Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #2, Fall, 2003
December 14, 2003

Members Present:
John Pitcher (presiding), Amy Askin, Michelle Calabretta, Chris Edwards, Roy Ha, Jason Longoria, Amy Tilley, Travis Youngblood, Stephen Zak, John Horstman (non-binding vote)

Ombuds:
Anshu Duggal

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a formal letter of accusation from a professor in an upper level engineering class. The letter accused Students A and B of collaborating on two questions of a take home examination.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled Not in Violation. Student B pled Not in Violation.

Testimony:
Students A and B presented the Council with a written addendum statement which they consulted as an opening statement. The addendum explained how each student developed similar answers from different thought processes. Initial questioning established the timeline when Students A and B took the examination and submitted them. They explained that similarities in variable names were due to studying together in the past and that the underlying approach and thought processes were different. They also referred to similar mistakes made in other students’ exams as defense for observed wrong answers. Both students submitted timelines for the night they took the examination and explained that it was not possible that collaboration occurred. They presented a witness who reiterated that it was plausible that Students A and B did not collaborate. In closing, Students A and B submitted a list of differences in their examinations. They explained that their approaches to the problems differed and that there was situational evidence that supported their assertions.

Deliberation:
The Council believed from the testimony and evidence that there were several individual similarities between the examinations, but that each similarity could be circumstantial. The general consensus was that it was possible for the similarities to exist without collaboration, especially considering the different thought processes described by the accused. Some members brought up the fact that the similarities that existed in the two examinations were greater than any of the similarities in the other examinations. The erasure of part of a solution Student B submitted was discussed but nothing could be concluded from it. The inconsistencies in the timelines presented by Students A and B were also discussed, but it was also decided that the timeline was not a deciding factor in this particular case. An initial straw poll was taken to gauge the opinion of the council.

Straw Poll #1: Did a Violation occur?
Yes: 0
No: 8 + 1 (non-binding)
Abstentions: 1


Some members felt that a violation may have occurred but that there was insufficient evidence to warrant such a decision. The Council further discussed similarities between the examinations that were not present in the examinations from other class members. It was decided that it was plausible that the similarities could have occurred due to Students A and B studying and doing homework together. Another Straw Poll was taken.

Straw Poll #2: Did a Violation occur?
Yes: 0
No: 9 + 1 (non-binding)
Abstentions: 0


Straw poll 2 was made binding. Thus, the Honor Council finds students A and B not in violation of the Honor Code.

Time of Hearing and Deliberation: 2 hours, 27 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Roy Ha
Clerk

Last modified Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:35 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu