| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #3. Fall, 2000
December 12, 2000
Members Present:
Kelly Bolen, DJ Brasier, Jeff Charbeneau (presiding), Laura Derr, Sean
Kannengieser, Lada Kyj, Aaron Martz, Shervin Shervani, Elaine Thompson
(observing), Trushar Tsarang.
Ombuds:
Keith Henneke
Letter of Accusation:
The council received a letter of accusation from the professor of a graduate level science class. Students A, B, C, D, and E were accused of using prohibited materials during a take home exam. The professor suspected this because the students used a method which, in his opinion, was not covered in class and would require outside sources to utilize.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of accusation
Written statements of the 5 students involved
Copy of the exam
Answer key for the exam
Course Syllabus
Copy of the professor's email containing the exam and instructions
Rough draft of Student A's exam
Homework assignments from Students C, D and E
Student B and D's textbooks from a previous class
2 of Student E's exams from other classes
Student E's textbook from the class
Student E's class notes
A copy of the eligibility policies from student C's department
Plea:
Students A, B, and C plead In Violation. Students D and E plead Not In Violation.
Opening Statements:
The accused were given the option of speaking through a translator at any
time.
Student A offered his apologies for the incident, and confirmed that he had
used the class textbook during the exam. He stated that he did not know he
was breaking the instructions for the exam but that he now knows what he
did
was a violation. He asked that the Council consider his unintentionality
and willingness to cooperate.
Student B also apologized and described the circumstances that led to his
using a textbook during his exam. He had done very similar work in a foreign
grad school, and used a book from that school to use this method. He stated
that due to linguistic and cultural barriers he did not understand exactly
how to take a take home exam. Student B finished by informing the council
that a failing grade in the course would remove him from his academic
program, and appealed for leniency.
Student C (via a translator) stated that he began the exam immediately upon
receiving it through email. He also stated that he was not culturally
accustomed to take home exams and misunderstood the meaning of "class
notes" to include notes from his previous classes. He apologized for this
misunderstanding and stated that he now understands it was a violation.
Student D stated that he followed the instructions on the exam and only
used his notes from the class itself. He did not understand how he could have
committed a violation and asked the council to fairly consider his case.
Student E (via a translator) reminded the council of the many cultural
differences between Rice and his old graduate school in a foreign country.
Because of the expectations of his previous school, he memorized everything
he thought necessary for the exam and did in fact recall the method in
question completely from memory. He described his reaction to the professor
confronting him with the accusation and stated that he is aware of how to
follow the Honor Code, and cited exams from previous classes as evidence.
Testimony:
The council reviewed the evidence and then called Witness #1, the professor
of the class in question. He testified that the method was mentioned in the
class along with a recommendation for further reading, but that it was
never extensively covered. He stated that even professors comfortable with the
concept must regularly refer to texts for assistance, which is why he found
the five students' use of it on a closed book take home exam suspicious.
The instructions for the exam were included both on the exam and on the email
that accompanied it and stated that students can use their class notes but
no other materials of any kind. When questioned by the accused, the professor
stated that a similar method could have been used on past homeworks, but
not the specific one used in these exams. The professor explained to the
council how the method was used in the various exams, showing that it was actually
an unnecessary step that led to simplification but no different answer- the
accused would have received the same amount of credit on the problem
without even attempting this simplification. He then described the meetings he had
with the accused confronting them with the suspected violation. Students A,
B, and C freely admitted to using outside materials after being questioned.
He also recalled that Student D, when asked during the confrontation, was
able to recall the method from memory.
The witness felt that, at the time of the confrontation, Student E had
admitted getting the method from the book during the exam (he was not asked
to recall the method from memory). Student E responded by saying that he
was attempting to describe to the professor the source of his knowledge, not
the fact that he opened the book during the exam, and suggested that his
English usage may have contributed to a misunderstanding. The witness asked Student
E how much of the textbook he had memorized if he took the time to memorize
the method in question. Student E pointed out earmarks on his textbook that
indicated the sections he would memorize for the exam. These included a
section on the method.
Witness #1 was dismissed and the Council further questioned the five
students. They stated that they do not study together for the class. They
then repeated exactly what materials they used at any point during the
exam: Student A used the class textbook to find the method, Student B used a text
from a previous class to do so, Student C used class notes from a previous
class that covered the method, Students D and E used only their class
notes.
The students then made their closing statements. Students A and B again
gave their apologies and asked the council to consider their circumstances when
deciding on a penalty. Student C gave no closing statement. Students D and
E reminded the Council that they had received no unauthorized aid during this
exam, and contended that they did in fact memorize the method before taking
the exam.
