"The final undergraduate award today is the William J. Upchurch Medal, which is given annually to the outstanding senior in the Hopkins College of Business.
Nominations are made by Hopkins faculty members and the criteria considered in choosing the winner include overall GPA, GPA in business courses, and involvement in student organizations." Dean Rodney Brown paused to build suspense among the nearly 500 faculty members, students, parents, and donors present at the annual spring awards luncheon being held in the Student Union Ballroom of the large state university. "I know that every year the Undergraduate Awards Committee struggles to choose the winner of the Upchurch Medal because there are so many deserving recipients. Professor John Goggans of the Finance Department chaired that committee this year. Let's give him a round of applause," Brown said as he motioned for Goggans to stand. A few moments later, Brown continued. "Drum roll, please . . . . This year's winner of the William J. Upchurch Medal-which is accompanied by a $1,000 check-is . . . Michael Zane Corbin, an accounting major." As Zane Corbin wound his way through the maze of tables set up in the ballroom to receive his award and check, Dean Brown read Zane's credentials for the award, including the five student organizations of which he was a member. The final organization listed by Dean Brown was Beta Alpha Psi, the College of Business's honors organization for accounting majors. Ann Herrick, an accounting professor, immediately stopped clapping. Why? Because Professor Herrick served as the faculty advisor of the college's Beta Alpha Psi chapter, and she knew that Zane Corbin was not a member of that organization.

Questions
1. 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? Defend your answer.
2. 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?
3. Given the facts available in this case, do you believe the Upchurch Medal awarded to Zane Corbin should have been rescinded despite the outcome of the academic misconduct hearing?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?
4. 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.
5. 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? Defend your answer.
6. 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.