| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #41, Spring, 2002
October 22, 2002
Members Present:
Keith Henneke (presiding), Andrew Lee, Rebecca Daprato, Chris Conrad, Matthew Mino, John Pitcher, Ravi Patel, Jason Love, Andy Perez, Divya Pande (non-binding vote)
Ombuds:
Anshu Duggal
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in an upper-level science course. The letter accused Student A and Student C of unauthorized collaboration on an assignment in one class, and Student A and Student B of unauthorized collaboration on an assignment in another, separate class.
Evidence Submitted:
In her opening statement, Student A said nothing further for accusation 1. For the second class, Student A stated that the assignments did look very similar, but that she did not know how this came about. Student B reiterated her written statement. She stated that she did not copy anything, that it was her own work, and that the other evidence she submitted to the council showed that the answers given in her work were the likely answers for the assignment.
The council questioned the accused as to the similarities in the assignments. Both Student A and B said that they saved their files in their Unix directories on Owlnet, but that they did the work in separate buildings from one another and had never worked with each other on any assignments. Student A was asked about the circumstances surrounding her assignment for the first class, in which she pled in violation. She stated that she was pressed for time and obtained Student C's assignment through the Owlnet computer system without her knowledge in order to complete the work. Both Student A and B could not explain the errors in the problems that led to the loss of points, nor could they explain why the two assignments for the second class were identical in format and in wording of answers.
Student B offered to go to her room and get the answer key from the professor for the assignment in order to make her case, and at that point, Student A changed her plea to in violation, stating that she had copied Student B's assignment by accessing it through the Owlnet network, in a similar fashion to the assignment from the first class.
In closing, Student B expressed a desire to get to the bottom of the accusation and that she would be happy to provide any additional evidence to the Council to aid in the process. Student A expressed remorse for her actions and stated that she does not cheat on a regular basis. Her actions were influenced by events outside of class that might have led to emotional distress, but that they were inexcusable and she was sorry.
Deliberation:
The Council decided to deal with the violations separately, as they occurred in two separate classes. Since Student B was involved in the second class, this was dealt with first.
Straw Poll #1 - A violation occurred in the second class
Violation occurred 9 (+1 observing)
Violation did not occur 0
Abstentions 0
Thus the Council finds that a violation did occur in the second class. Next, the council voted on whether Student B was in violation of the Honor Code.
Straw Poll #2 - Student B In Violation
In Violation 0
Not In Violation 9 (+1 observing)
Abstentions 0
Thus, the Council finds that Student B is not in violation of the Honor Code.
Turning next to Student A, the council considered the second class first before dealing with the first class.
Straw Poll #3 - Student A In Violation
In Violation 9 (+1 observing)
Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 0
Thus, the Council finds that Student A is in violation of the Honor Code in the second class.
With regards to the first class, only Student A was involved from this point on.
Straw Poll #4 - A violation occurred in the first class
Violation occurred 9 (+1 observing)
Violation did not occur 0
Abstentions 0
Straw Poll #5 - Student A In Violation
In violation 9 (+1 observing)
Not in violation 0
Abstentions 0
Thus, the Council finds that Student A is in violation of the Honor Code in the first class.
Penalty deliberation:
Since two violations occurred, the Council considered the penalties for each violation separately. For the second class, the council considered the possibility of cooperation as a mitigating circumstance, as the Council felt no other mitigating circumstances applied. Some members felt that it applied since Student A ultimately pled in violation. Other members argued that, since the plea was not made in good faith and left Student B with the possibility of being found in violation, cooperation with the council should not apply. They did not consider a change in plea to have provided any more meaningful information that would otherwise not have been known.
A straw poll was taken. The consensus penalty for the violation in the second class is an F in the course, as the assignment was worth less than 10 percent of the course grade. Other penalties suggested included loss of credit in the class, a 3-letter reduction of the final course grade, and a 2-letter reduction of the final course grade.
Straw Poll #7 - Penalty for Student A in second class
F in course 5
3-letter grade reduction 3
2-letter grade reduction 1 (+1 non-binding)
Abstentions 0
All straw polls to this point, excepting poll #6, were made binding.
The Council next turned to the violation in the first class. Cooperation was again discussed as a mitigating factor, as the Council felt no other mitigating circumstances applied. Some members felt that her plea of in violation warranted cooperation, as it might have been difficult to prove a violation otherwise. An initial straw poll was taken on penalties. The consensus penalty for the violation in the first class is an F in the course and a 2-semester suspension. Other penalties suggested were an F in the course with a 1-semester suspension and an F in the course.
Straw Poll #8 - Penalty for Student A in first class
F + 2-semester suspension 0
F + 1-semester suspension 4 (+1 non-binding)
F in course 3
Abstentions 2
The abstaining members felt that cooperation was not sufficient to overcome the means by which Student A obtained the assignment from Student C, and the fact that this was the second violation of the same type did not allow them to mitigate based on cooperation. Some members felt that the Council should not consider the second violation in the context of the first violation, as the accused had not been through the hearing process prior to the second violation. With these arguments stated, another straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #9 - Penalty for Student A in first class
F + 2-semester suspension 5
F + 1-semester suspension 4 (+1 observing)
F in course 0
Abstentions 0
Some members next brought up the possibility of this being a heinous violation. "A violation may be considered "heinous" whenever it is considerably damaging to the academic atmosphere of Rice University or directly harmful to an individual. Examples of this include, but are not limited to, destruction or theft of another's work, intentional or harmful actions taken to cover up a violation, or involvement in a large-scale conspiracy. Repeat violations automatically allow the council to go beyond the penalty structure, though they need not necessarily do so." (Rice University Honor Council Consensus Penalty Structure 2001-2002, http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~honor/penalties.htm)
In this case, several members felt that the procurement of computer files from another Rice student's Owlnet directory without their knowledge and with the intent of representing their work as her own qualified these violations as heinous, specifically because it occurred on two separate occasions in two different classes. In addition, Student A was not forthcoming in admitting to the violation in the second class, and thus jeopardized Student B in the process. Other members argued that the cooperation that the accused showed towards the council makes the violation less heinous, and should not allow the Council to go beyond the consensus penalty structure in this case. A straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #10 - Heinous violation
Heinous 3
Not heinous 6 (+1 observing)
Abstentions 0
Straw polls #9 and #10 were made binding.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student B Not In Violation of the Honor Code.
The Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor Code in the first class, and recommends to the Assistant Dean of Student Judicial Programs that she receive an F in the course and a 2-semester suspension. A suspension clause is also attached to her record.
The Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor Code in the second class, 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: 2 hours, 5 minutes
Respectfully Submitted,
Andrew Lee
Clerk