Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #14, Fall, 2003
January 27, 2004

Members Present:
Keith Henneke (chair), Amber Obermeyer, Amy Tilley, Harold Troxel, John Stevens, Michael Silva, Stephen Zak, Travis Youngblood, Jason Love, Prashant Setty (observing), John Horstman (observing)

Ombuds:
Anshu Duggal

Letter of Accusation:
Student A submitted a letter of self-accusation over a take home, closed notes midterm in an upper level engineering course. Student A accidentally saw a page of notes during the test period, which he used to answer a portion of a question during the exam.s

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A plead In Violation

Testimony:
Student A explained the circumstances of the exam (closed note, virtually unlimited time). After opening the test the student remembered he was recommended to study the final questions at the end of each chapter. Student had seen 2 questions so avoided all portions of notes about first two questions except one page of notes. Student A unintentionally saw a page of notes regarding the second question and incorporated a portion of the notes he saw into his answer for the question. Student A estimated the portion of the question covered by the notes he saw was worth half the question.

Deliberation:
Council unanimously agreed that a violation occurred.

Straw Poll #1
Did a Violation occur?
Yes: 9 + 2 non-binding votes
No: 0
Abstention: 0


Discussion moved to mitigating circumstances. Council agreed there had been a self-accusation made in good faith, that the accused had cooperated with the council, and that the nature of the violation was that it was done without malicious intent. The council did not think the accused was under severe emotional distress, or that the violation had occurred due to actions unknown to the accused.

The Consensus Penalty Structure states that the maximum penalty for a self-accusation made in good faith is an F in the course. Other penalties suggested were a zero on the question, loss of half of the credit received on the question, and a letter of reprimand.

Straw Poll #2
F: 0
Zero on the question: 2
Loss of half of the credit received on the question: 4 + 1 non-binding vote
Letter of reprimand: 2 + 1 non-binding vote
Abstention: 1

Those in favor of a letter of reprimand felt that the letter would be a significant enough penalty in light of the self-accusation. Others felt that the student should not be rewarded for the violation, so should at least lose credit for the portion of the exam that was covered by the notes used in the violation.

Straw poll #3
Zero on the question: 0
Loss of half of the credit received on the question: 7 + 1 non-binding vote
Letter of reprimand: 2 + 1 non-binding vote
Abstention: 0

Straw polls 1 and 3 were made binding. Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends a penalty of loss of half of the credit received on the question. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to his record.

Time of trial and deliberation: 30 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Jason Love
Clerk

Last modified Friday, January 30, 2004 9:05 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu