Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case 11, Spring 2005
March 1, 2005

Members Present:
Amy Askin (Presiding), Casey Bonfield, John Britt, Julia Bursten, Loyola Gressot, Andrew Hawthorn, John Horstman, Brandon Mack, Robert Nelson

Ombuds:
Brandon Wagner

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a lower level engineering course. The letter accused Students A, B and C of unauthorized collaboration on the course’s final exam, which was given online. The exams of the three accused students were alleged to contain numerous and significant similarities.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation” Student B pled “Not In Violation” Student C pled “Not In Violation”

Testimony:
Student A pled “In Violation,” testifying that he consciously violated the Honor Code by viewing the test answers of Students B and C during his exam period. Student A said he used Student B and Student C’s tests answers to aid him in understanding the problem-solving methods used for multiple exam problems.

Student A explained that Student B and Student C were unaware that he had reviewed their exams until the Investigative Meeting. He explained that he electronically accessed the exams of the other two students.

Student B testified that he was not aware a violation had occurred until the investigative meeting for the present case, and made no conscious violation of the Honor Code.

Student C testified that he was also not aware of any issues with this assignment until the investigative meeting.

Students A, B and C were all asked where they took their exams and it was established that each student took his exam at a time and place independent of the other accused students. At this point, Student A made an additional remark, saying that he wished to apologize to the other accused students and assure the Hearing Panel that Students B and C did not find out about the nature of the case until the investigative meeting. Students B and C agreed with this statement and both expressed pointedly that they were not angry with Student A.

Each accused student was given the opportunity to make a closing statement as his last piece of testimony. Student A used his closing statement to apologize to the other accused students and to the Hearing Panel, and reiterated that he committed a violation of the Honor Code without the knowledge of Students B or C. Students B and C stated that they did not commit a violation, and Student C appealed to the Hearing Panel to consider mitigating on penalty deliberations for Student A based on his cooperation and full disclosure of facts relevant to the case.

Deliberation:
The Hearing Panel discussed the evidence for the case in light of the new testimony. The vast consensus of the Hearing Panel showed that violation findings would be in line with the accused students’ pleas. The feeling of the Hearing Panel was generally in agreement at this point, and the Panel decided to take a straw poll.

Straw Poll #1: Did a Violation Occur?
Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

A series of straw polls was taken to establish whether each student individually was “In Violation” of the Honor Code.

Straw Poll #2: Was Student B "In Violation"?
Yes: 0
No: 9
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #3: Was Student A “In Violation”?
Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #4: Was Student C “In Violation”?
Yes: 0
No: 9
Abstentions: 0

The results of Straw Polls 1, 2, 3 and 4 were made binding.

This concluded deliberations for Students B and C. The Hearing Panel then discussed whether a heinous violation had occurred, and noted the following possible rationales that the violation could be heinous in nature:
The Hearing Panel deliberated and decided to take a straw poll regarding the nature of the violation.

Straw Poll #5: Was the violation heinous in nature?
Yes: 4
No: 3
Abstentions: 2

There was a brief wrap-up of any discussion pertaining to heinous violations, and the consideration of declaring the violation heinous was dropped.

The Hearing Panel then discussed all mitigating circumstances pertaining to the case. By consensus of the Hearing Panel, no mitigation was given to Student A for extreme and unusual emotional distress or actions unknown to the accused, and mitigation was given for cooperation and full disclosure of all relevant evidence and testimony. The Hearing Panel was divided on mitigation for nature of the violation, and after all discussion concluded, a straw poll was taken to decide an appropriate penalty for Student A.

There was further discussion regarding penalty deliberations, and then the following straw poll was proposed.

Straw Poll #7: What penalty should be given to accused Student A?
F in the course and 1-semester suspension: 8
F in the course: 1
0 on the assignment: 0
Abstentions: 0

The dissenting vote gave a brief testimony regarding the rationale for his vote, explaining that he mitigated more heavily than other members of the Hearing Panel for cooperation and full disclosure of all relevant evidence and testimony. He also noted that the violation was not premeditated, in his opinion, and mitigated slightly for this. No further discussion arose from any other members of the Hearing Panel, so another straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #6: What penalty should be given to accused Student A?
F in the course and 1-semester suspension: 8
F in the course: 1
0 on the assignment: 0
Abstentions: 0

The results of Straw Poll 8 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A “In Violation” of the Honor Code and recommends a penalty of a grade of “F” in the course and a one semester suspension.

Time of Hearing and Deliberations: 1 hour, 21 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Julia Bursten

Clerk

Last modified Wednesday, March 30, 2005 09:33 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu