options concerning MS’s alleged plagiarism were limited to giving him an F on the paper but “then it would require somebody else—an administrative [person]—for him to be removed from the class.” HE 16, pages 7 and 9.

In hindsight, it also is obvious that in Dr. Stokes' mind, the meeting did not resolve the issue of MS's alleged plagiarism.

Despite her acknowledgement during the October 15, 2015, meeting, on October 19, 2015, Dr. Stokes barred from her class MS and three other students who all allegedly plagiarized their first assignment. She told them all “not to come to her class.” See 1 HR 1:44.

The Petitioner now argues she “never asked the student [MS] to leave [her class].” She now says “the decision to remove the student [MS] from her classroom was made by Administration, not [her].”7 This revisionist version of the facts is not supported by the evidence.

When the four students who allegedly plagiarized their first assignment, showed up for the next class, Dr. Stokes testified she merely told them they would receive an “F” for the class. 2 HR 2:07:30. Regardless of the words she used, the effect was to convey to them “there is no need to return to my class because you will receive an “F” for the course.”

For the reasons that follow, this statement to the students does not comport with their rights under the Student Handbook, which gave them the right to appeal her recommendation that they receive an "F" for the whole course and to attend her class during their appeal.

A careful examination of the language in the Student Handbook makes clear the students in this case had a right to continue attending Dr. Stokes' class while they appealed her