Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case 12, Fall 2004
March 2, 2005

Members Present:
Chris Edwards (presiding), Julia Bursten, Mariam Chughtai, Loyola Gressot, Roy Ha, Andrew Koller, Robby Nelson, Andrew Traverso, Travis Young blood

Ombuds:
Risa Gordon

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from the professor of an mid-level business course accusing four students of illicit collusion on a final paper.

Evidence Submitted:

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

Testimony:
In their opening statements, the accused students denied the accusations and claimed to have individually completed the assignment in question. They claimed that, while Students A and B knew each other and studied together for the course and Student D occasionally tutored Student C in the course in question, there was no interaction among them with regards to this course. The students gave detailed accounts to rebut the allegations made in the letter of accusation. The Council asked questions regarding the similarity of the work in several of the papers, which was explained as being logical, considering material contained in the assignment prompt and textbook. One Council member noted a variation in citation standards used in the papers and asked what level of citation the accused students found acceptable. Each student responded that they believed the level they demonstrated in the papers was sufficient, considering the lack of accusation concerning citations from the instructor.

In closing, the accused students referred to their opening statements and reiterated the fact that they were being accused of collaborating on possibly insignificant portions of an appendix to their paper and that the claims seemed to be tenuous.

Deliberation:
The Council’s initial impression was that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that a violation occurred on the grounds of the letter of accusation. Some members expressed concerns about some of the testimony and evidence but believed there was not enough evidence to warrant declaring the students “In Violation.” Further, the tenuous connections between the students and the highly reasonable explanations provided in testimony alleviated many of the Council’s doubts. A Council member brought up the point of the varying citation standards evidenced in the packet and believed that the lack of end-notes in the papers constituted a violation. A straw poll was taken to determine the Council’s current stance.

Straw Poll #1: Did a Violation Occur?
Yes: 1
No: 8
Abstentions: 0

The Council member who believed a violation occurred based the argument on the assignment prompt, which made mention of end-notes. Other Council members did not believe there was sufficient evidence that such end-notes were required in these particular papers. Another straw poll was conducted to determine whether opinions had changed with further discussion.

Straw Poll #2: Did a Violation Occur?
Yes: 1
No: 8
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll 2 was made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A, B, C, and D “Not In Violation” of the Honor Code.

Time of hearing and deliberation: 1 hour, 54 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Roy Ha

Clerk

Last modified Tuesday, March 8, 2005 08:19 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu