Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #2, Spring 2005
February 11, 2005

Members Present:
Chris Edwards (presiding), Amy Pollard, John Britt, Andrew Koller, Marcie Jackson, Jon Jackson, Matt Mino, Julia Bursten, Prashant Setty

Ombuds:
Brandon Wagner

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from several students in an upper level management class. The letter accused Student A of attaching his name to a group assignment without the knowledge of other group members. The letter claimed that Student A was not a member of the group and did not have permission to share in the work performed by the group.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled "Not In Violation"

Testimony:
Student A pled “Not in Violation,” claiming he mistakenly believed he was a group member. He further explained that the confusion stemmed from the fact that he was in a group with one of the members, but for another class.

Student A testified that when he was made aware of the mistake, he immediately contacted all group members and the professor. He stated that he received no credit for the assignment in question and later completed the assignment independently for a grade.

The Council questioned the student further regarding the group formation and division of labor. Student A explained that he was a member of up to seven different groups per semester, some of which contained some of the same group members. He stated that group members typically had the freedom to divide assignments amongst themselves in any manner they chose.

Student A ended the testimony phase of the hearing by stating that he was very sorry for the mistake and was willing to take responsibility for any consequences he may face.

Deliberation:
The Council deliberated about the issue of informed consent. Some members believed Student A clearly did not have the informed consent of the group members while others believed Student A reasonably expected he was a group member. The Council also considered the issue of credit received. Some Council members felt that the lack of credit assigned to Student A negated any possible violation while other members believed the act of turning in the assignment with the name attached constituted a violation of the Honor Code. A straw poll was taken to establish whether or not a violation had occurred, but with inconclusive results.

More discussion revolved around the issue of informed consent. Some members argued that Student A had no reason to assume he was a group member and provided no evidence to further his claim. Other members maintained that Student A could have reasonably believed himself to be a group member and referenced an e-mail from one of the groups members that stated Student A had to be told after the fact that he was not actually a group member. A second straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #2: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 3
No: 6
Abstentions: 0

Since it was clear that the Council members could not reach a unanimous decision, Straw Poll #2 was made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A “Not in Violation” of the Honor Code.

Time of hearing and deliberation: 1 hour and 30 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Amy Pollard

Clerk

Last modified Tuesday, March 8, 2005 07:30 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu