Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #22, Spring 2004
May 6, 2004

Members Present:
Chris Edwards (presiding), Joshua Barron, John Britt, Tina Chen, John Horstman, Marcie Jackson, Andrew Koller, Jason Longoria, Geneva Rhee, Andrew Hawthorn (non-binding vote)

Ombuds:
Brandon Wagner

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received an accusation from a professor in an upper-level music course. The letter stated that Student A had turned in an assignment that included material from a website without citing the source.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pleads “Not In Violation.”

Testimony:
Student A emphasized that she felt this accusation was unfounded, because she found the assignment and the Honor Code policy in the class to be ambiguous, and she turned in work comparable to work that had been previously found acceptable by the professor. Additionally, she claimed that the professor had a history of changing course requirements on a whim. She also stated that she suspected that the professor accused her because of past personal disagreements between them, not actual academic fraud.

The Council questioned the accused regarding the Honor Code policy of the class, which she said was never mentioned. The Council also asked questions about the professor’s expectations for the assignment and the course. Student A said that the course seemed very relaxed. Also, the Council questioned the accused about the student’s relationship with the professor. Student A responded that she had not attended class for some time due to prior problems with the professor.

The professor came forward as a witness to testify to the expectations for the assignment. She stated that comparison with the work of other students demonstrated how the accused had failed to meet the required standards of citation and independent work. She also noted that she had not discussed Honor Code policy or citation methods with the class, and she did not feel that she should have to explain these issues to a Rice student. Finally, she stated that she was unaware of any personal issues between herself and the accused.

The next two witnesses, other students in the class, testified about their understandings of the professor’s expectations for the assignment. The fourth witness corroborated the accused’s account of her encounter with a professor when the professor was explaining the assignment to the student. The fourth and fifth witnesses testified about the professor’s disorganization and the conflict between the professor and the accused. The sixth and seventh witnesses testified to the professor’s character as well.

In her closing statement, Student A reiterated that she would never try to pass off the material from the website as her own, and she had done her best to fulfill the standards required by the assignment, making an attempt to document her source. Also, she reminded the Council that the assignment was unclear and the professor unpredictable.

Deliberation:
The Council generally agreed that the expectations for the assignment were ambiguous, and they were divided about which version of events to believe. The Council voted to decide whether a violation had occurred.

Straw Poll #1: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 3
No: 4
Abstain: 2 + 1 (non-binding)

More discussion revolved around the credibility of the accounts, the possible vindictiveness of the professor, and what standards of citation should be applied to the assignment.

Straw Poll #2: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 2
No: 6 + 1 (non-binding)
Abstain: 1

The abstaining member still felt confused about citation standards.

Straw Poll #3: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 3
No: 6 + 1 (non-binding)
Abstain: 0

Straw Poll #3 was made binding. Thus, the Council finds Student A not in violation of the Honor Code.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 5 hours, 26 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Marcie Jackson
Clerk

Last modified Sunday, October 10, 2004 08:38 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu