Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #20, Spring 2003
November 18, 2003

Members Present:
Keith Henneke (presiding), R. Alexander Garcia, Andrea Melton, Amber Obermeyer, Mike Silva, John Stevens, Amy Tilley, Harold Troxel, Travis Youngblood

Ombuds:
Brandon Wagner, Mariam Chugtai (observing), Michael Hardy (observing)

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a grader of a middle level math course. The letter stated that on the day when the final exams were being graded, a student approached the graduate student graders to ask various questions, but as the student was about to leave the room, the student dropped an exam near the stack of partially graded exams. It was thought that the student was attempting to “slip in” her late exam.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
The accused plead Not in Violation

Testimony:
In the student’s opening statement, the student claimed that it would have been impossible for the violation to occur considering the place in which the student was seated during the exam. She claimed that seated in her particular chair, any and all students were able to see her, and so would have been able to easily see her take the exam out of the room. Instead, she insisted that she not only did the exam, but also turned it in as well on the day the exam was scheduled. Finally, she pointed out that she had done extremely well in the class throughout the semester, and that she would have had no need to commit a violation on the final exam.

The student told the Council that she did approach the gradate student graders to ask them if they knew where the professor was. The Council further questioned the student regarding the nature of that visit. The student said that she was originally going to take the exam at a later date, but chose to take it during the original set time. Thus, the student said she went to the office two days later to pick up her homework and to let the appropriate people know that she did not need to take the late exam anymore. Because she couldn’t find the professor, she said she decided to approach the graduate student graders to find out when the professor would be available. The student ultimately claimed that, although she had graded homework with her, she did not drop anything near or around the area where the graduate students were located (grading the exams).

Finally, the Council heard the testimony of the two witnesses. Even though both witnesses said that they could not remember the particular student (who dropped the exam) well enough to be able to recognize the student a second time, they assured the Council that only one student approached them that day. One of the witnesses claimed to have actually seen the particular student drop the exam. Furthermore, the witnesses told the Council that all exams that were turned in were partially graded. The test that the particular student dropped was completely un-graded.

Deliberation:
All Council members expressed the initial belief that a violation of some sort must have occurred. However, a few members felt that there existed certain ambiguities when considering possible relations and connections between the evidence and the accused. Moreover, some felt it unhelpful to the case that the witnesses said they’d be unable to recognize the student that dropped the exam a second time. The majority of members felt the evidence presented a clear case. They noted that the accused admitted to having visited the graduate student graders. They pointed out that the graders would have no reason to lie to the Council. Furthermore, they reflected on the fact that the graders only received one student visitor the day the violation occurred. After careful discussions, the Council decided to vote on whether the accused was either In or Not in Violation.

Straw pole #2 (Accused student in Violation)
In Violation 9
Not in Violation 0
Abstentions 0

Thus, the student was found In Violation of the Honor Code. The Council then debated the penalty for the violation. All members felt that no mitigating circumstances applied. Therefore, it was believed that the appropriate penalty would be the consensus penalty: an F in the course and a 2-semester suspension from Rice. A final straw pole was taken.

Straw Pole #3 (Penalty)
F in the course + 2-semester suspension 9
F in the course + 1-semester suspension 0
F in the course 0
Abstentions 0

Straw polls 2 and 3 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds the accused student In Violation of the Honor Code, and recommends to the Assistant Dean of Student Judicial Affairs that the student receive an F in the course and a 2-semester suspension from Rice. A suspension clause will also be attached to the student’s record.

Time of Hearing and Deliberation: 2 hours, 45 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

R. Alexander Garcia
Clerk

Last modified Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:29 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu