Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #24. Spring, 2002
April 18, 2002

Members Present:
Kevin Arceneaux, Joshua Barron, Chris Conrad, Laura Derr, Landon Jennings, Jason Longoria, Andrea Melton, Evan Van Ness, Joan Shreffler (presiding).

Ombuds:
DJ Brasier, Anshu Duggal (observing), Travis Youngblood (observing).

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

Evidence Submitted:

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

Testimony:
Both students argued that the similarities in both of their exams arose because they studied exclusively together. Moreover, they rarely attended lecture and relied on the class textbook, so the way in which they expressed some concepts would naturally be similar if not identical.

Council members questioned each student at length about the specific problems on the exams that gave the professor and expert witnesses reason to believe cheating had occurred. The main issue was that both Student A and B produced highly similar (and sometimes identical) wrong answers. These answers raised concern among the professor and expert witnesses because while there are few correct answer to each of the exam questions, "there are millions of possible incorrect" ones. The probability that two students could independently produce identical incorrect answers is next to impossible. Student A and B recognized that the fact they produced many similar incorrect answers is suspicious, but contended that in each case they had either memorized the answer incorrectly from their joint study sessions or they had approached the problem with similar incorrect logic.

Additionally, Student A was concerned that the professor had a bias against her and unfairly monitored her in an effort to find something wrong with her exams. Student B said she didn't believe the professor was biased against her, but may have overplayed the similarities that existed between the exams. She noted that in some places the expert witness reports and the letter of accusation did not line up in their identification of suspicious answers.

Deliberation:
The Council discussed each exam question by question, noting both incriminating and exculpating evidence. There were simply to many similarities in at least one question on Exam A and most of the questions on Exam B to be explained by Student A's and B's study habits. The relevant and credible evidence suggested to all Council members present that a violation had occurred on each exam.

Straw Poll #1: Exam A
Violation occurred: 9
No Violation occurred: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #2: Exam B
Violation occurred: 9
No Violation occurred: 0
Abstentions: 0

The Council then turned its attention to whether the evidence supported one or both of the accused committing the violations in question. After much discussion, the Council could not find sufficient evidence that implicated Student A or B as individually or collaboratively cheating on Exam A. However, there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that Student B copied from Student A on Exam B and that given the logistics of the situation, Student A had to have been aware and even complicit in aiding Student B's cheating. As a result, a unanimous Council found both Student A and B in violation on Exam B, while the Council remained divided on such a finding regarding Exam A.

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

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

Straw Poll #13: Exam A
Student A In Violation: 3
Student A Not In Violation: 6
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #14: Exam A
Student B In Violation: 3
Student B Not In Violation: 6
Abstentions: 0

Exam B is worth more than 10 percent of the course grade, so the consensus penalty for both students is an F in the course and a two-semester suspension. The Council discussed various mitigating factors. The majority of the Council felt that no mitigating circumstances should apply because Student A and B were not cooperative. Furthermore, nearly all of Exam B was in violation, ruling out severity as a mitigating circumstance. Some Council members argued that mitigating circumstances applied to Student A. They felt that her violation was giving aid rather than receiving it, which seemed inherently less severe. Other council members disagreed; noting that to give aid is just as serious of a threat to the Honor Code as receiving it.

Straw Poll #17: Student A
F in course and two-semester suspension: 6
F in course and one-semester suspension: 3
F in course: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #18: Student B
F in course and two-semester suspension: 9
F in course and one-semester suspension: 0
F in course: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw polls 1, 2, 9, 10, 17, and 18 were made binding.

Thus the Honor Council finds Student A and B In Violation of the Honor System and recommends that both receive an F in the course and a two-semester suspension. A suspension clause should also be attached to their records.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 6 hours, 50 minutes.

Respectfully submitted,

Kevin Arceneaux
Trial Clerk

Back to 2001-2002 Case Abstracts.
Back to Rice Honor Council main page.
Last modified Thursday, April 25, 2002. 9:30 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu