STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NOS. 78-2506

) 78-2507

LONZIA BERRY and MYRA ANDERSON, ) (Consolidated)

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was held before Michael R.N. McDonnell, Hearing Officer for the Division of Administrative Hearings, at 1:00 p.m., on January 31, 1979, in Room 200, Thomas Center, 306 Northeast 6th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida.

Petitioner was represented by Ashmun Brown, Esquire, University of Florida, Gainesville, and Respondents were represented by Rodney W. Smith, Esquire, Post Office Box 503, Gainesville, Florida.

Upon joint motion of the parties to consolidate these cases for hearing, the motion was granted.

Petitioner, University of Florida (hereafter University), seeks to expel Respondents Lonzia Berry and Myra Anderson (hereafter collectively Respondents), from the University's School of Medicine based upon the University's allegations that Respondents cheated on an examination taken in an anatomy course.

Respondents deny that any improprieties occurred.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On November 6, 1978, the University's School of Medicine conducted a written and practical examination in anatomy. The written examination was composed of four sections with Section I consisting of thirty-five multiple- choice questions, Section II consisting of twenty matching questions, Section III consisting of fifteen identification questions, and Section IV consisting of thirty multiple choice.

   
   

2. The second part of the examination was known as the laboratory practical. This portion of the test was conducted in laboratory rooms surrounding the morgue. Forty cadavers were displayed in five of these rooms, and on each cadaver various parts of the anatomy were tagged. Each student would have the opportunity to observe a cadaver for approximately one minute, and then would enter on the answer sheet the name of the tagged portion of anatomy or its function, depending upon the nature of the question asked. Then each student would move to the next station and repeat the process until completion of all seventy-five questions.

3. Dr. Hugh M. Hill, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Associate Dean of the College of Medicine, had, previous to this exam, addressed the problem of student body cheating when he appeared before the freshman class and advised it that cheating would result in dismissal. The University catalog in Part IV, entitled Academic Status, provides for dismissal upon a showing of "lack of integrity." Dean Hill advised the freshman class that cheating constituted a lack of integrity. This provision of the catalog was promulgated as a rule.

   
   

4. On the afternoon of November 6, 1978, Dr. Hill was advised by a student that he, the student, was concerned about other students cheating on the anatomy examination. Dr. Hill then proceeded to conduct an investigation of the allegations.

   
   

5. During the written examination, two students, Shaun Graser, and Michael

   J. Huber, both in the School of Dentistry, reported to a professor what they considered to be cheating on the part of Respondents. Mr. Graser was seated directly behind Respondent Lonzia Berry and to the left rear of Respondent Myra Anderson. Graser testified that he saw Respondents looking at each other's papers. Graser did not see any erasures, changes or writings made in connection with either Respondent looking at the other's paper.

   
   

6. Mr. Huber, who sat two rows to the left of Respondents during the written portion of the examination, observed chat Respondent Berry had his paper turned so as to expose the left margin to Respondent Anderson. The space provided for answers was located on the left margin of the test. Huber testified that he saw Anderson erasing and changing answers during this time, approximately five minutes, and that he observed each Respondent turning their pages in concert. Huber further reported that he never saw Berry looking at Anderson's paper, nor did he see Berry make any changes. Huber did testify that he saw what appeared to be "signs or signals" between the Respondents used to coordinate the turning of pages.

   
   

7. Dr. Lynn T. Romwell, an Assistant Professor of Anatomy, participated in the administration of the written examination. After some students suggested to him that improprieties were occurring in the conduct of the examination on the part of Respondents, Dr. Romwell, during the last half of the examination attempted to ascertain whether the allegations were true. He saw no evidence of cheating on the part of Respondents during that time.

   
   

8. During the practical examination, Respondents were observed by students Charles T. Floyd, Douglas Andrews, and Harry Herzog. Floyd testified that during the practical examination he observed Berry look at Anderson's paper at two or three cadaver stations while the Respondents were at adjacent tables. Floyd saw no erasures or changes but did observe Berry writing after looking at Anderson's paper. The witness did not notice Anderson looking at Berry's paper.

   
   

9. Andrews observed Berry looking at Anderson's paper during the practical examination but did not see any answers being changed. He did, however, see writing after Berry viewed Anderson's paper. Yet in a prior statement, witness Andrews stated that the conduct that he observed in Berry was not, in his opinion, "premeditated." Student Herzog testified that during the practical examination he observed Berry look at Anderson's paper and then write on his examination sheet more than one time. Herzog further testified that he saw Anderson hold up her test paper towards Berry.

10. Dr. Philip A. Fields, a Post-Doctoral Fellow in Anatomy, monitored the practical examination in the same room in which witness Herzog observed Respondents' improprieties. Fields saw Berry look at Anderson's paper at several stations. Berry's conduct consisted of more than a casual glance, and was sufficient to catch Field's attention. Fields did not see any erasures or corrections or entries made after Berry looked at Anderson's paper.

    
    

11. A number of professors, however, testified that they observed no improprieties on the part of Respondents during the practical portion of the examination. W. J. Sanders, Sr., Director of Minority Affairs and Professor of Anatomy, testified that he watched the Respondents with "eagle eyes" and observed no cheating. Dr. Don Cameron, another faculty member who had been warned that Respondents might be cheating, observed them for some thirty minutes and saw no questionable activity. Professor Lynn H. Larkin and Professor J. E. Loftin saw no improprieties during the practicum, although they were looking for them.

    
    

12. The University produced the testimony of Dr. Cary Kilpatrick, Director of Health Systems Research, relating to a statistical analysis of certain answer patterns common to the Respondents. Dr. Kilpatrick concluded that the eight wrong answers common to both Respondents on the written portion of the exam would occur by chance, one in ten million times. No statistical analysis was done as to other portions of the examination answers such as dissimilar wrong answers or correct answers common to both papers.

    
    

13. While this evidence was offered as proof of cheating, it is specifically rejected as having no probative value. The statistics merely establish the obvious; that Respondents did not select their answers by chance. All would probably agree that the Respondents were attempting to select the right answer for the test and that it would be absurd to do so by chance. It should be noted that the test papers also included dissimilar wrong answers, but no analysis of those was accomplished.

    
    

14. Certain specific answers deserve scrutiny in this case. Both Respondents incorrectly answered question No. 5 on the practicum as "Posterior Nasal Arteries." Although there exists such an anatomical feature, it was not lectured on at the University and it would be exceedingly difficult to locate on a cadaver.

    
    

15. Both Respondents also incorrectly answered question No. 74 on the practicum as "First Cervical Loop." There is no such designated feature in human anatomy.

    
    

16. Both of these answers are concluded to be implausible and unreasonable wrong answers consistent with plagiaristic conduct.

    
    

17. Each Respondent confidently testified that a fellow student, Sidell Barnes, had also answered question No. 74 as "First Cervical Loop," but Ms. Barnes testified that she answered it as "Cervical Plexis C-1."

    
    

18. In summary, five students and one professor testified that the Respondents engaged in an improper exchange of information during the written and practical portion of the test. There is no evidence of record to establish that any of this testimony was biased or based on inaccurate observations. Further, the two implausible and unreasonable wrong answers furnished by Respondents, being consistent with plagiaristic conduct, are strong cumulative evidence of misconduct. It is found as a matter of fact that Respondents, by

exchanging information during the conduct of the anatomy examination were guilty of cheating.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

It is therefore concluded as a matter of law that Respondents' cheating constitutes a lack of integrity as contemplated in the University catalogue, and it is

RECOMMENDED that Respondents be expelled from the University's School of Medicine.

DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida.

MICHAEL R.N. MCDONNELL

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Ashmun Brown, Esquire University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611

Rodney W. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 503 Gainesville, Florida

Docket for Case No: 78-002506

Orders for Case No: 78-002506