Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #2. Fall, 2001
New Evidence Addendum
January 23, 2002

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

Ombuds:
Joan Shreffler.

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.

New Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A plead Not In Violation.

Testimony:
The accused chose to make no opening statement. Witness 1, a professor of a course in which the accused was enrolled, began testimony by stating that after reviewing the evidence packet, she felt that, while she did see patterns in the accused's homeworks that were very similar to the solution sets, the evidence of cheating was inconclusive. She felt that the accused would have been familiar with the material (having taken the class before) and possibly would have remembered some of the solutions. Witness 1 noted that she was under the impression that the student had seen the solutions to the homework. When asked what her opinion would be had she known that Student A had denied using the solutions, the witness remarked that she would have felt there would have been too much coincidence between the homework pattern and the solution pattern for plagiarism not to have occurred. The witness did not take the accused's scratch work into consideration when reviewing the evidence, since she felt that it was not included as a part of the graded work and was thus irrelevant. Witness 2, the professor who made the accusation, testified that she recycled some of the homework problems from previous years. In concurrence with the testimony of Witness 1, Witness 2 felt that the pattern of the accused's homework and the pattern of the solutions (especially that of the recycled problems) were much too similar for coincidence. She further remarked that a teaching assistant had brought the similarities to her attention. She noted that Student A had worked a problem done the previous semester but not assigned for the current semester. Finally, she stated that the scratch work would not have lessened her suspicion of a violation in the Honor Code. In conclusion, Witness 2 reiterated that she and Witness 1 both noticed the similarities, and these similarities indicated that Student A had utilized the solutions to complete the homework.

In response to the new evidence, Student A felt that the pattern similarities between her homeworks and the solutions were due to the fact that in help sessions, which the accused had attended, the teaching assistants had used the solution sets as references and to also help students set up homework problems. She also stated that certain patterns in the homeworks resulted from natural logic in solving the problems. In closing, the student stated that she would not have sent Witness 1 the evidence for review if she had been cheating.

Deliberation:
During initial discussion, all members felt that the new evidence was in support of the Council's verdict. Some members highlighted parts of the testimonies by the witnesses that promoted the previous decision, such as the fact that Witness 1 said that if she had heard that the accused had not seen the solution sets, the associated patterns between the homeworks and the solutions would have been too similar to have been coincidental. The Council then agreed by straw poll that the accused was still in violation of the Honor Code.

Straw Poll #1: Does the Council believe Student A to still be in violation of the Honor Code?
In Violation: 9
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #2: Is Student A still in violation of the Honor Code, given the new evidence?
In Violation: 9
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

The Council felt that the lack of mitigating circumstances in this violation were still upheld from the previous decision and agreed to the consensus penalty of an F in the course.

Straw Poll #3: Penalty for Student A
F in course: 9
Abstentions: 0

Straw polls #1, 2, and 3 were all 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: 2 hours, 20 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Geneva Rhee,
Trial Clerk

Back to 2001-2002 Case Abstracts.
Back to Rice Honor Council main page.
Last modified Friday, January 25, 2002. 10:15 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu