Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #16. Fall, 2001
February 28, 2002

Members Present:
DJ Brasier, Kathleen Milazzo, Laura Fitzmorris, Ayse Celikkol, Ricardo Vargas, Evan Van Ness, Rebecca Daprato, Laura Derr, Candice Hance (presiding).

Ombuds:
Steve Pattyn.

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor of an undergraduate level science class that accused Student A and Student B of cheating on a midterm exam, which is a violation of that class's honor code policy.

Evidence Submitted:

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

Opening Statements:
Student A - Stated that she did not cheat. She also said that information given in the depositions is contradictory and does not make any sense.

Student B - Stated that she did not cheat. She claims that Student A took her test and this is the only way the two tests could be so similar.

Discussion:
Both students were asked where they took their exams, what they did with the exams when they finished them, and how they studied for the exams. Student A said she took her exam in the library with a friend, and pointed out this was verified by the deposition of this friend. She said she then put her exam in her backpack and left it in there until she had to turn in the exam. Student A noted that she did use her book and notes to take the exam, which was allowed. She said to study for the exam she read all the chapters and made sure to familiarize herself with the notes. Student B said she took the exam the night before it was due in her room. She noted that the 3 witnesses who had all seen her take the exam verified this. She also said she used her book and her class notes on the exam. Student B said she studied for the exam by looking through her notes and also familiarizing herself with the material.

Both students were asked how they turned in their exams. Student B said she turned in her exam on the table in the front of the room before class began. She said it was directly after her previous class, which was about 10 minutes before class started. She said she then left the room and did not return for class that day. Student A said she had left her test at her apartment and asked the TA if she could turn it in late. She said she went to the TA's lab directly after picking up her test from her house. She said she was not around the TA's desk and that she just spoke with a graduate student in the lab and left because the TA was not around. She said she returned about 10 minutes later and spoke with a different graduate student who told her the TA was still not around. Student A left and returned a third time and this time left the test on the TA's desk. She said she went back three times because she wanted to hand the test directly to the TA.

Next the council went through the letter of accusation of the professor. This professor had several points for the exams on why she thought that cheating had occurred on the two exams. The council allowed the students to explain what they thought about the professor's points. Student A pointed out example problems in the book and in her class notes that she had used to help her solve problems on the exam. Student B said she used homework problems that were similar to the exam questions to help her solve the test questions. Both students noted for some questions they were guessing. Both Students noted that they did not study together and they did not do homework together.

Next the council went through the deposition of the professors, the expert witnesses and the graders with the accused. The accused were again allowed to comment on what they thought about the depositions. Student A pointed out that the TAs had reached a conclusion that she had copied off of Student B before they approached the professor. This led Student A to believe the professor's opinion had been compromised. She also pointed out that one of the professors claimed her grade was changed on the exam because she had asked for a regrade. She said she never asked for a regrade.

Closing Statements:
Student A noted that the depositions seemed to contain a lot of hearsay and not a lot of fact. She pointed out that no one saw her take anything. Lastly, she said that the graders had their minds made up when they talked to the professors and had influenced her opinion.

Student B said when she first saw the exams she thought someone had copied off her exam. She noted all the people involved in this case say that Student A copied her work. She also pointed out that Student A's case is all based on doubting the statements of those involved.

Deliberation:
The Council felt there was substantial support from the expert witnesses that Student A had copied off of Student B. The council also felt that the evidence on paper (the two exams) was very compelling. One member was not sure if cheating had occurred and felt it could have been coincidence. It was pointed out that the professor and graders had looked at the other exams and they could not find any exams that were this similar. Since one council member was in doubt, the Council decided to go through the exam one problem at a time and discuss the possibilities of cheating.

Straw Poll #1 - Did a violation occur?
Violation: 9
No Violation: 0

The Council discussed the point that the TAs could have influenced the professor's decisions about cheating. The Council decided this was irrelevant, since the expert witnesses came to the same conclusion and they were not influenced by the TAs. One council member pointed out that one of the expert witnesses was not from the same department that the class is taught; therefore, she would have no knowledge of this incident occurring (as there was initial concern that numerous members of the department had been informed of the violation beforehand and therefore could be biased in their expert opinions).

Straw Poll #2 - Student B
In Violation: 0
Not in Violation: 9
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #3 - Student A
In Violation: 9
Not in Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

The consensus penalty for this violation is an F+2 because the test was worth more than 10% of the Student's grade. The council discussed mitigating circumstances. No Council members could find any mitigating circumstances that applied.

Straw Poll #4 - Student A
F + 2: 8
Abstentions:1

One Council member felt that cooperation could apply. This member felt that Student A had done some of her own work and brought forth all material requested. The Council then discussed what cooperation means. It was discussed that an accused could have a misunderstanding of the honor code for that class and possibly commit an honor code violation without realizing it, but the accused could still be forthright and tell the Council exactly what occurred . This type of scenario did not apply here. The Council felt that Student A was not forthcoming with all information.

Straw Poll #5 - Student A
F + 2: 9
Abstentions: 0

Straw polls 1, 2, 3, and 5 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A In Violation of the Honor Code and Student B Not In Violation, and recommends that Students A be given an F+2. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to Student A's records.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 5 hours and 5 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Rebecca C. Daprato,
Trial Clerk

Back to 2001-2002 Case Abstracts.
Back to Rice Honor Council main page.
Last modified Thursday, March 21, 2002. 5:00 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu