| Honor Council Rice
University |
|
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #2, Fall, 2002
December 4, 2002
Members Present:
Keith Henneke (Presiding), Kevin Arceneaux, Amy Askin, Ryan Bergauer, Robert Cardnell, Jason Longoria, Marie Ng, Ravi Patel, Joan Shreffler
Ombuds:
Robert Emmett
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a formal letter of accusation from a professor of a graduate level management class accusing two students of collaborating on an exam.
Evidence Submitted:
- Letter of Accusation
- Student A's Written Statement
- Addendum to Student A's Statement
- Student B's Written Statement
- Class Syllabus
- Study Guide for Exam Review (also posted on website)
- Exam Questions
- Accuser's analysis of four parts of exams
- Student A's exam
- Student B's exam
- Email submitting Student A's exam
- Email submitting Student B's exam
- Material Used by Student A in preparing for and taking the exam
- Material Used by Student B in preparing for and taking the exam (and picture of source)
- Depositions of three witnesses who saw Student B working on the exam
- Transcription of interview with grader of exams
- Deposition of Expert on Information Technology
- Email logs used by Expert
- Alternate Assignment submitted by Student A
- Electronic Copies of All electronically submitted Student Essays
- Hard Copy of a Random Sample of above essays
- Tape of interview with grade
Plea:
Students A and B both plead Not In Violation.
Testimony:
Neither of the accused claimed to know each other. The accused presented evidence that they each had received study guides which were emailed generally throughout the class and which accounted for some of the similarities between the documents. Student A noted that the signs of "cutting and pasting" identified in the letter of accusation were the result of cutting and pasting from an electronic copy of the notes. Student A also presented sources in the material available to the class which were used to answer some sections of the exam. Student B presented evidence, in the form of depositions, that she had no physical contact with Student A during the course of the exam. Neither students admitted to having shared network drives on the computers on which they took the exam.
Deliberation:
The council was struck by the similarities between the papers. Initially, it was unsure whether the evidence indicated that a violation occurred. However, noting that the similarities in the exams extended past correlations in content that might come from using the same notes to similarities in the structure of the essays, the council proceeded to examine the evidence further. The council determined that the similarities in structure and content were too extensive and specific to the assignment to be accounted for by the notes. A straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #2: Did a Violation Occur?
Yes 9
No 0
Abstentions 0
The council discussed whether the uncited use of notes written by others constituted plagiarism. The council remained divided on the issue, with some members finding that "the representation of anyone else's work as one's own" is an apt definition of plagiarism, and others arguing that the "presentation of copywrited material without citation" is more valid. The council proceeded to consider directionality. The council found sufficient evidence to indicate that parts of Student B's work was derived from Student A's work. While it did not see clear evidence that Student A's work was derived from Student B's work, the council discussed whether Student B could have obtained Student A's work without the knowledge and/or cooperation of Student A. A Straw Poll was taken.
Straw Poll #3: Is Student B in Violation of the Honor Code?
Yes 9
No 0
Abstentions 0
The council debated whether there was evidence that Student A gave aid to Student B. While much of the council felt that Student A must have given Student B aid, in the absence of compelling evidence that such aid was given, the council was unable to find Student A in violation.
Straw Poll #8: Is Student A in Violation of the Honor Code?
Yes 7
No 2
Abstentions 0
Penalties:
The council discussed mitigating factors for Student B. None were found to apply. The consensus penalty of an F in the course and a two semester suspension automatically was considered. An alternate penalty of an F in the course and a one semester suspension was suggested. A straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #6: Penalty for Student B
F+2 9
F+1 0
Abstentions 0
It was presented that Student B had a suspension clause attached to her record. Penalties were reconsidered. An F and a three semester suspension was suggested. A straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #9: Penalty for Student B
F+3 1
F+2 8
Abstentions 0
Straw Polls 2, 3, 8 and 9 were made binding.
Thus the Honor Council found Student B in violation of the Honor Code and recommends a punishment of an F in the course and a two semester suspension. Student A is found to be not in violation.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 4 hours, 15 minutes
Respectfully Submitted,
Ravi Patel,
Clerk
Last modified Tuesday, December 17, 2002 12:07 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu