Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #37, Spring, 2002
September 11, 2002

Members Present:
Anna Ahrens, Kevin Arceneaux, Amy Askin, Chris Edwards, Lucas Oman, Andy Perez, John Pitcher, Geneva Rhee, Joan Shreffler (Presiding)

Ombuds:
Anshu Duggal

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a formal letter of accusation from a teaching assistant of an upper-level science class that accused students A, B, and C of collaborating on an assignment.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Students A, B, and C plead Not In Violation.

Testimony:
Students were assigned to work on projects in pairs. The teaching assistant noticed that a number of answers on Student A and B's turned-in assignment were very similar to the assignment that Student C turned in and suspected them of collusion. Student C's partner withdrew his name from the assignment because he had not done any work on it and, so, was not a part of this matter.

Students A and B testified that the work was split evenly between the two and that the sections that were alleged to have been copied were all worked on by Student B. Student B testified that he had consulted Student C on ways to answer those questions, but thought this was not a violation of the Honor Code because the assignment was not pledged. Student C admitted to helping Student B and also believed it was not a violation.

Honor Council members asked Students B and C to clarify the amount of aid that was given and received on the assignment, noting a number of places where each had identically worded answers. Student B testified that he did not copy directly from Student C. The identical wording appeared because he wrote down C's response to his questions as he was saying it. Consequently, similarities were inadvertent.

Deliberation:
Some Council members wanted to delay deliberation to ask the professor of the class if this form of collaboration was permitted on assignments. However, it was decided to review the evidence before making the decision to delay. After going through each of the alleged violations, a majority of the Honor Council was convinced that a violation had occurred. These members argued that identical passages on both assignments were convincing evidence that the students had received credit for work that was not their own. Two members, though, remained unconvinced that this evidence was concrete enough. It was further decided that delaying the proceedings to collect more evidence would most likely not sway one of the members from that opinion. A unanimous vote is required to find a student In Violation. Straw Poll #2 Violation occurred 7 No Violation Occurred 2 Abstentions 0 Straw poll #2 was made binding. Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A, B, and C Not In Violation of the Honor System.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 3 hours, 15 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Kevin Arceneaux Clerk

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