| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #19. Spring, 2001
September 13, 2001
Members Present:
Aaron Martz (presiding); Keith Henneke; Kathleen Milazzo; Marie Ng; Sally Anne Schmidt Gutting; Ravi Patel; Tamara Blaha; Ayse Celikkol; DJ Brasier.
Ombuds:
Shweta Shah.
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor of an upper level science course that accused Student A and Student B of sharing information beyond the scope permitted on the syllabus, which is a violation of the class's honor code policy.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of Accusation
Written Statements of the Accused
Deposition of Professor
Excerpt from Syllabus
Excerpt from Student A's paper (keyed to letter of accusation)
Excerpt from Student B's paper (keyed to letter of accusation)
Entire Student A's paper
Entire Student B's paper
Student A's Partner's paper
Student B's Partner's paper
Plea:
Student A plead In Violation and Student B plead Not In Violation.
Opening Statements:
Student A - This student accepted fault for not reading the honor code policy for the class. He was unable to write due to an injury, and so used Student B's work to avoid having to rewrite the information, he had also gotten a two day extension on the assignment for the same reason. He intended to cite Student B as the source, but did not. He does note that the violation, while wrong, was unintentional, and asks that that be taken into account.
Student B - This student spent several days after the investigation attempting to decide for himself if he was in violation for giving the information to Student A. Unable to decide for himself, he decided to leave the decision to the judgment of the council. The student feels his recollection is unclear after so long, but that he intended to only provide information within the scope allowed. He also feels that perhaps he should have noticed the similarity upon the return of the work, and consulted with the professor at that time. He notes that he spent a lot of time working on the assignment, and the last thing he would do is to jeopardize that work by deliberately violating the honor code. He therefore leaves the decision in the hands of the council
Discussion:
One council member asked Student B if when he gave Student A the material, he reminded Student A to only use the information allowed by the honor code policy. Student B responded that it did not cross his mind that Student A would take any information beyond what was allowed. He provided Student A the information in the form that was easiest to provide, which were his consolidated data tables. He therefore emailed the entire document containing that section of the paper.
One council member asked when Student A requested the information. Student B responded between the due date and Student A's extended due date. Another council member asked if data was shared when the results were done. Student B responded that everyone made their graphs from the group data together. A council member asked Student A why he didn't have this data. Student A responded that he had his individual data in his notebook, but didn't have his group data.
A council member asked how the due date of the extension was set. Student A responded that he requested the following Monday as the due date, but the professor felt that it was unfair to give that extent of time, and set the date on Friday. A council member asked if the section in question was already written when he got the data from Student B. Student A responded that it was already written with the exception of the data in the Tables and Graphs at the end. He re-emphasized that he should have read the Honor Code at this point, but that due to the sleepless nights preparing the work and his time crunch this was overlooked. A council member asked, in the light of a comment in the accusation that Student A's graphs showed signs of being cut and photocopied, what information did Student B actually send. Student A did not recall, but Student B noted that he had saved the report by section, and so just sent the section in question. A council member followed up asking if he had computer files, why did he cut and paste manually? Student A responded that he wanted to put everything in the right order. He also made corrections on the figures in pen rather than typing because it was easier given his injury.
Closing Statements:
Student A - This student is sorry that the violation occurred, but repeats that it was unintentional. If he had looked at the paper when it came back, he would have talked to the professor, as he really had meant to cite Student B as a source.
Student B - This student felt that he could have prevented Student A's violation by not providing the information to him. He did not intend to violate the honor code. In fact, he greatly enjoyed the course and was looking forward to working with the professor again. He is concerned that he has damaged his student/teacher relationship through the events above. He also recommends some sort of resigning of the matriculation pledge each year to reinforce student commitment to the code.
Deliberation:
One council member commented that Student B plead not in violation, but then undermined it with his testimony. In response, it was suggested that B knew he had done something wrong, but not if that constituted a violation. It was also reiterated that ignorance is not an excuse for violating the code, and that the syllabus did say not to give access to files. It was also noted that he opened himself up for being in violation: Student A asked for raw data, and Student B gave more than that data. Council members in opposition noted that Student B's action enabled others to violate, but did not constitute a violation of itself. Most council members agreed that Student A's violation was unintentional. Council members also discussed whether the raw data was included in or derivable from the information provided. Members also debated whether the information provided could be characterized as raw data at all.
At this point, the council debated whether providing the data was a violation at all. It was argued that the syllabus was specific in its definition of raw data and while that the instruction against sharing data used the word "please," it was still an instruction. The council then revisited the issue of whether the charts provided were raw data or prepared data. At this point the issue was condensed into whether supplying the ability to violate the honor code was a violation in itself. At this point, a straw poll was conducted for each student.
Straw Poll #1 - Student A
In Violation: 9
Not in Violation: 0
Abstention: 0
Thus, the Honor Council finds that Student A committed a violation of the Honor Code.
Straw Poll #2 - Student B
In Violation: 5
Not in Violation: 3
Abstention: 1
The member who abstained was unsure where the degree of preparation was sufficient to entail a violation. The members who voted Student B not in violation argued that the preparation of the data into tables was negligible. They also revisited the issue of whether the raw data was derivable from the information provided. Other members argued that whether the raw data was derivable was not relevant to the determination of violation. Another straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #3 - Student B
In Violation: 9
Not in Violation: 0
Abstention: 0
Thus, the Honor Council finds that Student B committed a violation of the Honor Code.
Penalty Phase: Student A
The consensus penalty for the violation is an F in the course and a 2 semester suspension. However, since the scope of the violation was only one section, severity was invoked to mitigate the penalty. Penalties of an F in the course and 1 semester suspension and an F in the course without a suspension were offered. The mitigating factors of cooperativeness and unintentionality were also invoked to mitigate penalties. Also offered was the penalty suggested by the accuser of loss of credit on the section in question.
A member also asserted that Student B should be equally responsible and deserved the same penalty. Other members pointed out that he appeared to have intended his to create his own figures and that intentionality weighs very heavily in his favor.
Other penalties were offered for Student A, including a double loss of credit on the section, reduction of one letter grade in the course, reduction of 2 letter grades in the course, and a D in the course. A straw poll was conducted.
Straw Poll #4 - Student A Penalty
F in course + 2 semester suspension: 0
F in course + 1 semester suspension: 0
F in course: 3
Double loss of credit on the section: 4
Loss of credit on the section: 0
1 letter grade reduction in course: 1
2 letter grade reduction in course: 1
D in the course: 0
Abstention: 0
The penalty of a double loss of credit on the assignment was determined to be too abstract. The council also discussed the issue of severity and whether the violation should be considered as pertaining to the whole report, or just the section in question. Another straw poll was conducted.
Straw Poll #5 - Student A Penalty
1 letter grade reduction in course: 2
2 letter grade reduction in course: 4
D in the course: 3
Abstention: 0
The council revisited the mitigating factors, and discussed the significance of the penalties in relative to each other, in order to better place the severity of the penalties in case. Another straw poll was conducted.
Straw Poll #6 - Student A Penalty
1 letter grade reduction in course: 3
2 letter grade reduction in course: 6
D in the course: 0
Abstention: 0
Student B
Due to the weight of unintentionality, a letter of reprimand was added to the list of options used in Straw Poll #6. The consensus penalty of an F in the course and a 2 semester suspension was also returned to the list of options. The option of a D in the course was removed. It was noted that there was some vagueness in the wording of the honor code policy in the syllabus and that there was a large degree of unintentionality. It was also noted that while both accused were considered in violation, the violations were different, and therefore required different penalties. A straw poll was conducted.
Straw Poll #7 - Student B Penalty
F in course + 2 semester suspension: 0
1 letter grade reduction in course: 8
2 letter grade reduction in course: 1
Letter of reprimand: 0
Abstention: 0
Straw polls 1, 3, 6, and 7 were made binding.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A and B In Violation of the Honor Code, and recommends that Student A be given a 2 letter reduction in his course grade and Student B given a 1 letter reduction in his course grade. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to their records.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 2 hours
Respectfully Submitted,
Ravi V. Patel,
Trial Clerk