Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #7. Fall, 2001
December 4, 2001

Members Present:
Kevin Arceneaux, Ryan Bergauer, Tamara Blaha, DJ Brasier, Laura Derr, Paul Murphy, Marie Ng, Stephen Zak, Candice Hance (presiding).

Ombuds:
Joan Shreffler, Anna Ahrens (observing).

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a formal letter of accusation from a professor of a lower level social science class that accused students A and B of extensive collaboration on a number of homework assignments and two pledged midterm exams.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled Not In Violation to the alleged violations in Homework B, Homework C, Homework D, and Midterm 1; and In Violation in regard to one element of the alleged violation in Midterm 2. Student B pled Not In Violation to all charges.

Testimony:
The professor had noticed a number of similarities in Student A's and Student B's Midterm 1. The professor then looked over these Students' homework and found a number of similarities across three homework assignments (called B, C, and D here). The professor testified that the similarities in Homework B and C stemmed from the fact that neither student turned in Homework A, but answered questions in B and C that required doing Homework A and their answers were more similar than they should have been. The students had also turned in identical typed answers to Homework D. After sending these suspected violations to the Honor Council, the students took Midterm 2 and turned in exams that looked strikingly similar, and the professor amended her letter of accusation to include this exam.

Student A admitted to copying a portion of Student B's midterm 2 without Student B's knowledge, but disputed the rest of the allegations. Student B claimed to be unaware that Student A copied from his midterm 2 and also disputed the rest of the allegations. Both students missed a great deal of class. Nevertheless, Student A missed many more classes than Student B and depended on him as a tutor. They claimed that the professor never full explained the Honor Code policy in the class and said that they were allowed to work together on homework assignments. The professor said that he verbally warned students that they could work together on assignments but that they should ultimately turn in work that is their own. The professor said he wrote this warning on a number of early homework assignments of students in the class who turned in work that was too similar. Student A and B do not remember the professor warning them in class or on their homework assignments. Without knowledge of the professor's expectations they applied what they believe was expected of them in other classes where they were allowed to work with students.

The students were queried about how closely they worked on each homework assignment and they insisted that they would answer questions together, talking through strategies, and coming to common solutions. Each put in the same amount of effort. When asked about Homework D, they said that they worked on this together but that one of them (they couldn't remember which one) typed in the answers. They then put their individual names on separate printed-out copies of the same file and turned the copies in individually.

In regard to Midterm 2, Student A testified that Student B asked him to turn in Student B's exam when he dropped his off. When Student A was dropping the exams off, he looked at one portion of Student B's exam and copied it. Student A emphasized that he did not copy any other portions of Student B's exam and that Student B was completely unaware that he had done this. In regard to Midterm 1, Student A and B flatly denied collaborating whatsoever and argued that the striking similarity of the exams was a function of the fact that each studied together very closely.

Deliberation:
The Council took a number of straw polls before beginning deliberation.

Straw Poll #1
Violation Occurred: 9
No Violation Occurred: 0
Abstentions: 0

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

Straw Poll #3
Student B In Violation: 7
Student B Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 2

Council members were convinced that Student A had committed a violation on Midterm 2 but believed that Student B had nothing to do with that. Some also believed that both had committed a violation on the Homework assignments. The Council compared Student A's and B's answers to Homework assignments B, C, and D with each other and the anonymous students' assignments. While there were a number of striking similarities in B and C, the evidence was not convincing enough to support a finding of In Violation. Council members, however, felt that there was enough evidence in regard to Homework D. Many felt that there are almost no circumstances under which it is appropriate for students to turn in identical homework as their own and that if students are unclear about the course honor code policy in this regard, it is their responsibility to ask their professors.

Straw Poll #4
Violation Occurred on B and C: 0
No Violation Occurred on B and C: 9
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #5
Violation Occurred on D: 9
No Violation Occurred on D: 0
Abstentions: 0

The Council then turned to the midterms. Members could not find sufficient evidence to establish a violation had occurred on Midterm 1. Given Student A's testimony, they did find enough evidence that a violation occurred on Midterm 2.

Straw Poll #6
Violation Occurred on Midterm 1: 0
No Violation Occurred on Midterm 1: 9
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #7
Violation Occurred on Midterm 2: 9
No Violation Occurred on Midterm 2: 0
Abstentions: 0

Since Council members were convinced that Student A and B both committed a violation on Homework D, they returned to a vote on whether student B committed a violation.

Straw Poll #8
Student B In Violation: 9
Student B Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

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

Straw Poll #10
Student B In Violation on D: 9
Student B Not In Violation on D: 0
Abstentions: 0

Next council members formalized their conclusion that the evidence supported Student A had committed a violation on Midterm 2, but not Student B.

Straw Poll #11
Student A In Violation on Midterm 2: 9
Student A Not In Violation on Midterm 2: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #12
Student B In Violation on Midterm 2: 0
Student B Not In Violation on Midterm 2: 9
Abstentions: 0

The Council then turned to penalties. Midterm 2 is 15 % of the total course grade and Homework D is 5%. The consensus penalty structure would be an F in the course and two-semester suspension for Student A (violating 20% of the course grade) and an F in the course for Student B (violating 5% of the course grade). The Council discussed mitigating factors and believed that both had cooperated quite well with the Council by fully disclosing the facts of the case. There was some disagreement about the penalty Student B should receive.

Straw Poll #13 Student B's Penalty
F in course: 0
Loss of credit in course: 1
Loss of credit on the assignment: 5
One letter grade reduction in course: 2
Abstentions: 1

Council members further discussed Student B's actions and decided that his actions did warrant a greater punishment than loss of credit on the assignment.

Straw Poll #14 Student B's Penalty
F in course: 0
Loss of credit in course: 0
Loss of credit on the assignment: 1
One letter grade reduction in course: 8
Abstentions: 0

The Council then turned its attention to Student A. It was noted that had the student not been honest about his role in copying from Student B's Midterm 2, the Council would have likely not had sufficient evidence to find him in violation on that exam. Consequently, members felt his penalty should be greatly mitigated from an F and two-semester suspension.

Straw Poll #15 Student A's Penalty
F in course and a two-semester suspension: 0
F in course and a one-semester suspension: 0
F in course: 9
Loss of credit in course: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw polls 1, 2, 8, 14, and 15 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A and Student B In Violation of the Honor System and recommends that Student A receive an F in the course and Student B receive a one letter grade reduction in the course. A suspension clause should also be attached to their records.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 3 hour and 30 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Kevin Arceneaux,
Trial Clerk

Back to 2001-2002 Case Abstracts.
Back to Rice Honor Council main page.
Last modified Friday, December 14, 2001. 9:00 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu