In the fall of 2009, Michigan State University (MSU) implemented a new policy regarding reports of undergraduate academic dishonesty. Under the new system, instructors are required to submit an academic dishonesty report for any student that they penalize for violations of academic integrity, and these students are placed into a remediation class that I teach. I analyzed student responses from the course, compared course student responses and demographics with those of the larger MSU and national undergraduate populations, compared instructors' descriptions of the events that led to the report being filed with those of students, and performed a longitudinal analysis of course student's attitudes. Demographically, reported students appear to be very similar to those that make up the overall undergraduate population with one major exception: international students are over-represented among the reported by a factor of five as compared to their share of the MSU student population. For all students, ignorance of the rules and punishments for transgressions of the rules were the most frequently self-reported influencers of the students' actions. Student responses also showed evidence of neutralization, rational choice, strain, and poor time management as being contributors to their malfeasance. While most students admitted to some wrongdoing, they regularly did not conceptualize the incident as being as egregious or clear-cut as did the faculty. My findings indicate a frequent and sizable divide in the way reporting faculty frame the actions of reported students and the way reported students frame the actions that led to their report. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]