The regents of the University of Colorado did not act arbitrarily or misapply university policies when they revoked a student’s master’s degree for plagiarism, the state’s Court of Appeals determined.

Casey Martin alleged that CU’s decision was tainted with bias and violated his procedural rights under the law. He argued that the revocation of his degree jeopardized his current pursuit of a Ph.D. He maintains that he was the victim, rather than the perpetrator, of plagiarism.

But the university countered that Martin’s case had five levels of review, spanning 26 individuals up to the elected regents themselves. Therefore, CU had afforded him a process to argue his side of the case.

“The question is really not whether there’s evidence in the record to support Mr. Martin’s claim. It’s whether there is evidence in the record to support the regents’ decision,” said Megan Clark, who represented the university before the appellate court.

The dispute saw both sides hurl accusations at each other, with CU claiming that Martin fabricated evidence, while Martin retorted that the university had conducted an “incompetent” investigation.

The controversy began when Martin was a student in the Asian Languages and Civilizations graduate program. He spent a year studying at Sophia University in Tokyo, where he befriended fellow student Justin Aukema.

In mid-2012, Aukema defended his thesis, with Martin in attendance, and emailed a copy of the document to Martin.

“I am really impressed by all of your hard work and proud to call you my friend,” Martin responded in August 2012. Three months later, Martin submitted and defended his own thesis, and received his master’s degree the following May.

Nearly one year later, Aukema reportedly found Martin’s thesis online and told his professors that Martin had committed plagiarism from his own thesis. A professor at Sophia University notified CU.

The Honor Code Council — which the lawsuit described as the panel hearing Martin’s case — found Martin to have committed plagiarism, although the decision was later overturned. Martin claimed it to be an “exoneration” while the university denied it was anything but a procedural ruling.

Afterward, CU’s research integrity officer contacted Aukema and advised him to file a complaint with the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct, which also investigates plagiarism. A committee also concluded Martin plagiarized from Aukema and recommended revoking Martin’s degree.

“During the Investigative Committee proceedings, Martin submitted over 600 pages of exculpatory evidence establishing that his research project began well before Aukema’s,” Martin argued in court documents. The committee’s report “failed to examine essential details and omitted key exculpatory evidence.”

A Denver District Court judge upheld the degree revocation decision and the appellate panel likewise affirmed the outcome last week.

“Because we are not the fact finder, it is not our role to weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the agency,” wrote Judge Ted C. Tow III in the Dec. 2 opinion. “We conclude that the Regents’ finding that Martin plagiarized Aukema’s work was not so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority.”

Part of the university’s investigation involved technical examinations of emails and blog posts, given that Martin defended himself by claiming Aukema had plagiarized from materials Martin had sent to him. Martin argued to the appellate court that it was Aukema who requested to see Martin’s research and reviewed drafts of Martin’s thesis sent over Facebook. Aukema reportedly deleted his Facebook account “around the time of his thesis defense.”

Martin even alleged that he privately confronted Aukema over his use of Martin’s research years before the CU investigation.

But other evidence the university considered cut against Martin. For instance, some of Martin’s claims could not be verified, particular formatting irregularities were consistent with the theory that Martin was the plagiarist, and Martin’s level of Japanese proficiency was not at the level needed to interpret the sources he cited (which Martin disputed).

Martin’s lawyers accused the university of going after him in a second investigation because it was unsatisfied with the result of the Honor Code appeal.

“What we have here is a case where Mr. Martin followed the process that was given by CU, which is the Honor Code,” attorney Ben Figa argued to the appellate panel. “He went through that process and at the end, after he was found not guilty of plagiarism, the university changed the process mid-stream.”

Clark, the attorney for CU, responded that even if it was a mistake to go to the Honor Code Council first, that did not change the fact that Martin did not claim he was the victim of plagiarism until after Aukema reported him.

Judge Rebecca R. Freyre, during oral arguments, found the Honor Code proceedings of no consequence to the ultimate revocation of Martin’s degree.

“I wasn’t able to find anything that precluded proceedings in both” forums, she said.

The appellate panel did, however, acknowledge that John Stevenson, then the dean of the graduate school, and department chair Janice Brown, were biased against Martin. Stevenson revealed he would pursue Martin by other means if the Honor Code advisory board found no violation, behaved poorly during the Honor Code proceedings and was even called “less than professional” by the university’s legal counsel.

Stevenson, in an unrelated incident, stepped down in 2016 after retaliating against a female professor, The Daily Camera reported at the time.

While Stevenson and Brown’s involvement may have affected the Honor Code Council’s decision, “Martin must establish that the bias of which he complains was held by the actual decision-maker — i.e., the Regents themselves,” wrote Tow. To that end, there was no proof that the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct and, subsequently, the regents, relied on Stevenson’s conduct.

“The question is really not whether there’s evidence in the record to support Mr. Martin’s claim. It’s whether there is evidence in the record to support the regents’ decision.”

Megan Clark, who represented the university before the appellate court