Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #1, Fall, 2002
November 17, 2002

Members Present:
Keith Henneke (presiding), Joshua Barron, Rebecca Daprato, Chris Edwards, Jason Longoria, John Pitcher, Geneva Rhee, Evan Van Ness, Stephen Zak.

Ombuds:
Robert Emmett

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a formal letter of accusation from a professor of a graduate-level business course stating that students A-K had submitted team assignments of varying similarity. She noted that the team papers of students A, B, and C and D, E, and F were very similar both quantitatively and textually, and some textual similarities were apparent as well in the assignments of G, H, and I with the previous two papers and J and K's paper.

Evidence Submitted:

Also available as evidence were the assignments submitted by the other members of the class and the computer files of the accused.

Plea:
Students A-K all plead Not In Violation.

Testimony:
In their opening statements, many of the accused discussed their lack of motivation to commit a violation in the course and their incentives to abide by the Honor Code. They discussed the significance of the quantitative aspects of the assignment (which each team had worked on their own) over the actual write-up, and they explained that most of the similarities in the writing of the assignment came from the similarity in background of many of the students, as well as the nature of the jargon in the field they were studying. Many of the students discounted the import of the evidence given by both the expert witness and the student witness, based on the discrepancies within their respective statements. Student D explained that E and F did not include him in the group work, despite repeated contact on his part and an attempt to work on some of the assignment. While he felt that his team paper went beyond the threshold of collaboration as defined by the class Honor Code policy, he thought that he would have had no way of knowing of the violation, since he did not see the paper until after it was submitted. Student I also felt that he had no knowledge of the violation, since students G and H did not use the part of the assignment that he had worked on. Student I also did not get a chance to look at the write-up until 2 hours before submission. Student J explained the addendum he submitted into evidence and emphasized the fact that part of his assignment with student K was based on his research completed with the same professor in a previous semester. He and K also emphasized how collaboration on text could not have occurred, since the other teams did not finish until shortly before the deadline and the time for collaboration would have been too limited.

During questioning, students A, B, C, E, and F explained the probability of the high similarity in the quantitative part of their assignments using the data they had worked with on their assignment. Some of the similarities (both quantitative and qualitative) were the result of their using the supplemental information provided by the professor; J and K also suggested that textual similarities between their paper and G, H, and I's paper could result from the incorporation of the questions on the assignment into the write-up, as well as the wording of the topics discussed in class. In response to the witness's deposition, all the accused agreed that students I, J, and K were not present in the group that the witness had observed. When asked about student D's limited involvement in the work, E and F explained that they both had commitments that conflicted with the possibility of meeting as a group, and they also noted that poor communication and their desire to put the best work into the assignment resulted in D's exclusion from the work. Students G and H explained that they excluded I's work because of the difficulty in incorporating his part of the assignment with the rest of the work done.

In closing, the accused reiterated the belief that the quantitative part of the assignments constituted a great amount of the papers and that those particular parts were completed independently of any other group. Any collaboration observed by the witness was within the realm of the professor's Honor Code policy, and a portion of the textual similarities came from such conceptual discussion, class notes, and similarities in backgrounds of most of the accused. Student D reemphasized the excessive similarity between his team paper and A, B, and C's team paper. Finally, many of the accused reiterated the discrepancies in the depositions of the student witness, the expert witness, and the professor.

Deliberation:
Upon initial discussion, the Council felt strongly that a violation had occurred, especially between the teams of ABC and DEF. Some of the members felt that the textual similarities between GHI and JK were not as significant, since the assignment was based on the quantitative work. However, members also noted that the text was too identical to be coincidental.

Members discussed the quantitative similarities between ABC and DEF. Comparison of ABC's and DEF's data files showed that the sets were too different to have produced the identical graphs presented in their assignments, and this suggested that data transfer between the two groups could have taken place electronically. Therefore, one person in a group could have aided the other without the other members' knowledge. The fact that ABC's data set matched the graph suggested that ABC was the one most likely giving information to DEF.

The Council then compared the textual similarities among the assignments. One of the members suggested that the few differences within the close similarities could have been the result of extensive discussion/collaboration between ABC and DEF, as opposed to electronic transfer of text (as suggested by the expert witness). The witness's deposition strengthened the possibility that all members of ABC had collaborated with DEF. The identical text in GHI's paper, while not as frequent as the occurrences in ABC's and DEF's papers, also suggested that this group was in collaboration with the other groups.

JK's paper was considered, but many members felt that J was not involved in the violation and that there was not enough evidence to support the possibility of K collaborating with the other three groups. The Council took an initial straw poll.

Straw Poll #1: Did a Violation Occur?
In Violation: 9
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

The Council then determined whether individual students had committed violation. Since evidence suggested the existence of collaboration between the groups beyond what the professor's Honor Code policy allowed, many of the members felt that most of the accused within the three groups had committed a violation.

Straw Poll #3: Did Student A Commit a Violation?
In Violation: 9
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #4: Did Student B Commit a Violation?
In Violation: 9
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #5: Did Student C Commit a Violation?
In Violation: 9
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #7: Did Student E Commit a Violation?
In Violation: 9
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #8: Did Student F Commit a Violation?
In Violation: 9
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #9: Did Student G Commit a Violation?
In Violation: 9
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #10: Did Student H Commit a Violation?
In Violation: 9
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #12: Did Student J Commit a Violation?
In Violation: 0
Not In Violation: 9
Abstentions: 0

The Council debated on whether student K committed a violation. A few of the members thought the textual similarities between GHI's and JK's papers suggested that information was shared between the two groups, but most members felt that there was not enough evidence.

Straw Poll #14: Did Student K Commit a Violation?
In Violation: 3
Not In Violation: 6
Abstentions: 0

A few members had difficulty determining whether Student D was in violation. One member felt that he did not commit a violation because of his exclusion from the work, but most Council members felt that since his name was submitted with the group assignment, he was responsible for any aid that was received for the assignment. Many members felt that mitigating circumstances (a violation resulting from an action unknown to the accused) would compensate for his situation. Similar difficulties arose with Student I, whose work was not represented in the submitted assignment.

Straw Poll #15: Did Student D Commit a Violation?
In Violation: 8
Not In Violation: 1
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #16: Did Student I Commit a Violation?
In Violation: 8
Not In Violation: 1
Abstentions: 0

Because unanimous decisions are required to find the accused In Violation, Students D and I were found Not In Violation of the Honor Code.

The Council then looked at penalties for the accused students found in violation. Most of the Council felt that similar penalties should be given within members of the same group. Since students G and H committed a violation only on textual similarities, the Council considered their penalties first. The maximum penalty given under the Council's penalty structure is an F in the course with a 2-semester suspension, to be reduced as mitigating circumstances apply. Severity was the only mitigating circumstance considered.

Straw Poll #17: Student G's Penalty
F + 2 semester suspension: 0
F + 1 semester suspension: 0
F in the course: 2
F on the assignment: 2
Zero on the assignment: 3
Abstentions: 2

Members debated on the extent of the severity of the violation and voted again, eliminating F+2 and F+1 because no members had voted for those penalties. A 2-letter grade reduction in the course was also added as an option.

Straw Poll #18: Student G's Penalty
F in the course: 0
2 letter grade reduction in the course: 2
F on the assignment: 1
Zero on the assignment: 6
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #19: Student H's Penalty
F + 2 semester suspension: 0
2 letter grade reduction in the course: 2
F on the assignment: 1
Zero on the assignment: 6
Abstentions: 0

The Council next considered penalties for students A, B, and C. Members did not consider cooperation as a mitigating circumstance, and severity did not apply as much as in G and H's cases because there were more textual similarities among ABC's project and DEF's and GHI's. Some members pointed out that the quantitative similarities between ABC and DEF could have been the work of a single member of ABC, rather than the group as a whole, and since it could not be determined which of the group members had shared that information, none of the group could be held accountable. After a few preliminary straw polls, the consensus penalty was eliminated and a three letter grade reduction in the course was added.

Straw Poll #22: Student A's Penalty
F in the course: 0
3 letter grade reduction in the course: 5
2 letter grade reduction in the course: 1
Zero on the assignment + 1 letter grade reduction in the course: 1
Zero on the assignment: 2
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #23: Student B's Penalty
F + 2 semester suspension: 0
3 letter grade reduction in the course: 6
2 letter grade reduction in the course: 1
Zero on the assignment + 1 letter grade reduction in the course: 1
Zero on the assignment: 1
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #24: Student C's Penalty
F + 2 semester suspension: 0
3 letter grade reduction in the course: 6
2 letter grade reduction in the course: 1
Zero on the assignment + 1 letter grade reduction in the course: 1
Zero on the assignment: 1
Abstentions: 0

The council then considered the penalties of students E and F. This group had the most severe violation because their quantitative part was a blatant copy of ABC's part, and evidence supported that they had used information (both textual and quantitative) from ABC's paper. Student F had an unusual family circumstance, but the Council determined it did not qualify as severe and unusual emotional distress.

Straw Poll #25: Student F's Penalty
F + 2 semester suspension: 0
F + 1 semester suspension: 2
F in the course: 7
Abstentions: 0

Student E's penalty was considered separately from Student F's penalty because he had been convicted of violating the Honor Code in a previous case and thus already had a suspension clause attached to his record.

Straw Poll #26: Student E's Penalty
F + 2 semester suspension: 3
F + 1 semester suspension: 6
F in the course: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw polls 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Students D, I, J, and K Not In Violation of the Honor Code.

The Honor Council finds Students A, B, C, E, F, G, and H In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends that Students A, B, and C each receive a penalty of a three-letter grade reduction in the course, that Student E receive a penalty of an F in the course + 1 semester suspension, that Student F receive a penalty of an F in the course, and that Students G and H each receive a penalty of a zero on the assignment. Additionally, a suspension clause should be attached to their records.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 9 hours and 5 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Geneva Rhee,
Clerk

Last modified Monday, December 16, 2002 11:53 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu