Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #12, Spring 2003
February 26, 2003

Members Present:
Joan Shreffler (presiding), Kevin Arceneaux, Amy Askin, Chris Conrad, Teresa Fu, Keith Henneke, Andrea Melton, Ravi Patel, Zach Thomas, Alex Garcia (non-binding vote), Roy Ha (non-binding vote), Mike Silva (non-binding vote)

Ombuds:
John Fossum, Travis Youngblood (observing)

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a formal letter of accusation from a professor in an upper-level engineering class. The letter accused Student A of using existing answers to complete an assignment.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled Not in Violation.

Testimony:
The accused admitted to downloading the solution set to the previous year’s homework key (which was virtually identical to the 2003 homework key). However, Student A explained that she only obtained this information to aid her understanding of the concepts used in the course. Student A said that upon hearing that it was against the honor code to use the solution set when doing the homework she immediately discarded the 2002 key. Student A said that any similarities between her homework and the solution set were based on her intense memorization of the solution set prior to its disposal. Student A admitted that she might have be wrong to use information from the solution set (through recollection) to complete her homework assignment.

Deliberation:
The Council unanimously agreed that a violation had occurred. While all members agreed that simply recalling information from a solution set in order to complete an assignment was a violation, there was some discussion on whether the student had actually looked at the problem set while completing the assignment. A council member pointed out that in one problem, Student A wrote a formula incorrectly (just as it was written in the answer sheet) yet managed to obtain the correct answer (also matching the answer sheet). The council member also pointed out that some of the data compiled by Student A exactly matched the data displayed in the homework sheet which was created using two slightly different programs. When questioned, Student A explained that she wasn’t even aware of the two programs. As a result of this discussion, all members were convinced that Student A had in fact directly relied on the solution set when she completed her assignment and in doing so violated the honor code. At this point the council members took their first straw poll.

Straw Poll #1: Is Student A In Violation?
In Violation: 9 + 3 non-binding
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

Council members then discussed if any mitigating circumstances applied in this case. Severity was considered because it was not clear just how much of the homework had been done with the assistance of the solution set. However, after discussion, members agreed that the serious nature of obtaining answers and then using them to complete an assignment negated any mitigating effects the size of the offense might entail.

Straw Poll #2: Penalty
F in course: 3 + 2
F + 1 semester suspension: 2
F + 2 semester suspension: 0
2 letter grade reduction: 2 + 1
1 letter grade reduction: 0
Abstentions: 2

Council members then discussed why they felt certain penalties were appropriate. An argument was made that an F+1 was appropriate because of the serious nature of the violation and of the lack of any mitigating circumstances. Another member pointed out that while the offense was serious, rehabilitation was a primary goal and giving the penalty of F+1 would not help to accomplish this goal. The council then took another straw poll.

Straw Poll #3: Penalty
F in course: 7+3
F+1 semester suspension: 2
F+2 semester suspension: 0
2 letter grade reduction: 0
1 letter grade reduction: 0
Abstentions: 0

All members felt comfortable with this vote and Straw Polls #1 and #3 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A in Violation of the Honor System and recommends that she receive an F in the course. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to her record.

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

Respectfully Submitted,

Chris Conrad, Clerk

Last modified Tuesday, March 4, 2003 01:28 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu