Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #3. Fall, 2001
November 1, 2001

Members Present:
Kevin Arceneaux, D. J. Brasier, Chris Conrad, Rebecca Daprato, Sally Anne Schmidt Gutting, Jason Longoria, Marie Ng, Geneva Rhee, Aaron Martz (presiding).

Ombuds:
Joan Shreffler, Anna Ahrens (observing).

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a formal letter of accusation from professors of a graduate level natural science class that accused students A and B of collaborating beyond that allowed by the course honor code policy on two homework assignments.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Both Student A and B pled Not In Violation.

Testimony:
Both students admitted to heavy collaboration on both homework assignments in question. They disclosed that in one assignment both of them developed a common computer program, printed out one copy, made a photocopy of that printout, and turned in these identical solutions as their own work. They argued that at the time they believed this was consistent with the honor code policy in the class and the amount of collaboration allowed in other courses they had taken in this Department. As evidence of this belief, both contended that if they had thought these actions were wrong, they would have gone to greater lengths to disguise collaboration.

Both Student A and B also argued that the following factors contributed to their misunderstanding of the honor code policy in the class: 1) the fact they were never formally oriented to the Rice University Honor Code System, 2) both never signed a matriculation card, and 3) the professor(s) in the class never fully discussed the course honor code policy other than read the statement in the syllabus and ask students to sign the pledge on all of their assignments.

The honor code policy in the course said that students could "discuss" homework assignments with one another, but ultimately their "work should be their own." Student A said he understood this as meaning that students could work on assignments jointly with one another, but that they could not copy assignments of other students from previous semesters. Student B agreed with this interpretation, as well.

Finally, both students disputed claims by the course grader that they were warned on earlier assignments not to collaborate with one another. Evidence submitted by the grader that a written comment on one of Student B's earlier assignments constituted such a warning was called into question by both. Student B said that this comment was unclear and could be taken as an exhortation to show all of his work in the future, rather than a request that he stop collaborating with Student A.

In closing both students believed they did not violate the honor code policy, despite their admitted collaboration on both of these assignments, because their cooperation was unintentional, done in the belief that it was consistent with the course honor code policy, and the fact that they were not sufficiently warned by the grader or the professor on other assignments.

Deliberation:
The Council discussed whether Student A's and B's arguments that a violation had not occurred were persuasive. Member unanimously agreed that both seemed to invoke a plea of ignorance, which is not allowed by honor code policies. All members emphasized that it is each student's responsibility to educate him or herself about the honor code policy of the University and courses in which he or she are enrolled. Thus, the Council agreed that arguments of lack of orientation, lack of a warning, and unintentionally were irrelevant.

Ultimately, the Council was left with the remaining defense both students proffered: The course's honor code policy was unclear to the point that reasonable individuals could disagree regarding the level of collaboration allowed on homework assignments. The Council agreed that the honor code statement in the syllabus that "work should be your own" was sufficient to communicate that students could not jointly write up solutions and turn in identical work as their own. The depositions of the four randomly chosen students in the course further supported this belief.

Given the evidence the Council determined that a violation had occurred.

Straw Poll #1
Violation Occurred: 9
Violation Did Not Occur: 0
Abstentions: 0

The Council also determined that both Student A and B were In Violation.

Straw Poll #2
Student A In Violation: 9
Student A Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #3
Student B In Violation: 9
Student B Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

The Council next discussed what assignments should be considered during the penalty phase. The letter of accusation focused on two assignments, but mentioned that a violation may have occurred on two early assignments. The Council unanimously agreed that there was not enough evidence to support collaboration on the early two assignments. The Council was left to deliberate which of the remaining two assignments should be considered (Henceforth Assignment A and Assignment B).

Members unanimously agreed that Assignment A was In Violation, given the students' testimony and the evidence.

Straw Poll #4
Assignment A In Violation: 9
Assignment A Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

Some members were less convinced about the evidence that a violation occurred on Assignment B.

Straw Poll #5
Assignment B In Violation: 6
Assignment B Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 3

This issue was discussed at great lengths and it was decided that the evidence and testimony supported a finding of In Violation.

Straw Poll #6
Assignment B In Violation: 9
Assignment B Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

Together these two assignments accounted for 13.4 percent of the course grade for which the consensus penalty is an F in the course and a two-semester suspension. A number of members felt that this penalty should be mitigated by the high level of cooperation with the Council demonstrated by both students. Other penalties proposed by members were an F in the course, loss of credit in the course, and loss of credit on the two assignments in question.

Straw Poll #7
F + 2 semester suspension: 0
F in course: 0
Loss of credit in course: 8
Loss of credit on assignments: 0
Abstentions: 1

One member believed that cooperation did not warrant a mitigation from F + 2 to loss of credit in the course and suggested that an F in the course may be more appropriate. Some members argued that this would be an overly harsh punishment given the status of these two students and the fact that they fully disclosed the facts of the case, which is the highest form of cooperation.

Straw Poll #8
F + 2 semester suspension: 0
F in course: 0
Loss of credit in course: 9
Loss of credit on assignments: 0
Abstentions: 0

Thus, the Honor Council finds both Student A and Student B In Violation of the Honor System and recommends that both receive a loss of credit in the course, and that a suspension clause be attached to their records.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour, 35 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Kevin Arceneaux,
Trial Clerk

Back to 2001-2002 Case Abstracts.
Back to Rice Honor Council main page.
Last modified Wednesday, November 7, 2001. 9:30 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu