Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #38, Fall, 2002
September 24, 2002

Members Present:
Joan Shreffler (presiding), Ravi Patel, Elspeth Simpson, Sally Anne Gutting, Amanda Askin, Laura Fitzmorris, Jason Longoria, Kevin Arceneaux, Keith Henneke, Matthew J Mino (non-binding vote), Divya Pande (non-binding vote)

Ombuds:
Kate Gurba

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation accusing a student of using unauthorized aid on an exam.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:

Student A pleads In Violation

Testimony:

Student A refers to her written statement. The Student presents the letter to her employer as evidence of personal, financial, and emotional difficulties that may have influenced her decision making during the time of the violation. She also commented that she did not use external sources for all of her exam. She had discussed the violation with the professor after turning in the exam, but had not self-accused to the honor council, because she thought her email to her professor after their meeting, in which she admitted guilt would be sufficient. She further emphasized how her personal problems affected her test taking. She argued that problems with her spouse lead to her studying less, and that it made her feel less prepared for the exam. Furthermore, she felt less in control of her actions. She noted again that her problems span personal, academic, and financial issues, and that these combined lead to her making the wrong choice.

Deliberation:

The council agreed that that the accused's actions constituted a violation, and a straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #1 - Whether Student A is In Violation of the Honor Code.
A violation occurred 9 ( + 2 non-binding votes)
A violation did not occur 0
Abstentions 0

Thus the Honor Council finds that Student A committed a violation of the Honor Code.
The exam was worth more than 10% of the total grade for the course, so the consensus penalty of an F in the course and a 2 semester suspension was automatically considered. It was noted the violation could not be mitigated on the bases of severity and self accusation. The council was generally agreed that they could mitigate on the basis of cooperation, in varying degrees. The council began debate on whether Severe and Unusual Emotional Stress applied. Council members noted that due to her personal problems, the accused felt "out of control" at the time of the violation. Several questions were raised on the application of Severe and Unusual Emotional Stress.

They included:
Whether the stress was sufficiently unusual? Were the factors causal to the violation? Was the stress sufficiently distinct from academic stress (which is explicitly a factor on which the council cannot mitigate)? Is a skewing of priorities sufficient to show causality, or does the accused need to show that she could not distinguish right from wrong at the time of the violation? Is irrationality a sufficient basis for mitigating on Severe and Unusual Emotional Stress?

The council discussed these issues. It was reminded that mitigation is, in the end, subjective and individual, and straw polls were taken. Penalties of an F in the course and an F in the course and a one semester suspension were added to the list of possible penalties. The consensus penalty was removed due to lack of support in the straw polls.

Straw Poll #3 Penalty for Student A
F+1 2
F 7+2
Straw polls 1 and 3 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor Code, and recommends that she receive an F in the course. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to her record.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour 30 min.

Respectfully Submitted,

Ravi V. Patel Clerk

Last modified Tuesday, October 22, 2002 01:00 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu