Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #17, Spring 2004
May 3, 2004

Members Present:
Chris Edwards (presiding), Amy Askin, Josh Barron, John Britt, Loyola Gressot, Roy Ha, Keith Henneke, Jonathan Jackson, Andrew Koller, Tina Chen (non-binding vote), Brandon Mack (non-binding vote), Emily Yeomans (non-binding vote)

Ombuds:
Michael Hardy

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a teaching assistant from an upper level engineering course. The letter accused Student A improperly using solutions from a previous offering of the class to complete an assignment.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled In Violation.

Testimony:
In his opening statement, Student A referred the Council to his written statement, particularly to the fact that there was no explicit Honor Code policy regarding homework for the course. Student A stated that other students worked together without documenting that fact which was similar to using a previous homework as aid and that the difficulty of the assignment made it almost impossible to complete the assignment without some form of aid.

In his testimony, Student A stated that the professor was not consulted about the exact Honor Code policy regarding homework and that such a policy was never mentioned in class. Student A stated that the previous solutions were not copied and were used to learn the material. Seeing other students working together led Student A to believe that no such policy existed. Neither the professor nor the teaching assistant for the course were consulted for aid on the assignment or for a statement of the Honor Code policy.

In his closing statement, Student A stated that his knowledge of the material was not misrepresented and couldn’t see how a violation could have occurred if there was no explicit policy regarding homework.

Deliberation:
The Council was divided in its opinion as to whether or not a violation occurred. Members felt that the student should have certainly asked the professor about a clear statement regarding his policy on using previous solution keys. However, some members felt it was not correct to punish a student for not consulting the professor. The lack of citation was an issue for several members, who felt that any source should have been cited. A few members also believed that the use of solutions from a previous year should have raised possible concerns for any student. Many members were discouraged about the lack of disclosure from the professor in his deposition regarding his own policy.

A straw poll was taken to assess where the Council stood on whether or not a violation occurred.

Straw Poll #1: Did a Violation Occur?

Yes: 4 (+1 non-binding)
No: 3
Abstentions: 2 (+2 non-binding)

The leading factor in the difference of opinion was the extent to which the professor’s answers to questions in his deposition made it clear that the homework policy was completely ambiguous. After further discussion of the professor’s intentions regarding the policy, another poll was taken to gauge the Council’s opinion.

Straw Poll #2: Did a Violation Occur?

Yes: 4 (+1 non-binding)
No: 4 (+2 non-binding)
Abstentions: 1

The abstaining member felt that additional discussion would be beneficial to the hearing. The Council considered postponing the hearing to obtain additional evidence from the professor. Another poll was taken to determine the Council’s decision.

Straw Poll #3: Did a Violation Occur?

Yes: 4 (+1 non-binding)
No: 5 (+2 non-binding)
Abstentions: 0

Straw poll #3 was made binding. Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A Not in Violation of the Honor Code.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour, 43 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Roy Ha

Clerk

Last modified Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:37 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu