Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #11. Fall, 2001
February 5, 2002

Members Present:
Candice Hance (presiding), Andrew Lee, Ayse Celikkol, Tamara Blaha, Ravi Patel, Chris Conrad, Paul Murphy, Evan Van Ness, Joshua Barron.

Ombuds:
Steve Pattyn.

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in an upper level science class. The letter stated that Student A had identical answers to two final exams that had been turned in by Students B and C (not accused) and subsequently removed from the professor's office.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pleads Not In Violation.

Testimony:
In her opening statement, Student A stated that she did not go to class at all the entire semester because she was repeating the class for additional credit and knew all the material previously. She stated that her exam and homework grades from the semester were consistent with each other, and that the final exam was consistent with these grades also. She refuted the professor's claim that the papers were removed from his office as no one could fit their fingers underneath the door to remove them. She stated that she had no opportunity to remove the papers from the professor's office and copy from them, and that the professor had a bias in identifying her paper as suspect since he was looking for a violation after realizing papers were missing, and that her lack of attendance in class qualified her for negative bias in the eyes of the professor.

The council questioned the accused as to the reason for waiting to turn in the final exam until long after it had been completed, and she said that she wanted to finish all her work for other classes as well before turning it in. When asked if others had access to her exam from the time she finished it, she replied that no one would have had access to it as her door was locked and she didn't know anyone in the class as she was never there. She agreed that there was a significant similarity between her exam and the other students' exams that were provided by the professor, but used the testimony of the expert witnesses to show that they could not agree on whether collaboration or cheating had occurred, and that it would be impossible for the council to do so as well.

Witness Testimony:
The professor was called in as a witness. He stated that he was reasonably confident in his assertion that a violation occurred, as the similarities noted between the accused's paper and the other papers were not noted amongst the rest of the exams turned in. He asserted that one of the expert witnesses found the same similarities as he did without being prompted to look specifically for them, and that this substantiated his argument. The professor was out of town when the exams were turned in, but noticed the problem when he returned and Student B e-mailed him to confirm receipt of her exam. The professor was asked about the accessibility of the building and stated that he was unsure if the building locked in the evenings or at night, and that people could easily get in if they desired.

The witness was excused and the council resumed questioning of the accused. The accused was asked whether she knew anyone else in the class, and she stated that because she was not in class, she never met or worked with anyone else on the assignments or exams. She stated that it didn't make sense for her to have taken two specific exams when there was a large pile of them turned in to the professor's office. When asked about the expert witness depositions, she stated that the testimony of the expert witness stating that collusion occurred did not stand up, and that the expert who claimed there was no collusion observed was correct.

In her closing, the accused reiterated the disagreement between the expert witnesses, and stated that the time and effort required to remove exams from the professor's office and copy them was too much to be plausible. She stated that her grades were comparable to her previous grades from the semester's exams and homeworks, and that she only wanted the credit for the class, making her removal of the exams and copying them less likely.

Deliberation:
The council debated whether a violation occurred. Some members felt that the professor's statement, coupled with the expert witness depositions, made a violation seem clear. Others were not convinced by the testimony of the expert witnesses, and, while they felt that they were competent in finding what they did, they were not presented with enough evidence to make a fully informed decision, and could not have known for certain whether the accused violated the Honor Code. The council reviewed the tests received by the professor before Student B and C's tests were removed from his office and compared them to the accused's test to determine any violation.

Straw Poll #1: A Violation Occurred
Violation Occurred: 5
Violation Did Not Occur: 1
Abstentions: 3

The abstaining members were not completely convinced that a violation occurred by the evidence presented to them. The expert witness depositions were debated further, and some members felt that this testimony did not provide the evidence needed to find a violation.

Straw Poll #2: A Violation Occurred
Violation Occurred: 5
Violation Did Not Occur: 3
Abstentions: 1

The one abstaining member reviewed the evidence further, and another straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #3: A Violation Occurred
Violation Occurred: 4
Violation Did Not Occur: 5
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #4: Student A In Violation
In Violation: 4
Not In Violation: 5
Abstentions: 0

Straw polls 3 and 4 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A Not In Violation of the Honor Code.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 3 hours, 10 minutes

Respectfully submitted,

Andrew Lee,
Trial Clerk

Back to 2001-2002 Case Abstracts.
Back to Rice Honor Council main page.
Last modified Thursday, April 4, 2002. 5:20 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu