Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #1, Fall, 2003
November 9, 2003

Members Present:
John Pitcher (presiding), R. Alexander Garcia, Roy Ha, Jason Love, Andrea Melton, Divya Pande, Elspeth Simpson, Harold Troxel, Stephen Zak, Rachel Hamilton (non-binding vote), Razvan Ungureanu (non-binding vote)

Ombuds:
Anshu Duggal

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received two letters of accusation from two TA’s of a lower level science class. The first letter of accusation stated that Student A and Student B turned in nearly identical assignments, and that excessive collaboration was against the Honor Code policy. The second letter of accusation stated that both student A’s and student B’s re-submissions of their assignments were also nearly identical.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Both Student A and Student B plead Not in Violation

Testimony:
In their opening statements, both Student A and Student B stated that they had worked together and that they each did in fact turn in nearly identical assignments. However, both students further stated that they were told it was permissible. They said that at the beginning of the semester, their TA’s expressed that it was fine for students who worked together to turn in the same assignment as long as they made very minor changes on each of their own assignments. Specifically, both students stated that the TA’s initial presentation of the policy was ambiguous.

The council questioned the students further regarding the specifics of how they worked together on the assignment. The Council pointed out the written Honor Code policy for the lab session (which stated that students were not to collaborate excessively), and also pointed out the instructions included on the assignment (which stated that students were not allowed to copy from each other). They were then asked if they had read these instructions and/or had talked to the professor specifically about the policy. Both students said that they did not pay much attention to the written policy because they had heard their TA’s specifically say that students working together were able to turn in the same assignment as long as very minor changes were made (which both student A and student B did). The Council then examined the random student depositions and the Council also questioned all three witnesses. From this, it became apparent that no student was able to fully remember and/or state specifically the Honor Code Policy, but several students did claim that they had also heard the TA’s say identical assignments could be turned in with minor changes.

Deliberation:
The Council deliberated extensively about ambiguities and miscommunications, and how it is important that a TA explain the Honor Code policy clearly to their students. The Council considered the fact that none of the random student depositions and none of witnesses’ depositions displayed the clarity or gravity that the TA’s said they had demonsted regarding the Honor Code Policy. Some Council members mentioned the importance of every student’s responsibility to clarify any and all ambiguities to avoid committing violations. But, since the Council was unable to develop a clear picture of precisely what Honor Code policy had been explained to the students, many members felt that a vote of Not In Violation was appropriate.

A straw poll was taken regarding whether or not a violation occurred.

Straw Poll #1 (Student A and Student B In Violation)
In Violation 4 + 1 non-binding
Not In Violation 5 + 1 non-binding
Abstentions 0


Thus, both Student A and Student B were found Not In Violation of the Honor Code. Straw poll #1 was made non-binding.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour, 38 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

R. Alexander Garcia
Clerk

Last modified Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:22 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu