Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #16, Spring 2004
March 24, 2004

Members Present:
John Pitcher (presiding), Joshua Barron, John Britt, R. Alexander Garcia, Loyola Grescot, Roy Ha, Ashley Rachelle Head (non-binding vote), Jason Love, Amber Obermeyer, Becky Thilo

Ombuds:
Anshu Duggal

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received two letters of accusation, one from Student A, and one from a professor in a lower level natural sciences class. Student A’s self-accusation accused Student A of using improper aids on two homeworks. The letter of accusation submitted by the professor made the additional charge that Student A used improper aid on a take-home exam.

Evidence Submitted:

Also available was the Web site for the course in question.

Plea:
Student A plead In Violation

Opening:
Student A referred to her statements given during the investigation for her opening statement.

Testimony:
In the testimony, Student A explained how the professor confronted Student A about cheating on a test which prompted Student A to turn herself in to the Honor Council. She also explained how she had been able to acquire the solutions from the course website that had allowed her to gain access to past solutions. She emphasized that she had already not turned in a homework set in order to penalize herself for the violation. She also stated that while she did know she was violating the code when she committed the violation, the student activity that had caused time pressure on her would not be done in future semesters. When asked whether or not the test would have been mentioned had the professor not turned in an accusation, Student A indicated that she had not planned to mention the test.

Closing:
In closing, Student A asked to not be suspended, because she felt that she had learned her lesson from this instance and she felt she made good contributions to the Rice community.

Deliberation:
All members of the Council felt that a violation had occurred.

Straw Poll #1: Did a Violation Occur?
Yes: 9 + 1 non-binding
No: 0
Abstain: 0

Straw Poll #2: Is Student A In-violation?
Yes: 9 + 1 non-binding
No: 0
Abstain: 0

The Council then discussed the nature of the violation. Some members felt that using the website flaw made this a serious violation, comparable to going into a professor’s unlocked office and looking through papers. Others felt that the way the solutions were acquired was not extremely serious, more comparable with getting an old copy of the homework from a roommate. The fact that the self-accusation was done after being confronted by a professor, and that the self-accusation did not completely state all aspects of the violation pointed to a pattern of dishonesty by the accused. Other members felt that the first accusation should not reflect on the honesty of the accused student, and that the Council should base the decision on the second accusation and the testimony at the hearing. It was also mentioned that the extracurricular activity that Student A mentioned as a cause of the violation was a voluntary activity.

The Council then discussed mitigating circumstances. Since Student A had only self-accused after being confronted by the professor, it was not an unprompted self-accusation, and thus the standard CPS applied. The Council also decided that the mitigating circumstances of extreme and unusual emotional stress did not apply since the stress was voluntary. The “action unknown to the accused” circumstance also did not apply, since Student A was fully aware of her actions.

Cooperation was a different matter though. Some members felt that the student was very cooperative as evidenced by her testimony at the hearing. Other members felt that the written statements of Student A from the two investigative meetings showed dishonesty and non-full disclosure.

Finally members discussed whether the penalty should be mitigated based on the nature of the violation. It was mentioned that the portion that Student A violated the Code on was not a very large portion of her final grade. Other members felt that the fact that the code had been violated on three separate occasions meant that there could be no mitigation on the nature of the violation.

Straw Poll #3: Penalty for Student A
F + 2: 0
F + 1: 7 + 1 non-binding vote
F: 1
Abstain: 1

Those advocating for an F in the course and a one semester suspension felt that Student A had cooperated, but not enough to lower the penalty to just an F. The Council member that felt an F was the appropriate penalty said that Student A should not be penalized simply because there was a good case against her.

Straw Poll #4: Penalty for Student A
F + 1: 8 + 1 non-binding
F: 1
Abstain: 0

Straw Polls 1,2, and 4 were made binding. The Honor Council thus finds Student A In-Violation of the Honor Code and recommends that she receive an F in the course and a one semester suspension. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to her record.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Barron
Clerk

Last modified Monday, March 29, 2004 8:45 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu