Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #17, Spring 2003
September 11, 2003

Members Present:
John Pitcher (presiding), Amy Askin, Jeb Britt, Chris Edwards, Marcie Jackson, Matt Overbeck, Mike Silva, Elspeth Simpson, Harold Troxel (non-binding vote), Stephen Zak.

Ombuds:
John Fossum

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation accusing Student A of taking an extra credit assignment in a lower level humanities class from the accuser and submitting the work as his own.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A plead Not In Violation

Testimony:
Student A made no opening statement. The accused student and the Council reviewed the evidence presented by both the accused and the accuser, and questions focused on establishing a timeline for the work and verifying the origins of the source materials for the accused’s assignment. The accused was largely unable to answer questions detailing how the assignment was completed. The accused also expressed concerns about the extent to which he was apprised of procedures prior to hearing throughout the testimony phase. The accused made no closing statement.

Deliberation:
Identifying a coherent timeline for the completion of both the accuser’s and the accused student’s assignments proved difficult. The most compelling evidence came in the near verbatim repetition of answers to open-ended questions. Most of the Council felt that there was sufficient evidence to find the accused in violation. One member could not completely rule out an alternate theory of the events as explained, and another member did not feel that the evidence sufficiently ruled out the possibility of coincidence, believing that the wording of the questions could have prompted the similar wordings. Thus, the Council was not uniformly agreed that Student A was in violation of the Honor Code. Straw Polls 1 and 2 were taken to establish this.

Straw Poll #1: Did a Violation Occur?
Yes: 8 (+1 non-binding vote)
No: 1
Abstention: 0

Straw Poll #2: Did a Violation Occur?
Yes: 7 (+1 non-binding vote)
No: 1
Abstention: 1

A brief discussion indicated that the “No” vote was unlikely to change without the consideration of new evidence, and the abstaining member indicated that a new vote would result in a vote of “No”

Straw Poll #3: Did a Violation Occur?
Yes: 7 (+1 non-binding vote)
No: 2
Abstention: 0
Straw poll 3 was made binding. Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A not in violation of the Honor Code in the course in question.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 2 hours, 21 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Chris Edwards,

Clerk

Last modified Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:49 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu