刚从DUKE商学院官方网站上看到的院长声明。

　　http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/news/honorcode-0607.html在被处分的34人中(包括中国和其他国家的学生)有24人上诉，上诉委员会在经过10天的仔细考虑后，决定驳回所有上诉，维持原判。
　　
　　原文并没有说是谁上诉了，但可以推测应该是所有的被开除和休学的学生(9expulsions+15 suspensions = 24)。
　　
　　应媒体要求，院长声明中还详尽地解释了原判罚所使用的尺度，原调查过程和上诉委员会的组成。
　　
　　判罚尺度：
　　
　　1) 开除 -- 期末考试和平时作业或测试中都作弊的； 或是期末考试作弊但死不认帐的。
　　
　　2) 休学 -- 仅在期末考试中作弊但认罪态度较好的。
　　
　　3) 不及格 -- 仅在平时作业或测试中作弊的；或是仅在期末考试有作弊但情况极其特殊的。声明还对一些不负责任的失实媒体传闻， 比如处分不公或者是种族歧视，进行了简要的驳斥。DUKE商学院的院长还在声明的最后敦促别的学校能引此为鉴，希望此次事件能成为高等学院道德教育的转折点。
　　
　　院长声明全文转载如下：
　　
　　Statement of Douglas T. BreedenDean, Duke University's Fuqua School of Business
　　
　　June 1, 2007 | To Members of Duke's Fuqua School of Business Community:
　　
　　As you know, in Term 3 two professors had indications of cheating on case assignments, quizzes and the final examination of a core course. In total 43cases of possible cheating were referred to the Associate Dean of the Daytime MBA program, as required by our Honor Code.Given the scope of this investigation, we appointed a well-respected facultymember as an Investigator and “Special Prosecutor” for the likely cases.
　　
　　The Investigator led an Investigative Committee, which had two current student members, as well as the Investigator. Decisions to proceed were madey majority vote of the Investigative Committee.Pursuant to our Honor Code, the Investigative Committee sent notices of investigations to 43 students in this class. After the investigations, the Investigative Committee decided to charge 38 students with cheating, as fivestudents were found not to have cheated. Those cases were then brought to our Judicial Board for consideration.The Judicial Board is composed of three faculty members and three student members, with a faculty chair who votes only in the case of a tie vote. The Judicial Board held hearings where the accused students were able to explainor present their rebuttals of the evidence against them. On April 26th, ourJudicial Board, after extensive investigations and hearings, convicted 34 first year students in our Daytime MBA program of violating our Honor Code, and four students were found not guilty. The Judicial Board ruled that nine students should be expelled, 15 should receive a one-year suspension and a failing grade, nine students should receive a failing grade in the course,and one student should receive a failing grade on an exam.Let me briefly explain the categories employed by the Judicial Board to determine their penalties: Our Honor Code categorizes violations as "Severe," "Moderate," and "Minor." The Honor Code also provides a range of penaltiesfor each violation category to allow for gradations of violations within each category. Specifically, the penalty for a violation of the Honor Code that is determined to be a "Severe Violation" is "suspension for not less than one semester or expulsion." In these cases, the most extreme violationsin the Severe category were termed "extremely severe" and received the harshest penalty within the Severe category (expulsion). Other violations inthe Severe category (termed "severe") received a lesser penalty within the range of penalties suggested for severe violations (a one-year suspension inthese cases).In determining penalties for the Honor Code cases arising out of the course in Term 3, the Judicial Board applied the following criteria to determine penalties for each category of conviction:(1) Students convicted of "extremely severe" violations of the Honor Code were given expulsion and a failing grade in the course. In this category were two broad types of violations: (a) cases where the student cheated on oth an examination and one or more other assignments, and (b) cases where the student cheated on an examination and then, in the assessment of the Judicial Board, committed a second violation of the Honor Code by lying about this behavior.(2) Students convicted of "severe" violations were given a one-year suspension, a failing grade in the course, and forfeiture of all futurescholarship money. In this category wereor Code also provides a range of penalties for each violation category to allow for gradations of violations within each category. Specifically, the penalty for a violation of the HonorCode that is determined to be a "Severe Violation" is "suspension for not less than one semester or expulsion." In these cases, the most extreme violations in the Severe category were termed "extremely severe" and received the harshest penalty within the Severe category (expulsion). Other violations in the Severe category (termed "severe") received a lesser penalty within the range of penalties suggested for severe violations (a one-year suspension in these cases).In determining penalties for the Honor Code cases arising out of the course in Term 3, the Judicial Board applied the following criteria to determine penalties for each category of conviction:(1) Students convicted of "extremely severe" violations of the Honor Code were given expulsion and a failing grade in the course. In this category were two broad types of violations: (a) cases where the student cheated on oth an examination and one or more other assignments, and (b) cases where the student cheated on an examination and then, in the assessment of the Judicial Board, committed a second violation of the Honor Code by lying about this behavior.