Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #9, Fall 2002
February 6, 2003

Members Present:
Joan Shreffler (presiding), Josh Barron, Teresa Fu, Stephen Jones, Andrea Melton, Divya Pande, Ravi Patel, Zach Thomas, Stephen Zak

Ombuds:
Travis Youngblood, John Fossum (observing)

Letter of Accusation:
The Council received a formal letter of accusation from a professor of a lower level science class. The accused is charged with altering an assignment and submitting it for a regrade.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
In Violation.

Testimony:
The accused expressed remorse for his violation. He stated a willingness to have self-accused in retrospect. He further commented on the extent of his modifications of the original work. In his closing statement, the accused suggested a period of probation be part of his penalty.

Deliberation:
The Council felt there was an initial consensus as to whether a violation occurred.

Straw Poll #1: Is Student A in Violation of the Honor Code?
In Violation: 9
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

The Council discussed mitigating factors. It was generally held that the only applicable mitigating factor was cooperation, though severity was briefly considered and dismissed.

Straw Poll #2: Penalties
F in the course + 2 semester suspension: 1
F in the course + 1 semester suspension: 5
F in the course: 2
Abstentions: 1

The Council discussed further the mitigating factors and took another straw poll.

Straw Poll #3: Penalties
F in the course + 2 semester suspension: 0
F in the course + 1 semester suspension: 6
F in the course: 3
Abstentions: 0

The Council continued discussions, focusing on the issue of whether a suspension was appropriate in this case. Despite the degree of the accused student's cooperation, much of the Council felt that the severity of the violation warranted a suspension. Some of the council dissented. Another straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #4: Penalties
F in the course + 1 semester suspension: 7
F in the course: 2
Abstentions: 0

It was then revealed that the accused has a suspension clause attached to his record. This indicates that the accused has previously been found In Violation of the Honor Code, and that the Council is empowered to exceed the Consensus Penalty. The Council reviewed the abstract from the previous violation, and determined that the violations were very almost identical in nature.

The Council immediately agreed that although the hearing for the previous violation took place after the accusation for the second violation, the penalties should not be able to be served concurrently.

The penalty discussion was reopened. The Council concurred that in the light of the previous violation, the accused student's testimony did not constitute full disclosure. Furthermore, several Council members were concerned with the recurrent nature of the violations. New penalties were presented and a straw poll was held.

Straw Poll #5: Penalties
F in the course + indefinite suspension: 2
F in the course + more than 2 semester suspension: 2
F in the course + 2 semester suspension: 3
Abstentions: 2

The Council discussed the three groups of penalty choices. Some members felt that the nature of the violations combined were so severe that the accused should not be allowed to return to campus. Some members felt that the violations were severe enough to necessitate the accused being removed from campus for an extensive period of time, but not so severe as to remove him from campus indefinitely. Other council members felt that while the violation was severe, the fact that the accused had not been found in violation before committing this violation implied that he should not be penalized beyond the consensus penalty.

A discussion was opened with respect to the exact number of semesters that the accused would be suspended if the suspension clause was invoked and he was not suspended indefinitely. Further discussions on the relative appropriateness of the penalties also continued. Another straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #6: Penalties
F in the course + indefinite suspension: 2
F in the course + more than 2 semester suspension: 3
F in the course + 2 semester suspension: 4
Abstentions: 0

The Council established that if the suspension would exceed 2 semesters and remain finite, it would be for three semesters. A straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #7: Penalties
F in the course + indefinite suspension: 1
F in the course + 3 semester suspension: 4
F in the course + 2 semester suspension: 4
Abstentions: 0

The proponents of the indefinite suspension re-expressed their desire that the accused not be allowed to set foot on campus again, but were somewhat willing to compromise in the interest of establishing a consensus within the Council.

Straw Poll #8: Penalties
F in the course + indefinite suspension: 0
F in the course + more than 2 semester suspension: 5
F in the course + 2 semester suspension: 4
Abstentions: 0

The proponents of not invoking the suspension clause, re-expressed their opinion, but followed the opinion of the majority vote of the Council. The Council determined that the accused should be given a penalty greater than two semesters, thereby invoking the suspension clause. The Council discussed how many semesters the suspension would last. A straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #9: Penalties
F in the course + indefinite suspension: 2
F in the course + 3 semester suspension: 7
Abstentions: 0

Straw polls 1 and 9 were made binding.

Thus the Honor Council finds Student A in violation of the Honor Code, and sentences him to an F and a 3 semester suspension, to be served separately from his previous sentence.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour, 51 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Ravi Patel, Clerk

Last modified Sunday, February 16, 2003 05:21 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu