| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #12. Spring, 2001
April 29, 2001
Members Present:
Candice Hance (presiding), Andrew Lee, Geneva Rhee, Jay Bodas, Elaine Thompson, Ryan Bergauer, DJ Brasier, Jeff Charbeneau, Chris Conrad, Rebecca Daprato (observing), Kevin Arceneaux (observing), Paul Murphy (observing), Joshua Barron (observing)
Ombuds:
Joan Shreffler
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in an upper level science class. The letter stated that Students A and B had identical answers on a project.
Evidence Submitted:
Course syllabus outlining the honor code
Project instructions
Grading criteria for the project
Student A's project
Student B's project
Projects of other students in the class
Pieces of Student B's original project that did not work
Newsgroup messages for the class written during the duration of the project
Plea:
Student A pleads Not In Violation. Student B pleads In Violation.
Testimony:
Student A stated in his opening statement that the solution to the project was discussed as a group, but that all the work was done individually in accordance with the honor code policy for the course. Student B stated that students often work in groups on assignments for the class, and that in this case, students A and B did not distinguish individual work from group work, and that this was the violation of the honor code. He stated that a clear line of propriety had been crossed on this project.
The professor for the class was brought in as a witness, and stated that there was definitely collaboration on the project, and that there was no other way that the identical answers could have been turned in by students A and B. The professor stated that his policy allows for students to plan their solutions together but all work turned in should be individual work and that he did not see that as the case here. He acknowledged that collaboration in some areas might occur, but that the extent of collaboration he saw in Student A and Student B's assignments made him submit the accusation.
The students were asked how the same answers appeared in both of their projects. Both Student A and Student B stated that there was collaboration that occurred, but that, at the time, the collaboration did not seem to be beyond the scope of the honor code policy for the course.
The teaching assistant for the class was brought in as a second witness, and he stated that he originally reported the identical solutions to the professor because he believed it to be a violation of the honor code for the course. An expert witness was also brought in and stated that there was no way that the solutions were developed independently, as the identical answers given probably would not have been written the same way by two different people.
In their closing statements, both Student A and B acknowledged that collaboration had occurred between them, but that they did not intend to cover up the fact that they collaborated, and asked that the council take the professor's acknowledgment of a certain level of collaboration occurring into account when deciding the penalty.
Deliberation:
The council agreed that a violation occurred, but decided to consider Student A and Student B separately because different pleas had been entered.
Straw Poll #1 (Student A)
In violation: 9 (+ 4 observing)
Not in Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0
Straw Poll #2 (Student B)
In violation: 9 (+ 4 observing)
Not in Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0
Thus, Students A and B were found In Violation of the Honor Code.
The council then debated the penalty for the violation. Again, the council considered Students A and B separately. The consensus penalty for the violation is an F in the course. For Student A, the council also suggested loss of credit in the course and loss of credit on the assignment as other penalties. The council felt that mitigation could be made based on full disclosure and cooperation with the council. There was some debate as to the severity of the violation based on the extent of the collaboration that occurred.
Straw Poll #3 (Student A penalty)
F in course: 2 (+ 1 observing)
Loss of credit in the course: 6 (+ 1 observing)
Loss of credit on the assignment: 1 observing
Abstentions: 1 (+ 1 observing)
The council debated further the penalty for the violation. Some members felt that the extent of collaboration on this project was equal to plagiarism, and should be penalized accordingly. Others thought that perhaps the mitigating circumstances warranted a lesser penalty. A second straw poll was taken for Student A.
Straw Poll #4 (Student A penalty)
F in course: 0
Loss of credit in the course: 9 (+3 observing)
Loss of credit on the assignment: 1 observing
Abstentions: 0
The council then debated the penalty for Student B.
Straw Poll #5 (Student B penalty)
F in course: 0
Loss of credit in the course: 7 (+ 4 observing)
Loss of credit on the assignment: 1
Abstentions: 1
The council held further discussion on Student B's penalty. Council members felt there was no difference between the two students in terms of violations. Some members felt that cooperation should be more mitigating here as Student B pled in violation. Others felt that equal penalties were in order. After this discussion, another straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #6 (Student B penalty)
F in course: 0
Loss of credit in course: 9 (+ 4 observing)
Loss of credit on the assignment: 0
Abstentions: 0
Straw polls #1, 2, 4, and 6 were made binding.
Thus the Honor Council finds Students A and B In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends to the Dean of Students that they be given a loss of credit in the course. A suspension clause is also attached to their records.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 2 hours, 50 minutes
Respectfully Submitted,
Andrew Lee
Trial Clerk