(2) Students convicted of "severe" violations were given a one-year suspension, a failing grade in the course, and forfeiture of all futurescholarship money. In this category were cases where the student cheated on an examination and admitted and expressed contrition for the cheating ehavior.(3) Students convicted of "minor" violations were given failing grades in the course, and forfeiture of all future scholarship money. In this categorywere cases where the student cheated on a single case assignment or quiz,orwhere there was cheating on an examination but, in the assessment of the Judicial Board, mitigating circumstances warranted a lesser penalty than suspension.Pursuant to our Honor Code, the convicted students had the right to appeal, and 24 students elected to do so. They filed many binders of materials containing their appeals, with the last filings submitted on May 17th. Underour Honor Code, appeals may be brought on two grounds: (a) substantial new evidence or (b) the Associate Dean or his appointed Investigator or the Judicial Board failed to abide by the Honor Code's bylaws.Again, pursuant to our Honor Code, the Appeals Committee was composed of three persons: Robert H. Ashton, the L. Palmer Fox Professor of Accounting, a Class of 2008 Daytime MBA student (a very talented international student),and me, Dean and William W. Priest Professor of Finance. The Appeals Committee also asked Jennifer Francis, Senior Associate Dean and a distinguished professor, and John W. Payne, former Deputy Dean and also a distinguished professor, to serve as nonvoting staff for the Appeals Committee, helping the committee gather and understand the issues of the 24 cases. Kate Hendricks, of Duke University's Office of Legal Counsel, served as counsel for the Appeals Committee and was regularly consulted. The Appeals Committee considered the appeals on an individual basis and carefully read and deliberated the issues raised in each appeal. The AppealsCommittee studied the cases and deliberated and questioned key persons during most business hours of almost every business day over the past two weeks. Additionally, they read binders and materials over both weekends to understand the appeals and issues. In addition to carefully reading each student's appeal submission, the Appeals Committee intensively questionedthe lead professor in the course, as well as the Investigator, the Chair of the Judicial Board and the Associate Dean in charge of the Daytime MBA program.In each instance and after careful consideration, the Appeals Committee voted unanimously to uphold the individual convictions and penalties imposedy the Judicial Board.As required by the Honor Code, we have notified our faculty and Daytime MBA student body of the decisions of the Appeals Committee.You may have read press accounts on certain aspects of this case. Because we are restricted bywhat we can say, please know that there have beenmaterial inaccuracies in claims made by other parties. It is not breaking confidentiality, however, to say that those who have received the harshest penalties (expulsion or suspension) come from three continents and representoth foreign and domestic students.This has been a regrettable time at Fuqua, but it also provides us with a valuable reminder that our Honor Code is what unites us across the diverse nationalities and cultures that we welcome here at Fuqua. The Honor Code is the embodiment of the essential principles of trust and integrity that are the essence of our collaborative and distinctive environment. We will always cherish and protect those principles.The Appeals Committee's decisions close the Honor Code process on these particular cases. At the same time, we are also a compassionate school. The students involved have made terrible mistakes and violated the trust that weplace in each other. Yet, it is my hope that they will learn from this experience and make some good for their future out of it. Indeed, those who have been suspended and those who received failing grades will be welcomed ack as members of Duke's Fuqua community.I want to express my appreciation for the support that so many of you have expressed for our school. While no one wanted this incident to have occurred, I hope that it will serve as a catalyst for strengthening the unique culture of Duke's Fuqua School of Business that ties us together as such a vibrant community. I fully recognize the continuing need for us to be proactive in working with our many constituencies, including our alumni, corporate recruiters, and current and prospective students. Please know thatwe have already begun that process and will aggressively continue it in themonths ahead.Finally, I would also say that we are pleased by the support of leaders of many other top universities in our handling of these issues and by the good that they are trying to do in their schools in discussing and learning from our experience at Duke. As research has shown, the issues of cheating in oursociety seem to be rather widespread in universities, and we hope this is aturning point towards higher integrity in higher education.