Deliberation:
Several members of the council pointed out parts of the case which can and
cannot be considered during deliberations. Cooperation, unintentionally,
and severity are among the circumstances able to be considered, while signs of
remorse, ignorance of the Honor Code, and external circumstances of a
penalty (such as removal from a graduate program) cannot be considered in fairness
to the student body. The council ruled on the suggestion by the professor that
collaboration could have taken place. The exams were done very differently
even within the problem in question, and there was no evidence to disprove
the five students' claims that they never worked together.
Straw Poll #1 - Did any collaboration occur?
Yes: 0
No: 9
The council then moved on to the students themselves. They agreed that
there were very different cases being discussed, and each student should be
considered separately. Student E was discussed first. After further
examining the evidence and discussing the testimony of Student E and the professor,
the council agreed that, while the professor was right to be suspicious.
Furthermore, Student E had demonstrated that he was capable and inclined to
memorize extremely large amounts of material prior to an exam. The council
felt that the professor's confrontation with the students should not have
happened and led to a possible miscommunication between him and Student E.
Given the difficulty of communication even with the help of a translator
during trial, the council felt it was very possible that there was a
misunderstanding as Student E described. In the end, the council felt there
was no direct evidence to support the accusation.
Straw Poll #2 - Student E
In Violation: 0
Not In Violation: 9
In the case of Student D, the council also felt that there was no evidence
to give clear and convincing evidence of a violation. The fact that Student D
was able to recreate the method from memory when asked by the professor
further supported his case.
Straw Poll #3 - Student D
In Violation: 0
Not In Violation: 9
Straw Polls 1, 2, and 3 were made binding.
Having found Students D and E Not In Violation, the council moved on to a
penalty hearing of seven members for Students A, B, and C. Kelly Bolen and
Lada Kyj were excused.
While discussing Student C, some members asked if his situation was in fact
a violation, given his misunderstanding of the instructions. It was decided
that, while his misunderstanding will mitigate any penalty since it is
considered "unintentionality," it does not remove his personal
responsibility to understand the rules of the Honor Code in the class and to clarify any
confusion with the professor prior to taking the exam.
Straw Poll #4 - Student C
In Violation: 7
Not In Violation: 0
Since the exam was worth more than 20 percent of the exam, the consensus
penalty was an F in the class and a two-semester suspension. The council
felt that an exceptionally high degree of mitigation was necessary, however. In
Student C's case, the Council found that he did in fact commit a violation
unintentionally by taking "class notes" to mean notes from a class, and not
just notes from the class in question. He informed the professor of his
violation when asked about the problem, pled In Violation, and was
completely cooperative with the Council in revealing information. It is unlikely that
there would have been enough evidence to find a violation without Student
C's cooperation. On top this, the council felt that the penalty should be
considerably reduced because of the lack of severity, since the violation
did not alter the accused's grade in any way according to the professor of the
class. A number of possible penalties were suggested in addition to the
consensus penalty.
Straw Poll #5 - Penalty For Student C
F in the course + 2 semester suspension: 0
F in the course: 0
Loss of credit in the course: 0
Loss of credit in the assignment: 0
Re-averaging of the grade without the assignment: 0
Letter of reprimand: 7
The Council then moved on to Students A and B, who both used textbooks
during the exam.
Straw Poll #6 - Student B
In Violation: 7
Not In Violation: 0
Straw Poll #7 - Student A
In Violation: 7
Not In Violation: 0
Council members felt that most of the mitigating circumstances considered
in Student C's case applied to Students A and B. Unintentionality did not
apply to the same degree, however, since the instructions clearly stated that no
other materials other than class notes could be used in the exam.
Straw Poll #9 - Penalty For Student B
F in the course + 2 semester suspension: 0
Loss of a letter grade in the course: 7
Loss of a letter grade in the assignment: 0 (+1 observing)
Letter of reprimand: 0
Straw Poll #10 - Penalty for Student A
F in the course + 2 semester suspension: 0
Loss of a letter grade in the course: 7
Loss of a letter grade in the assignment: 0 (+1 observing)
Letter of reprimand: 0
Straw polls 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 were made binding. Students D and E are
found Not In Violation.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A, B, and C In Violation of the
Honor System, and recommend that Student C received a letter of reprimand and
that Students A and B receive a loss of a letter grade in the course.
Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to their record.
Time of trial and deliberation: 4 hours.
Respectfully Submitted,
Aaron Martz
Honor Council Secretary