Jack Bass Case Study

Jack Bass, Accounting Professor

Case 2
Keiser University
ACG 5075
Dr. Gray
May 17, 2011
Jack Bass
A cheating situation occurred with Jack Bass, an accounting professor. Bass had given his
students an exam and at the end asked them to identify any test items that had been graded
incorrectly by the Scantron machine and submit it to the teaching assistant. After this Bass
suspected that some had changed their answers. So, for the next exam, Bass made a copy of the
students exams and asked them to do the same thing for identifying incorrect answers. After
comparison of the copy and the resubmission it was discovered that some had changed their
answers. Jack brought the situation to the dean and this resulted in those students withdrawing
from the course and receiving sanction letter on their academic file. All the cheaters agreed to
this accept one, D.R. Street III. His argument was that he misunderstood the directions and that
he should be allowed to withdraw without a sanction letter. When the dean said no he had his
father talk with the chancellor and ultimately he was allowed to withdraw without the sanction
letter.
Entrapment
Jack Bass did not entrap his students by withholding the Scantron information from them.
Cheating is a serious offence at any academic institution. Regardless of the situation, whether the
cheater was caught off guard or not, cheating still occurred. Students are completely aware of the
consequences of performing an act of academic dishonesty. They should behave accordingly at
all times, that is, be honest about your work. This is something that should be implemented for
all exams. Of course one may not be able to catch every cheater but it will definitely make
students think twice before cheating.
Repeat Offenders
There should be no difference in the punishment for new offenders and repeat offenders. In
reading the case, it seems as though they are not completely clear on the new and repeat
offenders. Therefore giving everyone the same punishment is the most logical thing to do. The
bottom line is that whether it was the first or second time cheating, they all cheated and all need

to suffer the consequences. It is obvious that the repeat offenders had no remorse for what they
had done hence they cheated again but as previously stated it is still unclear on who exactly the
repeat offenders were. By giving everyone the same punishment, it will also cut down on the
argument that they only cheated on the second exam.
Level of Punishment
The number of incorrect answers changed should not be a determining factor in the level of
punishment received. It doesnt matter if you changed one or five answers; the crime is still the
same- cheating. For example a person that shoots 1 person will have the same punishment as a
person who shoots 2 people- prison. They both had the same intent and that was to shoot
someone. This is the case with the students. It does not matter how many answers were changed
the intent to cheat was the same for everyone so the level of punishment should be the same for
everyone.
Withdraw
The decision to allow D.R to withdraw from the course was neither proper nor fair. It shows that
those with power (D.R.s father) can manipulate others. D.R. cheated on the exam just like
everyone else and should have endured the same consequences. D.R. was told by the dean that
the sanction letter will be removed from your file within three semesters if you are not charged
with any other incidents of academic dishonesty (Knapp, 2009, p.6). D.R. should have been
content with that considering the fact that he did indeed cheat. The more appropriate response
from Jack and the dean would have been to explain to the chancellor the he did indeed cheat and
that in order to be fair to all students, the sanction would remain. After all, the chancellor did not
command the dean to change her decision, he only asked the dean to reconsider. Also they could
have explained that they are aware of him going to law school and that allowing him to withdraw
is sending the wrong message about the ethics and morals of the academic institution and it is not
holding D.R. responsible for his actions.
Conclusion
Cheating in academic institutions is perhaps the least openly discussed crisis in higher education
(Keith-Spiegel & Whitley, 2001). As shown in this case study, consequences for those who
commit the crime varies. It is important that when academic dishonesty is committed, the
punishment remains the same for all involved, regardless of the situation.
References
Keith-Spiegel, P., & Whitley, B.E. (2001). Academic dishonesty. Ethics and Behavior Special
Issue 11(3).
Knapp, M.C. (2009). Contemporary accounting cases. Mason, OH: Cengage