| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #44c, Spring, 2002
November 18, 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 for case #44b.
Evidence Submitted:
The list of evidence is the same as listed for case #44b.
Plea:
Student B pleads Not In Violation
Student C pleads Not In Violation
Testimony:
In their opening statements, both Student B and C stated that they completed and turned in the exam themselves and were not in violation of the Honor Code at any time.
The council questioned the accused as to the similarities in the exams. The accused were asked how they arrived at the answers given on the paper, and they both stated that they used their notes and the book. Neither accused could remember exactly how they did the problems in question, as they had taken the course in the previous semester. When asked the procedure they followed for completing and turning in the exam, Student B stated that he took the exam close to the end of the finals period and turned it in to the professor's box, and Student C stated that he took the exam the weekend after he received it and turned it in on the following Monday. Neither accused stated an opinion, when asked, as to why the three exams were identical.
The statement from Student A's testimony as to his thoughts about who committed the violation was played for Students B and C, and they were asked to respond to this statement. Student C stated that Student A's statement made no sense, as he could have just as easily taken Student C's exam and used it himself. Student B stated that the secretary watched him turn in his exam into the box, and that there was no way for him to remove anyone's exam without being seen.
In closing, Student B stated that this was a class he was passing easily and had no need to cheat, particularly on an open-book, open-note exam. He did not want to jeopardize the remaining time he has in school by violating the Honor Code. Student C stated that this was not a class he concentrated on, and that he feels the Honor Council waited too long to notify him of the accusation as this could have been taken care of sooner. He stated that he did not cheat and turned in the exam honestly.
Deliberation:
The Council debated whether a violation occurred. Some members were concerned that it was not clear as to the directionality of the violation. Some members felt that Students B and C did not have consistent answers for the Council's questions, specifically with regards to how the exams were completed. Members felt that copying from Student A's exam occurred and that Student A was still not in violation, and then debated the directionality of the violation. The similarities on the exams suggested that the majority of Student B's exam came from Student A's exam, and that Student C's exam appeared to come from Student B's exam primarily. With this discussion in mind, straw polls were taken.
Straw Poll #3 - A Violation Occurred
Violation Occurred 9
Violation Did Not Occur 0
Abstentions 0
Straw Poll #4 - Student B In Violation
In Violation 9
Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 0
Straw Poll #5 - Student C In Violation
In Violation 9
Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 0
The council first turned to the penalty for Student B. The members felt that no mitigating circumstances applied, as the accused did not plead in violation, did not provide full disclosure, was not under severe and unusual emotional distress, and the violation was severe enough to not fall under mitigating by severity. The consensus penalty for the violation is an F in the course and a 2-semester suspension. In addition, an F in the course and a 1-semester suspension was also suggested as a penalty. A straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #6 - Penalty for Student B
F in course & 2-semester suspension 9
F in course & 1-semester suspension 0
Abstentions 0
The Council next turned to Student C. The chair notified the Council that Student C has two suspension clauses attached to his record, having been found In Violation of the Honor Code twice previously. The abstracts for these cases were shown to the Honor Council members (Case #15 and Case #18, published in 2000) for them to review. Members then debated whether this should be taken into account when deciding the penalty for Student C. The suspension clause allows the Honor Council to go above the Consensus Penalty Structure for someone who is found in violation of the Honor Code repeatedly. In this case, members felt that a third violation of the Honor Code at Rice warranted a more severe punishment than an F in the course and a 2-semester suspension for Student C. Members felt very strongly that the Honor Council should not ever tolerate such repeat violations, and that Student C should not be allowed to participate in any academic pursuits at Rice in the future. The consensus penalty for the single violation is an F in the course and a 2-semester suspension. Additional penalties proposed for Student C were an F in the course and a 13-semester suspension, and an F in the course and an infinite suspension. Another straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #8 - Penalty for Student C
F in the course & 2-semester suspension 0
F in the course & 13-semester suspension 0
F in the course & infinite suspension 9
Straw polls 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 were made binding.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A Not In Violation of the Honor Code.
The Honor Council finds Student B In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends to the Assistant Dean of Student Judicial Programs that he receive an F in the course and a 2-semester suspension. A suspension clause will also be attached to his record.
The Honor Council finds Student C In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends to the Assistant Dean of Student Judicial Programs that he receive an F in the course and an infinite suspension. A suspension clause will also be attached to his record.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 2 hours, 20 minutes
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Lee
Clerk