Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #2. Fall, 2001
November 6, 2001

Members Present:
Candice Hance (presiding), Keith Henneke, Ravi Patel, Geneva Rhee, Stephen Zak, Elspeth Simpson, DJ Brasier, Paul Murphy, Andrew Lee, Lucas Oman (observing).

Ombuds:
Shweta Shah.

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a formal letter of accusation from a professor of a lower-level engineering course. Student A was accused of using a previous semester's homework solutions from the class to assist her in doing homework for the current semester, which was against the Honor Code policy stated in the class syllabus. The professor felt that Student A showed too little work for the complexity of the problems in the homework assignments.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A plead Not In Violation.

Testimony:
Student A chose to exercise the option to delay case proceedings for five class days. When the trial resumed, the student stated that she had taken the course the previous semester and had never possessed the solutions to any of the problem sets. She also felt that the professor was biased against her and had assumed that she had copied from previous solutions because she had shown very little work. The student's scratch work for the two assignments was then admitted as evidence against the professor's accusations. Student A also noted her familiarity with the course's Honor Code policy and stated that she had gotten rid of any homeworks from the previous semester (after talking with another of the class professors) to prevent any sort of possible violation of the course policy.

After the Council reviewed the evidence, Student A argued that lack of work on a homework assignment did not constitute an honor code violation as delineated by the course syllabus. She felt that the professor should have approached her with the assignment in question and discussed the issue with her. She explained that if that the professor had indicated that more work be shown, she would have willingly provided the scratch work withheld from the final copy of her homework. However, the professor had not approached her before bringing the matter to the Council.

Then, using the scratch work as evidence, Student A explained the similarities the professor had found between the accused's homework sets and the solution packets from the previous semester. She emphasized that some of the work and intermediate parts missing from the assignments were in her scratch work. She also explained that she usually kept her scratch work in order to study for exams and rewrote the assignments neatly to turn in to the graders, using only essential parts due to the lack of time for rewriting.

Finally, the student mentioned that her reason for withdrawing from the class last semester was due to a family member's ill health. She also said that the aforesaid situation affected her preparation for the trial (such as collecting more relevant evidence), which was why she had delayed proceedings.

In closing, Student A reiterated that she had never used any copies of previous homework solutions in order to prepare homework in the class for the current semester. She also emphasized that her previous experience with the professor had contributed negatively to the accusation, saying that the professor had exaggerated the matter to the Council. Finally, she reemphasized that the scratch work showed all essential parts missing from her assignments and that lack of work on an assignment was insufficient evidence for an Honor Code violation.

Deliberation:
Upon initial discussion, most of the Council felt that a violation had occurred. Members noted that Student A's final rewrite of the first assignment looked like an outline of the solution packet for that assignment, with only essential parts shown. The Council also felt that the accused should have been familiar with the professor's grading style, since she had taken the course the previous semester and had completed enough work to see what the professor required on each assignment. One member also pointed out that the accused had completed an extra problem that the professor had not assigned for the current semester but had assigned in a problem set the previous semester. This member felt that the completion of this extra problem created a discrepancy with the accused's argument that she had omitted the intermediate parts of the work because she had very little time to rewrite the assignment.

Most members also questioned the validity of the scratch work submitted as evidence, since the possibility that the student used a solution set to create the scratch work existed. The Council thus decided in a preliminary straw poll that a violation had occurred.

Straw Poll #1
In Violation: 9 (+1 observing)
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

The Council then further discussed the validity of the scratch work. Members found correlations between the scratch work and the solution packet, but did not see similarities between the scratch work and the student's final rewrite of the assignment. All of the Council felt that the scratch work corresponded too closely to the solution packet. However, one member was still concerned that the possible invalidity of the scratch work was insufficient evidence to prove the occurrence of a violation.

The Council then reviewed a teaching assistant's deposition, which stated that Student A often came to help sessions for the class with little preparation. Yet, the amount of detail shown in the scratch work was too much help to have received at any one help session after such preparation. Thus, the Council confirmed that a violation had indeed occurred.

Straw Poll #2
In Violation: 9 (+1 observing)
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

The Council then discussed possible penalties. The assignment in question was worth less than 10% of the course grade; thus the consensus penalty is an F in the course. All mitigating circumstances were considered in discussion. The Council felt that cooperation and self-accusation as mitigating circumstances were irrelevant to the case. After determining that Student A's family situation did not interfere with the assignment in question, severe and emotional distress as a mitigating circumstance was also determined irrelevant to the case. Loss of credit in the course was suggested as a possible penalty to mitigate for severity (the extent to which Student A copied the homework).

Straw Poll #3
F in course: 8 (+1 observing)
Loss of credit in course: 0
Abstentions: 1

After further discussion, the Council determined that, since Student A had committed a direct violation of the course Honor Code policy, severity was irrelevant in applying to mitigation of penalties. Thus, no mitigating circumstances were found.

Straw Poll #4
F in course: 9 (+1 observing)
Loss of credit in course: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw polls #2 and #4 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor System and recommends that she receive an F in the course. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to her record.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 6 hours and 30 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Geneva Rhee,
Trial Clerk

Back to 2001-2002 Case Abstracts.
Back to Rice Honor Council main page.
Last modified Monday, November 12, 2001. 11:30 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu