| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #44b, Spring, 2002
November 13, 2002
Members Present:
Joan Shreffler (presiding), Amy Askin, Andrew Lee, Jason Longoria, Jason Love, Lucas Oman, Elspeth Simpson, Ravi Patel, Evan Van Ness
Ombuds:
Travis Youngblood
Letter of Accusation:
The letter of accusation is the same as listed on the previous page for case #44a.
Evidence Submitted:
The list of evidence is the same as listed on the previous page for case #44a. Additional evidence submitted is as follows:
In his opening statement, Student A stated that he had not been able to concentrate on work because of the case pending against him, but stated that he was absolutely not in violation of the Honor Code. He stated that he took the optional final exam to maintain his A+ in the class, and would not jeopardize his standing on a class he was doing so well in. He said he received the exam on the last day of classes and turned it in the following Monday with no assistance from anyone else. He pointed the council to the results of the polygraph exam he underwent as proof that he did not commit a violation in the class.
The council questioned Student A as to the circumstances surrounding his turning in the exam. He stated that the office door was locked, so he slipped the exam under the door and never saw it again. When asked about the similarities among the three exams in question, he admitted that they look identical, but demonstrated to the council exactly how he arrived at the answers in question, stating that he got his answers from the book and the class notes, as the exam was open-book, open-note. With regards to the first page of the exam, Student A said that he did it last and guessed on a majority of the answers. He claimed that he had already finished the test to the degree that he would be able to maintain an A+ and was going for as much extra credit as possible but did not care whether he got it or not. Student A stated that he does not know Students B and C, and has had no interactions with them in any class or outside of class as well. His opinion was that his exam was turned in and that one or both of the other accused removed it to look at it at some point.
In closing, Student A reiterated that he did the test and turned it in immediately, and that he has no relationships with either of the other two accused. He emphasized that he was telling the truth and did not violate the Honor Code.
Deliberation:
The council debated whether a violation occurred. Members felt that there was definitely evidence for a violation, but that Student A was not in violation of the Honor Code. His answers to the Council's questions seemed plausible and genuine, and there was no evidence to suggest that he was in violation. Two straw polls were taken.
Straw Poll #1 - A Violation Occurred
Violation Occurred 8
Violation Did Not Occur 0
Abstentions 1
The abstaining member felt that, without the testimony of the other two accused, there was no way to determine concretely whether a violation occurred. Since the case was continued to hear the testimony of the other two accused, the abstention was left on the record, and straw poll #1 was not made binding.
Straw Poll #2 - Student A In Violation
In Violation 0
Not In Violation 9
Abstentions 0
Straw Poll #2 was made binding.
Thus the Honor Council finds Student A Not In Violation of the Honor Code.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 55 minutes