Cynthia Shackleford’s story sounds like one we’ve heard a thousand times before: Two young people decide they’re soul-mates and get married. For years they live a happily married life. They buy a house and have children. At some point, dissatisfaction sets in. Spouse A uncovers ominous warning signs and hires a private investigator, who reveals that spouse B is having an affair. The marriage ends in a bitter divorce. But Cynthia’s story has an interesting twist: Instead of passively watching as her husband began a new life with his mistress, she took action. Legal action. And in March 2010, she won a $9 million verdict against her husband’s mistress.

To the Editor:

Re: “Confronting Plagiarism,” Opinion, March 9

As Judicial Codes Counselor, and advocate for students charged with Academic Integrity violations, I would like to respond to this recent  Sun guest column.

Two weeks ago Harry Lewis, professor of computer science at Harvard College, spoke at Cornell. His book, Excellence Without a Soul, questions the effects a consumer culture has had on undergraduate education, including the instrumental approach that many students take toward learning.

To the Editor:

Re: “When Was the Last Time YOU Cheated?,” Red Letter Daze, Nov. 19

This article overlooked some important aspects of Academic Integrity at Cornell. As a Judicial Codes Counselor, my job is to advise students accused of violating the Academic Integrity Code; I have seen first-hand that cheating at Cornell carries serious consequences.

In the first stages of the Academic Integrity process the accusing professor is judge, jury and executioner. Although accused students may have an adviser throughout the process, students are expected to speak for themselves. Students are innocent until proven guilty and have the opportunity to refute evidence brought against them; however, if a professor thinks a student has cheated the student will probably be found guilty. Though a student may appeal a professor’s finding to a Hearing Board, Boards typically defer to the accusing professor’s interpretation and application of the Code in his or her classroom. This means that the Board will agree with a professor’s finding in most cases.