Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #33, Spring, 2002
September 4, 2002

Members Present:
Kevin Arceneaux, Christopher Conrad, Christopher Edwards, Sally Anne Schmidt Gutting, Jason Longoria, Lucas Oman, Andrew Perez, Stephen Jones, Joan Shreffler (presiding)

Ombuds:
Travis John Youngblood

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a formal letter of accusation from a professor of a lower level science class that accused a student of correcting answers on an exam that was turned in to be re-graded.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
The accused plead Not In Violation.

Testimony:
The accused argued that he routinely corrects assignments returned to him as a pedagogical tool. In this case, he claims that he had corrected some of the answers on the returned exam, as he always does. Yet since he was busy and distracted at the time he did not finishing making corrections and, in fact, forgot that he had even made any corrections. So when he compared the graded exam to the posted answers a few days later, he did not realize the corrected answers were indeed initially wrong.

The accused substantiated this claim by providing the Honor Council evidence that he routinely corrects graded assignments. He emphasized that while he was careless in turning in the exam for a re-grade, it was an honest mistake.

Deliberation:

Time of Trial and Deliberation:
The Council discussed at length the degree to which the seemingly unintentional nature of the accused's behavior was a violation. Most members noted that the procedures of the Honor Council strictly forbid considering unintentionality, which meant that the accused's actions would constitute a technical violation of the Honor Code. Regardless of whether it was an intentional act, the accused received credit for work that was done after the allotted time to take the test had expired.
Straw Poll #2
In Violation 9
Not in Violation 0
Abstentions 0

Because the exam was worth more than 20 percent of the final course grade, the consensus penalty is an F in the course and a two-semester suspension. The Council was divided over the degree to which cooperation and severity should be considered as mitigating circumstances. Some members believed that the evidence supported the accused's version of events and where willing to apply these mitigating factors to their fullest extent. Others did not believe that the evidence supported full mitigation. Despite these differences, no one advocated applying the consensus penalty in this case. Deliberation continued until a majority of members could come to common ground, and the final vote attests to the difficulty with which the decision was reached.

Straw Poll #6
Loss of gain in points from corrected answers 1
Loss of gain in points from corrected answers and a letter of reprimand 2
Zero on exam 5
F in course 1

Straw polls 2 and 6 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds the accused In Violation of the Honor System and recommends that he receives a zero on the exam and that a suspension clause be attached to his record.

Respectfully Submitted,

Kevin Arceneaux Trial Clerk

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