Judy DeMers And Tom Akers Pursue Charges I Cheated On An Examination I Never Took Nor Was I Scheduled To Take!

Sound Files:

• The reason for these hearings
• General statement regarding these bogus allegations
• More detailed statement regarding the circumstances surrounding these bogus allegations

1. I obtained written permission to take the physiology on the originally scheduled examination date because of illness.

• Letter changing examination date (University officials merely gave me the make-up examination on the original test date)
• Letter from Judy DeMers pertaining to this examination
• Letter from instructor authorizing me to take the make-up examination

2. In accordance with Physiology Department policy, students taking a make-up examination take a different test than the examination given to the rest of the class. Consequently, University administrators knew I was not to take the academic examination in question.

• Sound file #1(Testimony revealing I took a different examination than the others in my class in accordance with Physiology Department policy)
• Sound file #2 Tom Akers, Committee Chairman (and Physiology Department Chairman) stating the Physiology Department has made a practice of giving a different examination in a make-up situation.
• Sound file #3 Tom Akers, Committee Chairman (and Physiology Department Chairman) again reaffirming it is the department to give a different examination on a make-up situation.

3. University administrators admitted I did not cheat. Nevertheless, spearheaded by Judy DeMers, the University actively pursued these allegations harassing me incessantly for 45 days preventing me from studying and jeopardizing my scholastic standing.

4. The University’s administration knew I could not possibly have heard the multiple conversations pertaining to the difficulty of the examination because I had ruptured my eardrum secondarily to bronchitis. Moreover, it is a questionable if I was present in the room at the time these multiple conversations transpired. Nevertheless, University administrators publicly humiliated me then placed me on probation essentially citing my hearing problem.

• Testimony pertaining to bronchitis
• Medical notation stating I had a ruptured eardrum
• University administrators knew the perforated ear drum impaired my hearing
• University administrators knew the perforated ear drum impaired my hearing
• University officials knew I heard nothing about the test I was not scheduled to take

I obtained written permission to take the physiology on the originally scheduled examination date.

Medical School personnel told the class some individuals had not taken the examination therefore NOT to discuss the examination. Evidence-statement by University administrator Thomas Akers

After members of my class advised Gayle Ellner I had not taken the physiology examination she sought me out and asked if I took the examination. I replied "I didn't". She responded she felt the examination was hard. She then filed charges against me claiming I cheated on the examination!

February 2, 1990-Judy DeMers accepted a charge I cheated on an examination I never took nor was I scheduled to take because a student advised me she thought some portions of her examination were "hard."

However, she (Judy DeMers) "discussed" the examination with me prior to my taking the test. Clearly the University has a twisted concept of academic dishonesty.

February 5, 1990-Stating "it’s real serious" Judy DeMers called me away from a Physiology examination to summons me to her office subsequent to completing the examination. Upon arriving at DeMers’ office, DeMers presented the charge levied by the student, Gayle Ellner.

February 13, 1990-The University held a hearing pertaining to the bogus allegation.

February 16, 1990-Judy DeMers accepted and advanced another charge against me pertaining to the same examination I did not take nor was I scheduled to take. This charge accused me of overhearing conversations in which no specific questions or answers were discussed! Note: I sat across the table and on the opposite end of this 20-25 foot table table.

• Sound file #1 University Associate Dean John Vennes describing the length of the table
• Sound file #2 Tom Akers, Chairman of the University committee deciding my future, stating the location of the conversations I was not involved in pertaining to the examination I did not take and was by policy not scheduled to take.

February 16, 1990-The University contacted its attorney regarding these "cheating charges" and advised me I should get an attorney.

February 16, 1990-Judy DeMers again summoned me out of class to present the additional charge and again advised me I "had better get a good lawyer." Note: This charge accused me of overhearing conversations where "nothing specific was discussed."

February 21, 1990-The University summoned me to another hearing scheduled for the next day pertaining to this second cheating charge.

February 22, 1990-University held the second hearing pertaining to this same examination.

February 23, 1990-Advising they intended to fully pursue this matter the University scheduled another hearing!

March 5, 1990-I traveled to the Post Office to retrieve a certified factually incorrect letter from Tom Akers, chairman of the committee pursuing the cheating allegations.

March 6, 1990-I formally asked the University to delay my examinations citing interference with my academic pursuits subsequent to intense harassment generated by the on-going bogus cheating charge saga and the other incidents of harassment. The University denied the request.

March 20, 1990-The University held a lengthy publicly humiliating hearing pertaining to the bogus cheating allegations. I apologized if I possibly overheard opinions rendered by other students pertaining to the examination’s difficulty. The University knew my hearing problem and concurrent bronchitis interfered with my ability to hear the multiple private discussions transpiring simultaneously pertaining to the examination. After University administrators excused the other students, University officials revealed I was not to take the academic examination in question and they admitted I did not cheat! However, they made no effort to notify the class of this fact and the notation I had been academically dishonest remains in my files!

The hearing revealed the chaotic situation existing at the medical school on February 5, 1990, (and other times as well) and exemplifies the University's abominable handling of this whole affair.

• This sound clip raises a question regarding the University's procedures
• One student summoned to the hearing was not involved in the matter
• Another student did not know where his class was meeting
• The individual facilitating this chaotic class clearly lost control of the class
• Even the students present in that class essentially admitted chaos prevailed
• All students knew the types (format) of questions on the test.
• (Note: My examination's format was subjective-essay questions even though University officials advised me to expect objective-style examination questions!)
• Note: After the class took the test, University staff posted copies of it in the library
• University officials acknowledged I was not to take the examination in question

Sound file #1(Testimony revealing I took a different examination than the others in my class in accordance with Physiology Department policy)

Sound file #2 Tom Akers, Committee Chairman (and Physiology Department Chairman) stating the Physiology Department has made a practice of giving a different examination in a make-up situation.

Sound file #3 Tom Akers, Committee Chairman (and Physiology Department Chairman) again reaffirming it is the department to give a different examination on a make-up situation.

• Testimony reveals University officials disregarded factual evidence
• What is North Dakota's definition of cheating? Clearly, I did not cheat.
• Testimony further revealed the students violated received instructions by discussing the exam
• University officials clearly realized I did not cheat
• I was found not guilty of cheating
• ...but placed on probation anyway!
• University officials placed me on probation apparently for having a tape recorder and admitted "lots of students were guilty there" but of course, nothing happened to those individuals!
• During the hearing University officials disclosed a violation of the confidentiality of that hearing transpired-of course, nothing happened to the offending individuals

• Gayle could not remember if I discussed the test with her during her short talk
• Gayle admitted I did not solicit any information about the examination
• Gayle admitted the conversation regarding the test lasted about one minute.
• Gayle stated she was charging me with not stopping her from talking
• Gayle caused trouble because she thinks her opinion of a test's difficulty constitutes cheating!
• Gayle expressed her idea of cheating
• Gayle admitted being present during the afternoon small group discussion-of course, I could not hear the discussions, and Gayle did hear the discussions, but said nothing to the other students. Did the University discipline Gayle? No.

• Steve Johnson admitted I was not asked if I took the test
• Steve knew I had not taken the exam. Does his discussion constitute cheating
• Steve Johnson's questionable statement
• Steve Johnson---convenient amnesia or a blatant liar?
• Beth Honl stated Steve Johnson was in the student lounge.
• Obviously, Gayle and Steve both acted unprofessionally.

• Did some students believe I had more study time than they did?
• Or was it an innocent mistake on Gayle's part?

• Was I present during this chaotic period of multiple conversations?
• Hearing distant conversations at that table in that room does present challenges
• This student discuss the examinations level of difficulty
• This student also discussed non-specific items related to the examination
• This student also described a chaotic situation
• Another student described a chaotic situation
• This student is unsure if I was present during the brief talk regarding the test's difficulty
• Apparently, I was not listening to anything of importance or anything in particular

This sound file clearly raises questions pertaining to this facilitator's ability to conduct class.

The Tape-Upon learning evidence existed worry and distress prevailed among many.

• Sound file #1 My attorney describing the contents of the tape of the small group meeting.
• Sound file #2 Additional regarding the contents of the tape of the small group meeting.
• Sound file #3 Additional discussion regarding the tape of the small group meeting.
• Sound file #4 Certain individuals (guess who) opposed the playing of the tape, consequently, we could not utilize it at that hearing.
• Sound file #5 Tape recording reveals small group chaos not discussion.

• Sound file

• Sound file

• Sound file #1 Judy DeMers chiding the other students for breaching confidentiality.
• Sound file #2 Tom Akers and Judy DeMers scolding the other students for breaching confidentiality.
• Sound file #3 One student who violated the confidentiality of the meeting was told she was "not supposed to say that." From my experience with the University of North Dakota, I get the impression if I violated confidentiality Judy DeMers would have dismissed me immediately.

March 22, 1990-I received a letter acknowledging the University placed me on one year probation for possibly overhearing conversations were nothing specific was said about the examination I was not scheduled to take and did not take! Moreover, University officials placed a notation in my permanent record stating I was academically dishonest! The University committee noted "another violation of this nature will be considered much more serious and that we should warn her that it is a serious business and that the committee considers it such."

Incidentally, The University did nothing to the students who knowingly "discussed" the examination’s difficulty in my presence. Sound file

March 28, 1990-I appealed the committee’s decision to the Medical School Dean. The Dean asked the University committee to review the evidence however the review never transpired.

June 25, 1990, University officials and several witnesses stated the University condoned harassment wasted my valuable study time and jeopardized my academic standing.

EVIDENCE: Included above

Why does North Dakota permit University administrators to harass students?

Knowing I did not cheat why did the University pursue these allegations and place me on probation?

Why does another student’s opinion regarding the difficulty of an examination constitute cheating?

Because University of North Dakota examinations are similar year after year, why does it not constitute cheating when an upper classman tells a lower classman his or her academic examinations were difficult?

Why did the university pursue these allegations against me so voraciously at the busiest and most critical point in medical school?

Why did the University pursue these charges knowing they lacked creditability?

Why did the University not pursue charges against students who discussed the examination’s level of difficulty in my presence?

How does my having a hearing problem make me academically dishonest?

Because of this fiasco, certain individuals seemed delighted University officials permitted them to do anything with immunity and the administration's blessing. This lead to repeated episodes of threatening, abusive, destructive and harassing behavior that ultimately forced me to seek a leave of absence. Sound file

This memorandum reveals the physiology department files examinations in the library, for student viewing. Upon publication of a new textbook the old examinations are superceded and destroyed.