Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #40, Spring, 2002
October 8, 2002

Members Present:
Rebecca Daprato, Sally Anne Gutting, Andrew Lee, Laura Fitzmorris, Jason Longoria, Chris Conrad, John Pitcher, Ravi Patel, Joan Shreffler (presiding)

Ombuds:
Robert Emmett

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor of a lower level engineering class that accused two groups of students Student A and Student B of collaborating with Student C and Student D on a homework assignment and an extra credit assignment, which is a violation of that class's honor code policy.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A, Student B, Student C and Student D all plead In Violation.

Testimony:
Student A - Stated that they worked on the homework and extra credit assignment separately and then when they got to a point where they needed help they discussed the problems with the other group, Student C and Student D.

Student B - This student reminded the Honor Council that the incident had occurred 5 months ago and that it was difficult to remember exactly what had happened. She said that she did not feel the discussion that occurred between the 2 groups was a violation of the class honor code, but looking back at the incident they may have crossed the line. She stated that they never shared files or copied each others work; there was just a lot of discussion.

Student C - Stated that she started the homework by herself and then went to work with her partner. She stated that when she and Student D got stuck they discussed the problem with the other group, Student A and Student B.

Student D - Stated that the groups had separate assignments, but checked each other's work.

Discussion:
The Honor Council members asked the accused if the collaboration that occurred on these two assignments was more that what was done on other homework assignments for the class. The accused stated that they did collaborate more on these 2 assignments.
Student B pointed out that in the letter of accusation the professor states that if the homework solutions are correct they will have strong similarities. She also points out that in the description of the assignments the professor creates a road map for the students to follow and that is why there solutions are so similar. Student B also wanted the Council to note that it stated on the course syllabus that it is encouraged for students to discuss problems with other students.
One Council member noted that the syllabus also stated that you should cite your source if you consult other students for help and asked the accused why they did not cite each other as sources. The accused all stated they did not know the syllabus said they should cite any help received.
The accused were asked by the Council why there were statements in the homework and extra credit assignment that were exactly the same. Student A pointed out that the description of the assignment had given them some of the statements to use.
Student D came out and said that they had worked on the extra credit separately and then when they could get no further they worked on it together. She stated that when they thought they had the correct solution on one of the assignments they simply made 2 copies of it and shared the answer.

Closing Statements:
Student C and Student D had no closing statement.

Student B stated that their working together on the assignment was a violation of the course honor code, but that working as a team was encouraged. She also wanted to remind the Honor Council that the home work assignment was only worth ¼ of 1/18 of their final grade and that the other assignment was extra credit, and to please take that into consideration when deciding a on a penalty.

Student A said that she agreed with Student B.


Deliberation:
The Council first discussed how much credit each assignment should be worth, since one was extra credit and we only received one problem out of 4 for the homework assignment. The professor stated on her syllabus that the homework assignment was 1/18 of their total grade and the extra credit assignment would count the same. One member suggested that we count it as < 10% of the course grade since the homework assignment was ¼ of 1/18 of the grade. The Council decided that it should rely on what the professor stated and not lower the homework assignment's value. Therefore the assignments were worth > 10% of the course grade and the consensus penalty is an F+2.

Straw Poll #1 - Student A
In Violation 9
Not in Violation 0

Straw Poll #2 - Student B
In Violation 9
Not in Violation 0

Straw Poll #3 - Student C
In Violation 9
Not in Violation 0

Straw Poll #4 - Student D
In Violation 9
Not in Violation 0

The Council decided that self-accusation and emotional distress did not apply to this case as mitigating circumstances. Then the Council discussed the possibility of cooperation as a mitigating circumstance. Most members felt that they did cooperate because they pled In Violation, but that they did not give the Council full disclosure. Some members were upset that they plead In Violation, but then during their testimony kept insisting that they did not copy or break the honor code. Another Council member argued that full disclosure does not have to be immediate disclosure and that the accused admitted their wrong before the trial was over. The other mitigating circumstance considered was severity.

Straw Poll #5 - Student A
F + 2 0
F + 1 1
F 5
Abstentions 3

The members that abstained from the voting said that they were not sure how to handle cooperation. They felt like the students pled In Violation to get their penalties mitigated down, since during the testimony they held back information from the Council. Most members recognized that there was some cooperation, but that the Council had to really pry out of them what had happened. Some members were still not sure about considering severity. There was also more discussion that the Council did not get full disclosure from the accused.

Straw Poll #6 - Student A
F + 2 0
F + 1 3
F 6
Abstentions 0

Straw Poll #7 - Student B
F + 2 0
F + 1 3
F 6
Abstentions 0

Straw Poll #8 - Student C
F + 2 0
F + 1 3
F 6
Abstentions 0

The Council next discussed handling Student D separately because some members felt that she cooperated more with the Council with her written statement addendum and was the one to admit that sharing of one homework assignment had occurred.

Straw Poll #9 - Student D
F + 2 0
F + 1 0
F 4
3 letter grade reduction in the course 1
2 letter grade reduction in the course 3
Abstentions 1

One Honor Council member felt that the addendum that was attached to Student D's written statement forced the other accused to tell the truth. Other members felt that the addendum did not give the Council any more information than what they had had from her original written statement.

Straw Poll #10 - Student D
F + 1 0
F 6
3 letter grade reduction in the course 0
2 letter grade reduction in the course 3
Abstentions 0

Straw polls 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A, B, C and D In Violation of the Honor Code, and recommends that Students A, B, C and D be given an F in the course. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to their records.


Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour and 40 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,
Rebecca C. Daprato Clerk

Last modified Tuesday, October 22, 2002 01:25 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu