AR 75.)

            Following the first class, the students formed a GroupMe chat.  (AR 138-139.)  A majority of the class participated in the GroupMe chat.  (AR 136.)  Students used the chat to organize large study sessions over Zoom, including in preparation for exams.  (Ibid.)  Students created study guides for the exams and often there was no attribution as to the source of the information.  (AR 139.)  According to Petitioner, “everyone just kind of trusted each other and just took it as verbatim.”  (Ibid.)

            In early November 2020, after grading the students’ first graded homework assignment and about two weeks before Midterm Exam # 2, Professor Coffey issued an “important warning” to the class:

As I mentioned in class today, I was disappointed to see that a number of these were clearly modeled off of a single original, without much individual thought or critical understanding. Please be advised that, whereas I encourage you to discuss ideas and assignments with one another, unless explicitly stated otherwise (in a group project, for example), all work at UCLA is expected to be your own. I’m not doing anything further about this incident, but I hope you will learn from this and avoid repeating this mistake, as it could have serious consequences, in this or any other class. Please see UCLA's Academic Dishonesty policy here, specifically 102.01c Plagiarism: https://www.deanofstudents.ucla.edu/Individual-StudentCode#academicdis7.

(AR 71.)

            Midterm Exam # 2 for the Earth Science course was held virtually on November 18, 2020 (hereafter “Midterm Exam # 2.”)  (AR 43.)  Petitioner attended office hours and created her own study guide.  (AR 133.)  She did not attend the Zoom study session but she did review the group study guides that were shared in the GroupMe chat.  (Ibid.)  Petitioner noticed that the group study guides “had additional detail to their reinforced concrete description,” which appeared important.  (Ibid.)  Petitioner memorized this information before the exam and rewrote it nearly verbatim as part of her answer to Question 24 of Midterm Exam # 2.  (AR 133-135, 34-44.) 

            Specifically, Question 24 on Midterm Exam #2 asked: “Pick three different construction techniques that can help improve a building’s earthquake resistance, and briefly explain what they are and how they work.” (AR 35.) Petitioner’s answer included the following: “Reinforced concrete is when the concrete has a skeleton or mesh of steel, which allows the whole thing to flex without cracking because steel is flexible. The reinforcing steel absorbs the tensile, shear, and compressive stresses in a concrete structure.”  (AR 36.) 

            As Professor Coffey subsequently reported to the Dean of Students, the online Encyclopedia Britannica defines “reinforced concrete” as follows: “Reinforced concrete, concrete in which steel is embedded in such a manner that the two materials act together in resisting forces. The reinforcing steel—rods, bars, or mesh— absorbs the tensile, shear, and sometimes the compressive stresses in a concrete structure.” (AR 35.)   The study guides, from which Petitioner memorized the information, did not attribute the description of “reinforced concrete” to Encyclopedia Britannica.  (See AR 167-168, 133-139, 49-51.)

Disciplinary Proceedings

            On December 6, 2020, Professor Coffey submitted a letter to the Dean of Students reporting incidents of academic dishonesty during Midterm Exam # 2.  He reported that 35 of the 136 students who took the exam, including Petitioner,
submitted answers to written questions that are too similar to be attributable to coincidence.”  He reported that, in one case, “these answers match an online definition from Britannica online.”  (AR 34.)

On February 4, 2021, Katie Goodwin, UCLA’s Assistant Dean of Students, notified Petitioner that UCLA’s Office of Student Conduct had received information indicating that she may have engaged in academic misconduct on Midterm Exam #2 in violation of section 102.01 of the UCLA Student Conduct Code. (AR 47.)  Petitioner met with Dean Goodwin on February 17, 2021, and shared a personal statement responding to the academic misconduct allegations.  Petitioner admitted that she memorized a description of “reinforced concrete” from the group study guides for the Earth Science course.  (AR 48-50.)  Petitioner claimed that she did not know that the description of “reinforced concrete” was from the Encyclopedia Britannica. (AR 53.) 

Dean Goodwin also discussed the matter with Professor Coffey and followed up with him via email on April 5, 2021.  (AR 90-91.)  Professor Coffey stated that Question 24 “was not a definition question” and could have been answered “without repeating this description of reinforced concrete [from the study guide], which uses concepts and terms not covered in class (i.e., tensile, shear, and compressive stresses).”  (AR 92.)  Dean Goodwin shared Professor Coffey’s response with Petitioner via email on April 20, 2021. (AR 55-56.)  Petitioner responded, “I memorized the study guide, thinking it was safe, and answered using my memory.”  (AR 55.)

Dean Goodwin held a follow-up meeting with Petitioner on June 24, 2021, at which she informed Petitioner that if she did not acknowledge that she engaged in a violation of the Student Conduct Code, the matter would be referred to the Student Conduct Committee for a hearing. (AR 87.) Petitioner replied to Dean Goodwin on June 30, 2021, stating she “had not engaged in a violation of the Code because [she] responded to the test questions on [her] own and spent [her] time studying to prepare for the exam.” (AR 88.)

An administrative hearing was held on November 23, 2021, before a Student Conduct Committee.  (AR 101.)  At the Hearing, Assistant Dean Jordan Richman gave a presentation on behalf of the University. (AR 111-114.) Petitioner and Professor Coffey were then called as witnesses.  (AR 118-143.)

After the hearing, the Student Conduct Committee issued a written decision in which the Committee found that Petitioner violated Section 102.01 (Academic Dishonesty) of the UCLA Student Conduct Code.  Specifically, as relevant to this writ petition, the Committee found that that Petitioner “used plagiarized material from the online source Britannica without proper citation or attribution to complete the Midterm 2 Exam.”  (AR 156.) 

The Hearing Panel recommended a sanction of Deferred Suspension for five years, the conditions of which included completion of an “Avoiding Plagiarism Workshop.”    (AR 156.)

On January 18, 2022, Petitioner’s counsel submitted a response to the Report to the UCLA Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, Monroe Gorden Jr., asking him to overturn the Hearing Panel’s finding. (AR 157.) On February 11, 2022, Vice Chancellor Gorden rejected Petitioner’s appeal and approved the Hearing Panel’s recommended sanction. (AR 211.)

Standard of Review

Under CCP section 1094.5(b), the pertinent issues are whether the respondent has proceeded without jurisdiction, whether there was a fair trial, and whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.  An abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.  (CCP § 1094.5(b).)

Numerous Court of Appeal cases have affirmed that student misconduct proceedings at public and private universities do not involve a fundamental vested right, and that the substantial evidence standard applies in the trial court.   (See e.g. Doe v. Occidental College (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 208, 220-221; Doe v. Allee (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1060; Doe v. University of Southern California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 221, 238, 239, 248-249; Doe v. Regents of the University of California (2016) 5 Cal.App.5^th 1055, 1073-1074; see also Gurfinkel v. Los Angeles Community College Dist. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 [no fundamental right to a public college education].) 

Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion (California Youth Authority v. State Personnel Board (2002) 104 Cal. App. 4th 575, 584-85), or evidence of ponderable legal significance which is reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value. (Mohilef v. Janovici (1996) 51 Cal. App. 4th 267, 305 n. 28.)  “Courts may reverse an [administrative] decision only if, based on the evidence …, a reasonable person could not reach the conclusion reached by the agency.”  (Sierra Club v. California Coastal Com. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 602, 610.)    

 “On substantial evidence review, [the court] do[es] not weigh the evidence, consider the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicts in the evidence or in the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it. The administrative agency’s findings come before [the court] with a strong presumption as to their correctness and regularity. [The court] do[es] not substitute [its] own judgment if the agency’s decision is one which could have been made by reasonable people. Only if no reasonable person could reach the conclusion reached by the administrative agency, based on the entire record before it, will a court conclude that the agency’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. (Doe v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1073 [citations and quotations omitted].) 

Analysis

            Petitioner contends that “a UCLA student cannot commit plagiarism if she did not know and could not have known that she was using another person’s work.”  (Opening Brief (“OB”) 7.)  On that basis, Petitioner contends that substantial evidence does not support the finding that she “used plagiarized material from the online source Britannica without proper citation or attribution to complete the Midterm 2 Exam.”  (AR 156; see OB 4-7.) 

            In support of her argument, Petitioner cites the following definition of plagiarism, which she asserted at the administrative hearing: “the ‘intentional copying of an online source when completing an assignment or exam.”  (OB 5; see also AR 153 and 139-140.)  Petitioner also relies, in part, on Penal Code section 26, which states in pertinent part that “All persons are capable of committing crimes except those … Persons who committed the act or made the omission charged under an ignorance or mistake of fact, which disproves any criminal intent.”  (OB 7.)  Neither Petitioner’s own definition of “plagiarism” nor Penal Code section 26 is relevant to this writ petition.  The administrative findings depend on the definition of “plagiarism” from the UCLA Student Conduct Code, as discussed below.  Further, Petitioner cites no authority that concepts of criminal intent from the Penal Code apply in university academic misconduct proceedings. 

The Student Conduct Committee found that Petitioner violated Section 102.01 (Academic Dishonesty) of the UCLA Student Conduct Code by engaging in plagiarism. Section 102.01c of the Code defines “plagiarism” as follows:

Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, the use of another person’s work (including words, ideas, designs, or data) without giving appropriate attribution or citation. This includes, but is not limited to, representing, with or without the intent to deceive, part or all of an entire work obtained by purchase or otherwise, as the Student’s original work; the omission of or failure to acknowledge the true source of the work; or representing an altered but identifiable work of another person or the Student’s own previous work as if it were the Student’s original or new work.

Significantly, section 102.01c further states that “[u]nless otherwise specified by the faculty member, all submissions, whether in draft or final form, to meet course requirements (including a paper, project, exam, computer program, oral presentation, or other work) must either be the Student’s own work, or must clearly acknowledge the source.”  (AR 7 [bold italics added].) 

            Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, section 102.01c expressly includes within the definition of plagiarism the submission of another person’s work without giving attribution, even if the student lacks intent to deceive.  The phrase “with or without the intent to deceive” is reasonably interpreted to mean that, if a student represents material from a study guide to be her own, that student need not know the original source of the material to be guilty of plagiarism if the study guide itself plagiarized the material.  This interpretation is further supported by the last sentence of section 102.01c, which makes clear that, unless otherwise specified by the faculty member, all exam submissions “must either be the Student’s own work, or must clearly acknowledge the source.” 

            Here, Petitioner’s answer to Question 24 copied nearly verbatim part of the definition of “reinforced concrete” from the online Encyclopedia Britannica.  (AR 35-36.)  Petitioner admitted that she memorized this definition from the group study guides; that she did not attend the Zoom session prior to Midterm Exam # 2 or inquire where the other students obtained this definition; and that she knew that often there was no attribution as to the source of the information in the study guides.  (AR 133-139, 48-50, 55.)  As Petitioner admitted at the administrative hearing, “everyone just kind of trusted each other and just took it as verbatim.”  (AR 139.)  Substantial evidence also supports that Question 24 “was not a definition question” and could have been answered “without repeating this description of reinforced concrete [from the study guide], which uses concepts and terms not covered in class (i.e., tensile, shear, and compressive stresses).”  (AR 92; see also AR 34-36.)  Further, before Midterm Exam # 2, Professor Coffey expressly had warned students that “unless explicitly stated otherwise (in a group project, for example), all work at UCLA is expected to be your own” and cited to the definition of plagiarism.  (AR 71.)

As Petitioner points out, the study guides, from which Petitioner memorized the information, did not attribute the description of “reinforced concrete” to Encyclopedia Britannica.  (See AR 167-168, 133-139, 49-51.)  However, a student commits plagiarism under section 102.01c even if he or she lacks intent to deceive.  Further, as discussed, Petitioner knew that the group study guides obtained information from other sources, without attribution, and she did not inquire as to original source of the definition of “reinforced concrete.”  Accordingly, regardless of whether Petitioner knew the definition was obtained from Encyclopedia Britannica, the Student Conduct Committee could reasonably find that Petitioner violated section 102.01c. 

Petitioner argues that “[p]retty much everything Professor Coffey said when lecturing about reinforced concrete in EPS SCI 1 during the Fall 2020 quarter was necessarily based on the words or ideas of others.”  (OB 6.)  Petitioner further argues that the phrase “reinforced concrete” first originated “in an article published in 1902, in Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 149, 297-312, titled ‘Construction in Concrete and Reinforced Concrete.’”  (Ibid.)  Thus, Petitioner asks “if in answering question 24 on the exam, Jane Roe and other students in the EPS SCI 1 class didn’t cite the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers the first time they wrote the words ‘reinforced concrete,’ were they committing plagiarism?”  (OB 7.)

These arguments are not persuasive.  The administrative decision concerns the narrow issue of whether Petitioner violated section 102.01c in her answer to Question 24.  A professor’s obligations with respect to source attributions during a lecture are not comparable to Petitioner’s obligations as a student or relevant to this writ petition.   

Further, Petitioner did not simply use the phrase “reinforced concrete” on the exam.  Rather, in her answer to Question 24, she copied a description of “reinforced concrete” from another source, verbatim and without attribution, and represented such material to be her own work even though it was not.  It is immaterial whether Petitioner knew that the definition originated from Encyclopedia Britannica.  She knew the description of “reinforced concrete” was not her own work and she did not know the original source of the material.  A reasonable decisionmaker could find that Petitioner violated section 102.01c.  Substantial evidence supports the administrative findings and decision.  

Conclusion

            The petition is DENIED IN FULL.