| Honor Council Rice
University |
|
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #42, Spring, 2002
October 10, 2002
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a TA and a professor in a lower-level science class. The letter accused Student A and Student B of working together on a take-home test.
Evidence Submitted:
- Letter of Accusation from the professor
- Letter of Accusation from the TA
- Student A's written statement
- Student B's written statement
- Syllabus of Course
- Course Handouts
- Deposition from professor
- Deposition from TA
- Written Statement from acquaintance of Student A
- Written Statement from acquaintance of Student B
- Exams from all other students in class
- Statement from TA recommending this case be combined with another
Plea:
Student A and Student B both plead not In Violation
Testimony:
Student A said that they had worked together in the class, and that the similarities on the test were due to their having worked together and shared notes.
Student B also added that she had been out of town at the time of the test. Furthermore, both students expressed how the class did not matter at all to them.
Deliberation:
The Council, for the most part, felt that the tests were too identical to have occurred by mere chance. Some members expressed sentiments that the similarities were possible due to the design of the test. The Council then reviewed the TA's recommendation that this case be combined with another. After reviewing the evidence from the other students, the Council decided without objection to combine this case with that of the three additional students.
Continuation:
October 22, 2002
Plea:
Student A, B, C, D, E all plead Not In Violation
New Evidence Submitted:
- Student A's new written statement
- Student B's new written statement
- Student C's written statement
- Student D's written statement
- Student E's written statement
- Answer key to final exam
- New Deposition from Professor
- New written statement from acquaintance of Student B
- Written statement from former roommate of Student C
- Written statement from acquaintance of Student D
- Written statement from family member of Student E
- Course textbook
Testimony:
Student A said that she had taken the test alone, and that she had been falsely accused. She also emphasized that after taking the test, she had given it to another student to have it handed in, and that she was taking the course pass/fail. Student E said that she had taken the test at her house, and referred to a witness statement of a family member that supported her testimony. Student B said the she had been out of the state at the time that she took the test. Student C said that she had taken the test in her room after all of her belongings had been moved out, and that her roommate had witnessed her completing the exam. Student D said that she was falsely accused and that she had attended class every day.
During questioning, the Council asked each student how she handed in her test. According to the students' testimony, Student E had turned in her test first, returning home after having taken it. Students D and A both handed in their exam to the same individual who then handed them in. During questioning, Student C also complained how the box where the tests were turned in was open and that the exams could have been taken after having been handed in. In closing the students emphasized how the exam similarities were coincidental.
Deliberation:
The Council felt that there were simply too many similarities for there to be any chance that a violation had not occurred. Some members expressed sentiments that this was a heinous violation. Members also felt that there was a possibility that one of the accused had been copied off of without her knowledge. The Council eventually looked at the exam of the student to whom both Student D and A had given their completed exams. It was seen that this exam was extremely similar to the exams of the five students that had already been accused. Without objection, the council decided to add this student to the case. Additionally, there were other exams from the stack of all submitted exams from the course that were viewed to be similar to these tests, but there were enough differences between the sets that the Council decided not to include the additional students in this case.
Continuation:
October 29, 2002
New Evidence Submitted:
- Student F's written statement
- Written statement from professor requesting Student F be added to the case.
- New deposition from TA.
Plea:
Students A, B, C, D, E, F all plead not In Violation
Testimony:
Student's A-E chose not to change their opening statements from the previous case. Student F expressed her sentiment that she was Not In Violation. She also inquired as to how she was brought into this case. Student C expressed outrage at the additional deposition provided by the TA, which presented a scenario in which she had started a chain of cheating. In questioning, all acknowledged that the tests were very similar, but all reiterated that they had done their own work. Most students felt the similarities could be explained by the sharing of notes, and that these notes caused the open-note, open-book final to have similar answers
In the closing statements, Student E said that she felt that a violation had occurred, but that she had not violated the code. Student A reiterated that she was pass/failing the course and that she had taken the test in the library and then handed it in. Student C restated her problems with the exam's turn-in procedures, and expressed frustration with being accused of cheating on test in her pass/fail class when she believed did not need any points on the exam to pass the course. Student F said that while she did hand in two other exams, she did not use them when she took the exam herself. Student B said as before that she had taken the test out of town, and said that since no one witnessed her cheating, it was just the TA's word against hers. Student E said that she took the test at home and was witnessed by a family member.
