Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #46, Spring, 2002
November 25, 2002

Members Present:
Joan Shreffler (presiding), Rebecca Daprato, Sally Anne Gutting, Laura Fitzmorris, Stephen Jones, Andrew Lee, Jason Love, Lucas Oman, John Pitcher

Ombuds:
Kate Gurba

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from Professor A of a lower level science class that accused Student A and Student B of collaborating on exam 1. The Honor Council also received a letter of accusation from Professor B that accused Student A and Student B of collaborating on exam 2 for the same course. Collaborating on an exam is a violation of that class's Honor Code policy.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
No plea was entered because neither accused were present for the hearing.

Testimony:
No opening statements were made because neither accused were present for the hearing. Therefore the hearing went straight to deliberation.

Deliberation:
After looking at the exams and the expert witness testimony, all council members felt that a violation occurred. The Council decided to go through each exam question by question to assure that the conclusions drawn by the professors and the expert witnesses were true. This process started with exam 1. The Council determined that almost all exam problems seemed to be exactly the same. One member found a diagram, on both exams, that was copied directly from the course textbook. This in itself was a violation because the exam was closed book and closed note.

Straw Poll #1 - Did a violation occur on Exam 1?
Violation 9
No Violation 0

The Council then discussed the possibility of one student copying the other student's exam without their knowledge. It was noted that Student A and Student B were on a school-sponsored trip on the date of the exam, but were allowed to take the exam on that day during their trip. Professor C, a professor on the school-sponsored trip, administered the exam and told the students to take their exams in their respective hotel rooms. Professor C stated that she collected the exams after 2 hours, so the Council felt that the violation had to be collaboration.

Straw Poll #2 - Student A on Exam 1
In Violation 9
Not in Violation 0

Straw Poll #3 - Student B on Exam 1
In Violation 9
Not in Violation 0

Next the Council examined exam 2, following the same procedure as they did with exam 1. The Council noticed striking similarities on most of the problems on Exam 2.

Straw Poll #4 - Did a Violation Occur on Exam 2?
Violation 9
No Violation 0

The Council then tried to decide how this violation occurred. This exam was administered at Rice University with Honor code seating enforced. Because the accused were not present the Council did not know the Student's seating arrangement. The Council discussed the idea that maybe one student copied from the other without that student's knowledge. From looking at the exams and the expert witness testimony, the Council decided that Student A had copied from Student B. The Council felt that the writing on Student B's paper was too small for someone to copy from a distance. Also, it was noted that the answers at the very bottom of the pages of the exams were identical, which would be very difficult to see with honor code seating. Some council members felt the exams were so similar that they could almost be xeroxed copies. Therefore, there was no way that Student A copied from Student B without her knowledge.

Straw Poll #5 - Student A on Exam 2
In Violation 9
Not in Violation 0

Straw Poll #6 - Student B on Exam 2
In Violation 7
Not in Violation 0
0 Abstentions 2

The Council members that abstained from the vote felt that since we did not know the seating arrangement that Student A could have copied off of Student B without her knowledge. Some Council members felt that the exams were too similar for Student B not to have known Student A was copying. The Council felt Student B was showing her paper to Student A. The point was brought up again that the exams were almost exact copies of one another and that the answers at the bottom of the pages were exactly the same.

Straw Poll #7 - Student B on Exam 2
In Violation 9
Not in Violation 0

These exams were worth more than 10% of the course grade so the consensus penalty is an F in the course and a 2 semester suspension. One member wanted to discuss considering this case as heinous. The definition of a heinous violation was read off the Honor Council website to the Council. Some members of the Council felt that since the students violated the Honor Code while given the privilege of taking the exam off campus and violated the Honor Code while taking the exam in class and on campus that the violation deteriorated the academic environment at Rice. One Council member said this was not spur of the moment cheating, but it was calculated. Other members felt it didn't fit the definition of a heinous violation.

Straw Poll #8 - Is this violation heinous?
Heinous 4
Not Heinous 3
Abstentions 2

The members that abstained from voting were not sure whether this violation fit the definition of heinous. They did feel that violating the Honor Code on a pledged exam while given the special privilege of taking the exam off campus was a bad violation.

Straw Poll #9 - Is this violation heinous?
Heinous 4
Not Heinous 5
Abstentions 0

Mitigating circumstances were discussed next and all members felt that no mitigating circumstances applied; therefore only an F + 2 could be considered as a penalty.

Straw Poll #10 - Student A
F + 2 9

Straw Poll #11 - Student B
F + 2 9

The Council then discussed Article 14 of the Constitution. This clause sates that if an accused fails to attend a hearing the Council can recommend a suspension. Most members agreed that because Student B had sent a doctor's letter stating a medical reason for why she could not attend the hearing that she could not be penalized. Student A had no reason for not attending the hearing therefore she could be penalized. Some Honor Council members felt that Student A should be suspended immediately from Rice. Others felt that they were not sure how an immediate suspension could be enforced, so an extra semester suspension was recommended.

Straw Poll # 12 - Student A additional semester suspension
Yes 9
No 0

Straw polls 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A and Student B In Violation of the Honor Code, and recommends that Student A and B get and F in the course and a 2 semester suspension, plus an additional semester suspension for Student A for failure to attend the hearing. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to their records.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 2 hours and 53 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Rebecca C. Daprato
Clerk

Last modified Monday, December 9, 2002 03:09 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu