Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #21, Spring 2003
September 28, 2003

Members Present:
John Pitcher (presiding), Joshua Barron, Sally Anne Gutting, Roy Ha, Marcie Jackson, Andrea Melton, Amber Obermeyer, John Stevens, Stephen Zak, Michelle Calabretta (non-binding vote), Rachel Hamilton (non-binding vote), Rebecca Thilo (non-binding vote)

Ombuds:
Brandon Wagner

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a formal letter of accusation from a professor in a lower level engineering class. The letter accused Students X, Y, and Z of more collaboration than allowed under the Honor Code policy of the class.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student X plead Not in Violation. Student Y pled Not in Violation. Student Z pled Not in Violation.

Testimony:
Student X asked that the council refer to his written statement instead of making an opening statement and reiterated the point that he followed the honor code policy of the course to the letter, if perhaps misunderstanding the instructor's intent. Student Y also asked the council to refer to his written statement instead of making an opening statement and reiterated the point that he followed the honor code policy of the course to the letter, if not the instructor's intended policy. Student Z referred to his written statement and mentioned that the teaching assistant for the class may not have a full appreciation of the professor's Honor Code policy for the class. During questioning, Students X, Y, and Z stated that they waited to write the solutions to each homework problem individually after finding solutions in discussions. Students Y and Z also stated that they used discussion notes to compare final solutions and waited a required time period before applying corrections from the notes. Students X, Y, and Z stated that their interpretation of the honor code policy for the class allowed the use of such discussion notes in place of group discussions. The students also attributed erasures of answers and incorrect notation to differences in thought processes when writing solutions and memorization of solutions in group sessions. The students collectively agreed that they had forgotten to write the names of their collaborating group members as required by the course Honor Code policy. In his closing statement, Student X stated that all the students followed the honor code policy to the letter. In closing, Student Y expressed surprise that something noted in homework number 6 was not noted formally for one month. In his closing statement, Student Z stated that he saw no difference in using discussion notes and having a discussion with other students. Such notes would require more thought than asking another student for an answer.

Deliberation:
Some members of the council expressed misgivings about the Professor's intent in writing the honor code policy and the interpretation that Students X, Y, and Z gave for the policy. Students X, Y, and Z all stated that they followed the letter of the honor code policy while probably violating the instructor's intended policy. However, it was noted that there was no intended violation, and the policy was followed very specifically. A council member pointed out that each of the students neglected to write down the names of collaborators on each of the assignments in question, which was also clearly stated in the honor code policy. To prevent confusion, it was decided to vote on each type of violation separately.

Straw Poll #1: Did a Violation Occur relating to individuals writing down own solutions, waiting the designated time after discussions, or not referring to notes from such discussions?
Yes: 2
No: 6 + 3(non-binding)
Abstention: 1

Council members then discussed whether or not the evidence pointed to a clear violation of the honor code or simply to group practices that were distasteful. Another straw poll was taken after discussion.

Straw Poll #2: Did a Violation occur relating to individuals writing down own solutions, waiting the designated time after discussions, or not referring to notes from such discussions?
Yes: 2
No: 7 + 3 (non-binding)
Abstention: 0

The council decided that no further discussion was necessary relating to the collaboration portion of the honor code policy. Discussion moved to the listing of collaborators on assignments. The council members all felt that the honor code policy was violated but that the students did not intend the violations. Straw polls were taken to establish this.

Straw Poll #3: Did a Violation of not clearly listing all collaborators occur?
Yes: 9 + 2 (non-binding)
No: 0
Abstentions: 1 (non-binding)

Straw Poll #4: Is Student X in Violation of not clearly listing collaborators on HW 6, 8, and 10?
Yes: 9 + 3 (non-binding)
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #5: Is Student Y in Violation of not clearly listing collaborators on HW 6, 8, and 10?
Yes: 9 + 3 (non-binding)
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #6: Is Student Z in Violation of not clearly listing collaborators on HW 6, 8, and 10?
Yes: 9 + 3 (non-binding)
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Mitigating circumstances were discussed. Severity and cooperation were the only circumstances found to apply. Council members felt that the Students did not intentionally violate the honor code policy for the class and would had followed it if they had thought it more important. Council members also felt that the Students told the truth throughout the hearing and fully disclosed all their actions. Penalties were suggested and a poll was taken.

Straw Poll #7: Penalties for Student X
F in the course and a 2 semester suspension: 0
Loss of credit for HW 6, 8, and 10 and reaveraged grade for course: 0
Grade of 0 for HW 6, 8, and 10: 1
Letter of Reprimand: 7 + 3 (non-binding)
Loss of 1 letter grade in course: 0
Loss of 1/3 letter grade in course: 1
Abstentions: 0

For students Y and Z, it was moved to remove all suggested penalties that received no votes in previous polls.

Straw Poll #8: Penalties for Student Y
F in the course and a 2 semester suspension: 0
Grade of 0 for HW 6, 8, and 10: 0
Letter of Reprimand: 8 + 3 (non-binding)
Loss of 1/3 letter grade in course: 1
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #9: Penalties for Student Z
F in the course and a 2 semester suspension: 0
Letter of Reprimand: 8 + 3 (non-binding)
Loss of 1/3 letter grade in course: 1
Abstentions: 0

Straw polls 2-9 were made binding. Thus, the Honor Council finds students X, Y, and Z in violation of the Honor Code and recommends that they be given a letter of reprimand. Additionally, a suspension clause should be attached to their records.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 2 hours, 1 minute

Respectfully Submitted,

Roy Ha,
Clerk

Last modified Monday, October 6, 2003 2:23 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu