Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #22, Spring 2003
October 29, 2003

Members Present:
Keith Henneke (presiding), Amy Askin, Richard Barker, Joshua Barron, Michelle Calabretta, Loyola Gressot, John Stevens, Becky Thilo (non-binding vote), Amy Tilley, Stephen Zak

Ombuds:
Kate Gurba

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 A and B of more collaboration than allowed under the Honor Code policy of the class.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled not in-violation to too much collaboration but in-violation to not putting the names of her collaborators on her homework. Student B pled not in-violation.

Testimony:
Student B began by referring to a discrepancy in the numbering between the TA and professor’s statements. She also pointed out that similarities between their homework were due largely to the nature of the homework. Student A felt that she did not have much to add to her written statement and Student B’s opening statement other than to say that she forgot to put the name of her collaborator on her homework just because of carelessness, not because she was trying to violate the code.

During questioning, the Council asked how the homework were done, specifically how a diagram that was mentioned by the professor was come up with. The accused explained that after forming the diagram together, it was not hard to reproduce it even after time had passed. Student B went into detail about how she had had trouble getting a grade back on one of the homework in question, and submitted emails and her grade into evidence. In their closing statements, both Students A and B reiterated their opening statements.

Deliberation:
Almost all Council Members expressed the opinion that a violation had occurred based on the fact that collaborators were not listed. Some members also believed that the professor had a very ambiguous honor code policy. After looking at the evidence, the general consensus was that it was not possible to prove that a violation beyond not submitting the names of collaborators had occurred.

Straw Poll #1
Did a violation occur?
Yes 9 + 1 non-binding
No 0
Abstain 0

Straw Poll #2
Is Student B in-violation?
Yes 9 + 1 non-binding
No 0
Abstain 0

Straw Poll #3
Is Student A in-violation?
Yes 9 + 1 non-binding
No 0
Abstain 0

The council then discussed mitigating circumstances. Neither student self-accused. Everyone felt that cooperation applied, though the view that Student A deserved more mitigation on the basis of cooperation was expressed, since Student A had plead in-violation. However, other members expressed the belief that both Student A and Student B had fully disclosed everything and this constituted equal cooperation, regardless of their pleas.

The Council also discussed mitigation on the basis of severity. Many members felt that this was a very minor, technical violation, but one member cautioned against being too lenient, as the failure to list collaborators could have been used to cover up violations. The other two mitigating circumstances of severe emotional distress and actions unknown to the accused were found not to apply.

Straw Poll #4
Penalty for Student B
F + 2 0
Letter of Reprimand 8 + 1 non-binding
Letter of Reprimand + 1 grade reduction on both homework assignments 1
Abstain 0

Straw Poll #5
Penalty for Student A
F + 2 0
Letter of Reprimand 9 + 1 non-binding
Letter of Reprimand + 1 grade reduction on both homework assignments 0
Abstain 0

Straw polls 1-5 were made binding. Thus, the Honor Council finds students A and B in-violation of the Honor Code and recommends that they be given a letter of reprimand. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to their records.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Barron,
Clerk

Last modified Thursday, November 6, 2003 10:30 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu