| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #17. Spring, 2001
September 5, 2001
Members Present:
Aaron Martz (presiding), Andrew Lee, Ravi Patel, Stephen Zak, Geneva Rhee, DJ Brasier, Rebecca Daprato, Tamara Blaha, Kevin Arceneaux.
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 to several questions on the final exam.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of Accusation
Student A and B written statements
Student A's final exam
Student B's final exam
Deposition of an expert witness
Deposition of Student A's friends (2)
Deposition of Student B's roommate
Textbook for the class
Other assignments from Students A and B
Plea:
Students A and B plead Not In Violation
Testimony:
In their opening statements, both student A and B denied ever meeting each other before the Honor Council proceedings began, and used this as an argument against collaboration. They also both asserted that the answers in question could have been similar due to the similarity in the way problems had been done before in the class by the professor. Also, Student B stated that the exams were in sealed envelopes when turned in.
The council questioned the accused as to the similarities on the tests. The accused stated that, due to the nature of the course, the problems have a tendency to be worked in the same manner by students, and that any similarity would arise from this. They disputed the expert witness testimony stating that it was highly likely collaboration occurred on the tests using this fact and the fact that they had never met before the Honor Council proceedings. The accused highlighted the differences between their exams that refuted the claim of collaboration. In addition, Student A and B both pointed to depositions from their friends stating that neither student knew the other one and neither had been seen studying or working together the entire semester, including the time of the final exam.
In their closing statements, Students A and B both reiterated the fact that they had never met, and that the similarities between their exams could have arisen as a result of coincidence, and that it was not unlikely that the answers would look the same, in contrast to the view of the professor. Due to these facts, they both pled Not In Violation.
Deliberation:
The council first debated whether a violation occurred. Some council members felt that there was no compelling evidence for a violation, most notably the lack of evidence of collaboration occurring. The council felt that there was a significant amount of circumstantial evidence present when looking at the two final exams in a broad sense, and as such, went through the exams point by point to determine how alike they were. After reading through the exams again, a straw poll was conducted.
Straw Poll #1 (A Violation Occurred)
Violation Occurred: 3
Violation Did Not Occur 0
Abstentions: 6
Some council members felt that collaboration was not proven. Others argued that the expert witness testimony had good insight and showed that a violation did in fact occur. After discussion of the expert witness testimony, a second straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #2 (A Violation Occurred)
Violation Occurred:9
Violation Did Not Occur: 0
Abstentions: 0
Thus, the Honor Council finds that a violation of the Honor Code did occur.
Debate was then held as to the directionality of the violation. Council members were unsure whether collaboration had occurred, or whether Student A had copied from Student B or vice versa. Further examination of the exams and expert witness testimony was conducted, and the two students were considered separately for violations. A straw poll was taken for Student A.
Straw Poll #3 (Student A)
In Violation: 1
Not In Violation: 3
Abstentions: 5
Some council members raised the question of whether directionality could be established, and this was the reason for the abstentions. Further debate and examination was conducted with regards to the writing styles and formats of Students A and B, again comparing examinations in an attempt to establish directionality of violation.
Straw Poll #4 (Student A)
In Violation: 0
Not In Violation: 8
Abstentions: 1
The abstaining member asked for more time to look over the examinations before rendering a final decision on Student A. After this, another straw poll was conducted on Student A.
Straw Poll #5 (Student A)
In Violation: 0
Not In Violation: 9
Abstentions: 0
Thus, Student A was found Not In Violation of the Honor Code.
A straw poll was then taken on Student B.
Straw Poll #6 (Student B)
In Violation 0
Not In Violation 9
Abstentions 0
Thus, Student B was found Not In Violation of the Honor Code.
Straw polls 2, 5, and 6 were made binding by motion and second.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A and B Not In Violation of the Honor Code.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 3 hours, 20 minutes
Respectfully Submitted,
Andrew Lee,
Trial Clerk