Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #32, Spring, 2002
September 2, 2002

Members Present:
Joan Shreffler (presiding), Andrew Lee, Jason Longoria, Marie Ng, Landon Jennings, Anna Ahrens, Joshua Barron, Ravi Patel, Stephen Zak

Ombuds:
Kate Gurba

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a lower-level science course. The letter stated that Student A had corrected several problems on her test after it was returned before submitting it for a regrade with the corrected answers.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pleads In Violation

Testimony:
In her opening statement, Student A stated that she did change the answers on her exam before meeting with the professor about the regrade, but she forgot to notify him of the changes. She attributed this to a miscommunication between her and the professor due to a language barrier. Student A also stated that, since the professor did not specifically ask her about changes to a specific question, she should not be held accountable for all the corrections she made.

The council questioned the accused as to why she would erase answers and rewrite them before talking to the professor about a regrade. She stated that she wanted to see if she could get the right answer before talking to the professor to make sure that a regrade was justified. She also stated that the professor did not specifically ask her about the answers that she changed, so she assumed that it was ok for her to do that. She only reworked the problems that she thought was right before she asked for a regrade. When asked if she had done this kind of reworking before, she stated that she had not reworked the problems in this manner on any of the previous exams.

Deliberation:
The council first decided whether a violation occurred. An initial vote was taken.

Straw Poll #1 (Student A In Violation)
In Violation 9
Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 0


Thus, Student A was found In Violation of the Honor Code. The council then debated the penalty for the violation. Since the exam was worth 21% of the course grade, the consensus penalty for the violation is an F in the course and a 2-semester suspension. The consensus penalty was eliminated from consideration in the first straw poll, as all members felt a 2-semester suspension was not warranted. The council questioned the applicability of mitigating circumstances. Some council members felt that mitigating on severity did not apply, as the accused knowingly erased and corrected some of her answers before resubmitting for a regrade. Others felt that, since the violation occurred on such a small portion of the exam, it did not warrant a suspension. These members also relied on precedent, noting that previous cases of a similar nature did not prescribe suspensions. A final straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #4 (Penalty for Student A)
F in course and 1 semester suspension 4
F in course 5
Abstentions 0


Straw polls #1 and #4 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends to the Assistant Dean of Student Judicial Programs that she receive an F in the course. A suspension clause is also attached to her record.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour, 12 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Andrew Lee Trial Clerk

Last modified Wednesday, August 29, 2001 03:10 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu