Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Rehearing of Case #1, Fall 2002
February 27, 2003

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

Dr. Bass received appeals from Students A, B, C and E from Case #1 of Fall 2002 and felt these appeals contained new evidence; therefore, she requested the Honor Council have a rehearing of Case #1.

Evidence Submitted:

Opening Statements:
Student A and Student C chose not to make an opening statement. Student B stated that all the work done for the assignment was done in a team and that his group had not violated the Honor Code. Student E wanted the Council to know that he was asked to join the rehearing because of the new evidence brought forth, but stated that none of the new evidence effected his group. Student E stated he felt the penalty the Council gave him was too harsh and hoped the Council would consider his request for a lesser penalty.

Testimony:
The council began by asking questions about the Student's appeals. Student B had apologized to the Council in his appeal and said he was disappointed by his actions. Student B was asked by the Council to clarify this statement and he told the Council that he was apologizing for the inappropriate actions his team made by having a group discussion with other teams. He said that he did not cheat and the theoretical discussion that the groups had was not a violation of the Honor Code. He also explained that his disappointment in his actions was because he was brought to a hearing before the Honor Council.

Student C was asked to explain the series of e-mails that were attached to his appeal. Student C claimed that these e-mails showed his group did their own work. Student C also noted that he showed these e-mails in the original hearing and that this was not an introduction of new evidence, just an emphasis of the evidence that at the first hearing.

Closing Statements:
Student A stated that his group did their own work and that they had no motive for cheating. He said he didn't know how the similarities occurred between the work of his group and the other groups and that they didn't copy any one else's work. He said he felt the penalty he was given was excessive based on the penalties that were given to other groups.

Student B stated that the penalty he received was excessive and that he suffered enough by being embarrassed in front of his classmates and his professor. He said the meetings held with other groups were only discussions and no work was shared. Student C also thought his penalty was excessive. Student E stated he did all of his work with his teammates and did not share any information with the other students in the class. He stated that he did not think it was fair that the other students in his group received a lesser penalty than he did, even though he had been found In Violation of the Honor Code before.

Deliberation:
All members present agreed that no influential new evidence was brought forth. The Council also noted that most of the effects that the Students wanted the Council to consider were external effects. The Council agreed that the accused were being cooperative, but they never gave a reason for the identical graphs in the reports. The Council felt that the e-mails provided by Student C were not substantial and did not prove that group did their own work.

Straw Poll #1 - Did a violation occur?
In Violation: 9
Not in Violation: 0

Straw Poll #2 - Is Student A in Violation?
In Violation: 9
Not in Violation: 0

The Council discussed why Student A was found In Violation in the first hearing. This group had identical text and graphs included in their assignment as another group and could not tell us why these similarities occurred.

Straw Poll #3 - Is Student B in Violation?
In Violation: 9
Not in Violation: 0
Straw Poll #4 - Is Student C in Violation?
In Violation: 9
Not in Violation: 0

The Council discussed Student E's case. He had a suspension clause attached to his record and that is why his penalty was higher than the other members of his group. His appeal to the Council contained only external effects, which the Council cannot consider.

Straw Poll #5 - Is Student E in Violation?
In Violation: 9
Not in Violation: 0

The consensus penalty for this violation is an F and a 2-semester suspension; therefore, this penalty was automatically considered. The Council also considered the penalty from the original hearing, a 3-letter grade reduction in the course. The Council discussed mitigating circumstances and felt that cooperation did not apply, but that severity did. It was noted that severity was considered in the last hearing when deciding on an appropriate penalty.

Straw Poll #6 - Student A's penalty
F+2: 0
3 letter grade reduction in course: 9

Straw Poll #7 - Student B's penalty
F+2: 0
3 letter grade reduction in course: 9

The Council discussed the fact that Student C joined his group late and the possibility of giving a different penalty based on this fact. All members felt that since the other group members said they had only completed one small part of the assignment when Student C joined the group that he should get the same penalty as the other group members. Student C also admitted to being at the meetings where the ideas for the assignment were discussed with the other groups.

Straw Poll #8 - Student C's penalty
F+2: 0
3 letter grade reduction in course: 9

The Council next discussed Student E's appeal. Student E received a higher penalty than his other group members because he had a suspension clause attached to his record. Student E felt that his penalty was excessive, but the Council noted that he did not receive the maximum penalty of an F and a 2-semester suspension. The Council discussed cooperation, but felt it did not apply because he would not tell why his group's assignments had identical sections to other group's assignments. The Council noted that severity was considered at the last hearing and that is why Student E did not receive the maximum penalty.

Straw Poll #9 - Student E's penalty
F+2: 0
F+1: 9

Straw Polls 1- 9 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A, B, C and E In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends that Students A, B and C receive a 3 letter grade reduction in the course and that Student E receive a penalty of an F and a 1 semester suspension. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to their records.

Time of Trial and Deliberation:1 hour, 10 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Rebecca C. Daprato, Clerk

Last modified Sunday, April 20, 2003 04:28 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu