Letter of Appeal My Name

Letter of Appeal

My name is Richard Nguyen, and I am currently working on my final semester of the Health Physics Society Program. I am writing this letter to appeal a recent decision made by my instructor Jamnes Cameron, a decision that I believe was wrongfully made. Moreover, if allowed to stand, Professor Cameron's decision would have a severe and irreversible impact on my academic career and would thwart the speedy completion of my degree. I hope to continue my semester at the Illinois Institute of Technology in earnest, with the level of academic integrity that I have exhibited throughout my career here. I hope this letter will illustrate to the committee that I am innocent of wrongdoing and deserve to have the "E" revoked.

In a letter delivered to me on Wednesday, November 24, 2004, the day before Thanksgiving, Professor Cameron wrote, "I have determined that you have violated the Illinois Institute of Technology Code of Academic Honesty...based on your responses to two questions, namely Question 3 and 4." The instructor claims that I "collaborated with two other students" on Question 3, and provided "verbatim information copied from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's web site," for my response to Question 4.

First I will respond to the accusation that I plagiarized from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's web site for Question 4. In fact, I did refer to the information contained on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission web site; references to such sites were understood to be an integral part this take-home exam. However, I do regret not having formally cited the information from the web site. In all honesty, I did not know that formally formatted citations were obligatory or necessary, as this was not a research paper but rather, a short-answer question. Moreover, the instructor never offered specifications for the citation of reference material. The instructions for the take-home midterm included the following: "This is an open reference exam. You may use any reference material at your disposal." I did exactly that; our answers were intended to reflect our research. I apologize for any confusion.

Next I will respond to the accusation that I collaborated with other students on Question 3 in violation of the exam instructions which read, "Students may not work together." I assure the committee that collaboration with others for this exam was never a consideration for me for the following reasons.

One, I had no reason to consult with others because as a take-home exam, I had a wealth of information and ample time available to me to conduct research at the library or on the Internet. Moreover, I have proven myself to be a hard-working and successful student, one who would not need the assistance of others on a straightforward exam question.

Second, if I had needed or wanted to consult with others I would hesitate to use my fellow classmates as a reliable resource. Rather, I would much prefer the more valuable input from my place of employment: I work as a Nuclear Medicine Technologist and have access to many persons and resources there would be of far greater help than a fellow student would.

Third, Question 3 directly relates to the interests of all students in the class. I imagine that many students will provide the same, even nearly identical responses because we have similar backgrounds, professional interests, experiences, and even writing styles.