A neurodiverse adult student has abandoned his tertiary degree after being accused of cheating. Photo / Nate McKinnon, RNZ
By Tim Brown of RNZ
A neurodivergent adult student has abandoned his degree after being accused of cheating by the University of Canterbury.
David* is an adult student with Asperger’s syndrome and ADHD.
His conditions meant he was allowed to use a computer for spell-checking in exams, but he was accused of accessing the internet during an exam in June.
It took six weeks for the university to clear him of wrongdoing and David said the process was drawn out, lacked inclusivity, and the stress it caused him affected his physical and mental health.
But the University of Canterbury defended its handling of the matter, saying its standard processes were followed.
David’s early years of schooling were marred by memories of shame and being treated as the “naughty boy” because of his conditions.
But now in his 30s, after encouragement from his wife, he decided to become the first person in his family to go to university.
The first year and a half of his study went well, reaffirming his decision to pursue a Bachelor of Arts.
“It took me probably a good year to convince him to go to university and give it a go,” his wife, Margaret*, told RNZ.
“I went when I was in my 20s, so I’m like ‘I know you, you’re very intelligent, you will thrive there’ and he was. His first year and a half was great. Everybody was saying he actually found his place.
“I’d spent a long time in my life working menial middle-range jobs and I thought why not give it a shot, and I’ve thrived up until this point. I’m sitting on a decent GPA, which is sort of unexpected,” David added.
However, it was not without its difficulties and his neurodiversity entitled him to use a computer for spell-checking during his exams.
That was where the problem arose.
While sitting a 200-level closed-book exam on June 9, an exam officer told David he had seen him access Google using the computer.
David said he had no intention of going into Google and he believed it opened as a result of a hyperlink in the word processing programme he was using for spell checking.
After explaining that to the officer, he assumed that was the end of it.
More than two weeks later, on June 25, he received an email: “I have had a matter referred to me by the Proctors Office. The allegation against you is that you accessed the internet on two separate occasions in a closed book exam”.
David met with the proctor the next day.
“I said ‘if anything’s happened, it’s purely by mistake. It might have accidentally opened an external tab. That wasn’t my intention’,” David said.
“She turned round and said to me ‘well, look, sometimes we make mistakes. We all make mistakes and sometimes it’s easier just to own up and admit it and we can make this go through a lot smoother’.”
David said he reiterated his innocence and the proctor responded by telling him “well the process is going to be a long, drawn-out one then”.
He left the meeting feeling as if his guilt had been decided.
“I said to [my wife] they’re going to find me guilty anyway,” he said.
“We even started putting together an appeals process because that was the opinion I got when I met the proctor – they had already determined my guilt.”
Then came silence.
David received his exam results, but his grade for the paper in question was not published.
On July 8, he reached out to the proctor.
“I am still investigating this case and waiting for a reply to an internal email I sent on 30 June. This process may have been delayed due to the term break and colleagues taking annual leave. I have followed up with the colleague concerned and hopefully I receive a reply soon,” the proctor’s response said.
Margaret said the stress and anxiety it caused David was difficult to watch.
“This has been really heartbreaking to see him just lose all this faith in this institution and just crumble beneath the really poor policies,” she said.
David said he felt awful.
“Disenfranchised. Embarrassed. I try to keep my neurodiversity hidden and the fact that I opened myself up enough to tell UC, I feel like they abused my trust,” he said.
By July 13, his GP was so concerned he wrote a letter to the university on David’s behalf.
“Based on [David’s] account, these allegations appear to be unfounded and the way they have been handled has had a profound impact on both his mental and physical health,” the letter said.
“[He] reports that he was given very limited support when informed of these accusations, and the process appears to have lacked appropriate sensitivity. He has since experienced severe psychological distress, including panic attacks, and I have noted a marked deterioration in his overall wellbeing.”
Finally, on July 24, four weeks after his meeting with the proctor, David received an email clearing him of wrongdoing.
“Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on 26 June 2025. I appreciate the honest and open conversation and as discussed; I am following up formally advising you of the outcome of this referral,” the letter started.
“As indicated at our hui I have investigated this allegation and gathered the necessary information required to make an informed decision regarding this referral from UC Concerns. I appreciate your patience while I have done so and with the information before me, I have reached the decision that you did not breach the University Academic Misconduct Regulations.”
There was no apology and no further explanation.
“No sorry for the stress. No sorry for the accusation. Just we carried out our process and we consider it the end of the situation,” David said.
The University of Canterbury needed to assess whether its processes were suitable for neurodiverse students, he said.
His treatment meant he no longer felt safe to pursue his studies and he would not be returning next year to complete his degree.
Instead, David had used his credits to attain a certificate and diploma of arts.
“It feels like they’ve actually stolen part of my future identity because I’m actually the first person in my family to go to university,” he said.
“I was hoping that some of the nieces and nephews would actually follow me in, but not after this experience.”
The university did not directly address RNZ’s questions about whether an apology was warranted.
But in a statement, the University of Canterbury defended how it handled the situation. The response has been edited for length:
“[David]’s case was managed in line with our normal academic misconduct process, which, by necessity, takes time to investigate thoroughly and ensure fairness.
“[David] participated in a closed book exam on June 9. For closed book exams, students are advised that they may not refer to any course materials or other resources during the exam. The two exam supervisors reported that during the exam, on two separate occasions, they observed [David] opening an internet page on the device he was using during the exam.
“It is usual process for students to be invited to attend a meeting with a Proctor to discuss an allegation of academic misconduct, and they are able to bring a support person.
“The UC Proctor’s recollection of the meeting differs from that of [David]. The Proctor explained that this was an initial meeting to discuss the allegation and to give [David] an opportunity to respond.
“At the time of the first meeting, the Proctor did not have access to [David]’s neurodiversity information, as this is securely managed through UC’s Accessibility Service for formal exam and learning arrangements. [David] shared this information with the Proctor during the meeting to explain why he had special exam arrangements in place.
“The academic misconduct process that was followed in [David]’s case has been reviewed by UC’s Head Proctor, in response to the concerns raised by [David]. The review confirmed that UC’s standard processes were followed and that [David] was given a fair opportunity to respond.
“Following the completion of the investigation, the Proctor determined that academic misconduct had not occurred.
“[David]’s privacy complaint has been investigated by UC’s Privacy Officer, and a response has been provided to him on August 4. The Privacy Officer determined that no privacy breach occurred.”
David and Margaret have also complained to the Human Rights Commission and the Ombudsman.
*Not their real names
-RNZ