Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #44d, Spring 2002 March 3, 2003
Members Present:
Candice Hance (presiding), Joshua Barron, Teresa Fu, Keith Henneke, Andrea Melton, Matt Mino, Marie Ng, Geneva Rhee, Stephen Zak

Ombuds:
Travis Youngblood

Letter of Accusation:
The letter of accusation is the same as in case 44c. The case was re-opened per Article XIX of the constitution at the order of the president of the university who had given the option to Student B of a one-semester penalty reduction or a re-opening of the case. Student B chose the latter option.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student B pled Not in Violation.

Testimony:
Student B opened with biographical information about herself and stated that she had not cheated or violated the code with regard to the exam in question. She brought attention to the affidavit that Student C had sworn to. In the affidavit, Student C said that she used notes found in Student B's bag without the knowledge of Student B. The use of notes other than your own was strictly against the class Honor Code policy, and was specifically forbidden on this open-note exam. When asked about the free response section that was nearly identical between all three exams, Student B pointed council members to the class handout and explained in detail how she answered one of the problems from the handout. Though marked as correct, the form of the answers differed from the answer key, and Student B said that there was no standardized form to answer the questions, and thus it did not surprise her.

The Council then proceeded to listen to the taped testimony of Case 44, parts a, b, and c.

After listening to the tapes, Student B explained that the reason she had trouble explaining certain aspects of the test in the original hearing of her case was due to the fact that it had been many months since she had actually taken the class. Prior to this hearing she said she took a few minutes to refresh herself with the class and could now explain her exam much better. When asked as to how she took her exam, she explained that she had taken it by herself and handed it in the day before the due date. After taking it, the test was put in her bag overnight.

Attention shifted to the first page of the test. For problem 1, all three tests had completely identical answers, both correct and incorrect. Student B said that she remembered leaving some answers blank on the first page, and when asked about why this page was fully completed said that someone must have added or changed her answers. On the free response question, Student B had written notation in one part of the problem but not the other. Student A had the notation on both parts. Student B acknowledged that she should have put notation in both parts of the question but must have overlooked it in her hurry to finish the exam. She said that other than the first problem, she had taken this exam very rapidly. She acknowledged that lots of things probably could and did happen on the exam, but that all she knew for sure was that she was innocent. When asked about the last page of the exam she said the handouts were her main source of information for that section.

Prior to her closing statement, Student B commented on the turn-in procedure for the exam and stated that she knew that a lot of people were cheating in the class. In her closing statement, Student B emphasized several points. She said that she did her own test, and she felt she had shown in this hearing that she did have the knowledge of the material and that her exam was tampered with. She re-emphasized she was not in violation and felt the tests were so alike because her roommate (Student C) used unauthorized aid in the form of her notes.

Deliberation:
Most members felt that the three tests before them were identical, and that there was absolutely no chance that a violation had not occurred. The idea put forth by Student B that her test had been tampered with was discussed, but the council felt that the evidence in existence did not support the theory. Several council members expressed sentiments that Student A's exam was the source exam for Students B and C. With regard to Student B's ability to better explain her answers than in the previous hearings, some members noted that this could be due simply to the fact that she has had months to look over this accusation and could be learning the material for the first time rather than merely familiarizing herself with it. As such, the council did not feel this statement proved anything either for or against the accused.
As the council examined the tests, Student A was continually discussed as the source. Student's A's answers were more complete, and in the one matching question that Student A got wrong that student B got right, Student A's answer appeared to the side of the word bank on Student B's test. Student A also had the most complete free response section. The tests also showed that it appeared that student C had copied off of Student B. However, even though the affidavit could be used to exonerate Student B with regard to Student C's exam, it did not account for the similarities between Student A and B's tests.
Straw Poll #1
Did a violation occur?
Yes - 9
No - 0
Abstain - 0

Straw Poll #2
Is Student B In Violation?
Yes - 9
No - 0

Penalties
Discussion moved onto the penalty for Student B. The consensus penalty for the violation is an F in the class and a two-semester suspension from the university. Each of the mitigating circumstances was discussed. Most council members felt that none of them applied. Consistency was also discussed, with some saying the council should consider giving an F + 1 since Student B had had that option prior to choosing to return to the council.

Straw Poll #3
Penalty for Student B
F + 2 - 8
F + 1 - 1
Abstain - 0

The member voting for an F+1 explained that she was applying severity as a mitigating circumstance and explained the logic behind the vote. The rest of the council did not feel that severity should be applied.

Straw Polls 1, 2 and 3 were made binding.

Thus the Honor Council finds Student B in violation of the Honor Code and recommends a penalty of an F in the course and a two-semester suspension. A suspension clause will be attached to her record.
Time of Trial and Deliberation:2 hours, 53 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Barron, Clerk

Last modified Monday, April 21, 2003 08:38 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu