| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #18. Spring, 2001
September 10, 2001
Members Present:
Ravi Patel, Geneva Rhee, Bruce Schuler, Ricardo Vargas, DJ Brasier, Chris Conrad, Evan Van Ness, Rebecca Daprato, Laura Derr (presiding).
Ombuds:
Casey Bonfield.
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor of a graduate level social science class that accused Student A and Student B of collaborating on a homework assignment, which is a violation of that class's honor code policy.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of Accusation
Written statements of the accused
Student A's homework assignment
Student B's homework assignment
Homework assignment instructions
Homework assignments of other students in the class
Honor Code policy stated in syllabus
Deposition of professor
Deposition of randomly selected students in class
Entire class syllabus
Articles used on homework in question
Plea:
Both Student A and Student B plead In Violation.
Geneva Rhee and Chris Conrad were excused because only 7 members are needed for a penalty hearing.
Opening Statements:
Student A - This student felt that the honor code regarding homework assignments was not well discussed in class. She stated that she and Student B discussed the homework questions, but did not feel they violated the honor code. She also pointed out that the depositions from other students in the class also stated the professor was vague on the honor code policy for homework assignments.
Student B - This student felt everything she had to say was included in her written statement.
Discussion:
One Honor Council member asked the accused to explain how they worked the homework together. Student A stated that they did two of the homework problems separately and discussed ideas for the remaining problems. Student B added that the answers they discussed for one of the problems were obvious answers and that other students in the class had similar answers. Student A also stated that they worked on the homework in the same room and if one of them had trouble with a question they would ask the other one. The students also pointed out that they worked closely on other homework assignments for this class.
One honor council member asked the accused about their understanding of specific and general discussion outside of class about home work assignments as it relates to the honor code. The professor had stated that students could talk about the issues in the homeworks in general, but they could not discuss specifics. Student A stated that she considers showing another student her work specific discussion. Student B said that she thought discussing methodologies was specific.
The honor council then began to ask the students about this gray area that existed in the professor's honor code policy. The students stated they did not remember the professor discussing it in class, but they do remember him being very adamant about signing the honor pledge on all assignments.
Closing Statements:
Student A stated that there was a gray area in the professor's honor code policy and that she did not understand the honor code policy for the homework assignments.
Student B stated that her violation of the honor code was unintentional and a misunderstanding.
Deliberation:
The Council discussed whether they felt a violation had occurred and whether or not collaboration may have exceeded what the students admitted to discussing with each other.
Straw Poll #1 - Student A
In Violation: 7
Not in Violation: 0
Straw Poll #2 - Student B
In Violation: 7
Not in Violation: 0
The consensus penalty for such a violation is an F in the course, since the assignment was worth less than 10% of the course grade. The council discussed possible mitigating circumstances: full cooperation with the council in the form of a plea of in violation, unintentionality, and severity.
Straw Poll #3 - Student A
F in the course: 0
Loss of credit on the assignment: 2
Loss of a letter grade in the course: 3
Loss of 4/3 a letter grade in the course: 0
Loss of 1/3 a letter grade in the course: 2
Abstentions: 0
The Council further discussed the mitigating circumstances. The council also noted that loss of credit on the assignment is about the same punishment as loss of 1/3 a letter grade in the course. One honor council member noted that this case merits a penalty not just undoing the violation, but punishment for the violation. Loss of 2/3 a letter grade in the course was proposed.
Straw Poll #4 - Student A
F in the course: 0
Loss of credit on the assignment: 0
Loss of a letter grade in the course: 2
Loss of 4/3 a letter grade in the course: 0
Loss of 1/3 a letter grade in the course: 0
Loss of 2/3 a letter grade in the course: 5
Abstentions: 0
Straw Poll #5 - Student B
F in the course: 0
Loss of credit on the assignment: 0
Loss of a letter grade in the course: 2
Loss of 2/3 a letter grade in the course: 5
Abstentions: 0
Straw polls 1, 2, 4, and 5 were made binding.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A and B In Violation of the Honor Code, and recommends that Students A and B be given a reduction of 2/3 a letter grade in the course. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to their records.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour and 30 minutes.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rebecca C. Daprato,
Trial Clerk