Deliberation:
As before, the Council felt that there was no way that a violation had not occurred, because it was virtually impossible to have coincidences of this magnitude occur simply by chance. Some members felt that all accused students were aware of the violations. Many Council members also felt that there was not enough evidence that all accused students were aware of the violation, and that there was a very good chance that one student had been copied off of, without her knowledge.
The council discussed various ways that the answers to the exam could have been propagated. The Council felt that Student D most likely to be the source, with other possibilities being Student E and Student C.
Straw Poll #1
Did a violation occur?
Yes - 9
No - 0
Abstentions - 0
The council discussed how a violation could have occurred without the knowledge of the student whose exam was used as a source. Student E handed her test in before anyone else, and while several members did not believe she was Not In Violation, other members believed that there was insufficient evidence to find her In Violation. Their reasoning was that her test could have been stolen from the box, and copied off of by the other five accused. Additionally, Student E had the most blanks on the first questions, and thus other students may have taken her test and then copied off of it, filling in her blanks.
The majority of the council felt that Student D was the source of the cheating. However, while the cheating may have occurred with her knowledge, since she handed her test in through Student F, the Council felt there was definitely no way that the evidence presented could prove that Student D was In Violation.
Student F was deemed to be In Violation. The Council deduced that if she were to have been the source without having violated the Honor Code and thus unknowingly had her test propagated, then it would have been impossible for Student D to have given her test to her before leaving. Given that the two tests were too similar to have been a coincidence, votes were taken on Students D and F.
Students A, B, and C were discussed to be In Violation due to a several reasons. First of all, Students A and B had the fewest blanks, which the Council deemed to be a result of them copying off of someone else, and then guessing on the questions that were left blank. Additionally, by their testimony, all three of the students handed their tests in so close to the deadline, that the Council deemed it logistically impossible for them to hand their tests in and then have the other five students copy off any of their tests without their knowledge.
Straw Poll #14
Is Student E In Violation?
Yes - 1
No - 8
Abstain - 0
Straw Poll #15
Is Student B In Violation?
Yes - 9
No - 0
Abstain - 0
Straw Poll #16
Is Student F In Violation?
Yes - 9
No - 0
Abstain - 0
Straw Poll #17
Is Student C In Violation?
Yes - 9
No - 0
Abstain - 0
Straw Poll #18
Is Student A In Violation?
Yes - 9
No - 0
Abstain - 0
Straw Poll #19
Is Student D In Violation?
Yes - 0
No - 9
Abstain - 0
Penalty Phase:
Despite feelings during the second hearing of this case of the apparently heinous nature of the violation, due to the council's inability to figure out exactly what happened, the Council did not vote on whether the violation was heinous. Some Council members felt that an F in the course and 1 semester suspension may be appropriate, due to the fact that one violator likely had been found Not In Violation. Furthermore, the testimony provided by the students as to when the tests were handed in was extremely helpful in finding students In Violation. Additionally, the circumstance through which Student F was brought into the hearing was expressed as possible mitigation. However, the majority of the council felt that no mitigating circumstances could be applied to this case. One member noted that in a case with only two people cheating off of each other where the accused lied about their violation to the Council, the Council would likely find both students In Violation with no mitigating circumstances. Therefore, members felt the increased number of violators should not change this.
Straw Poll #21
Penalty for Student B:
F in course + 2 semester suspension - 8
F in course + 1 semester suspension - 1
Abstain - 0
Straw Poll #22
Penalty for Student F:
F in course + 2 semester suspension - 7
F in course + 1 semester suspension - 2
Abstain - 0
Straw Poll #23
Penalty for Student C:
F in course + 2 semester suspension - 7
F in course + 1 semester suspension - 2
Abstain - 0
Straw Poll #24
Penalty for Student A:
F in course + 2 semester suspension - 8
F in course + 1 semester suspension - 1
Abstain - 0
Straw Polls 1, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 were made binding
The Honor Council thus finds Students A, B, C, F in-violation of the honor code in the class, and recommends to the Assistant Dean of Student Judicial Affairs that they receive an F in the class and a two semester suspension. A suspension clause is attached to their record.
Total time of hearing and deliberation for all three hearings: 10 hours
Last modified Monday, December 02, 2002 01:10 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu