| Honor Council
Rice
University |
|
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case 13a, Fall 2004
February 21, 2005
Members Present:
Chris Edwards (presiding), John Britt, Julia Bursten, Andrew Hawthorn, John Horstman, Marcie Jackson, Andrew Koller, Matthew Mino, Travis Youngblood
Ombuds:
Risa Gordon
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a mid-level business course. The letter accused Students A, B, and C of colluding on a take-home exam, which is a violation of the course Honor Code policy.
Evidence Submitted:
- Letter of Accusation
- Written statements (2) from investigative meeting
- Instructions for assignment
- Assignment prompt
- Email depositions of the accuser (5)
- Email from TAs (3)
- Email deposition of other student mentioned in accusation
- Email depositions of other randomly selected students in course (5)
- Email deposition of additional student
- Expert evaluation of assignments in question
- Assignments in question
- Course syllabus
- Solution key for assignment in question
- Assignment from previous year with corresponding key
- Completed assignments from remainder of students in course (75)
- Note cards relating to course attendance from instructor
- Notes made by Student A during evidentiary viewings
- Additional statement from Student A
- Police report and insurance statements relating to break-in and theft (6)
- Letter from Student A’s father regarding break-in and theft
- Statements from Student A’s roommates (3)
- Telephone logs (2)
- Receipt for replacement phone
Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation.”
Student B chose to withdraw from Rice University under Article XII of the Honor System Constitution and thus was not present at hearing.
Student C was not currently enrolled as a student at Rice University and could not be reached for participation in the hearing.
Testimony:
Student A pled, “In Violation,” explaining that he had failed to secure his exam and had discussed the exam with Student B prior to turning the exam in to the instructor.
Student A presented testimony and evidence that his car had been robbed and his cellular telephone stolen prior to the exam and that a replacement phone was not obtained until after the exam. Student A testified that he had not used a telephone to communicate with anyone during the exam and presented statements to the same effect, in refutation of Student B’s written statement.
Student A reviewed the exam with the Council, question by question, explaining how he arrived at each answer and responding to the points in the accusation. He explained that all of the work on his exam was his own.
Student A testified that Student B came over to his room after he had completed his exam and engaged in leisure activities. Student A testified that he and Student B discussed how similar an exam question was to that on an old exam that was on reserve at the library. When questioned by the Council, Student A testified that he and Student B had not discussed specifics of the exam, nor had he changed his answer in any way after the discussion.
Student A testified that he left his dorm room for a twenty minute period and that during that time Student B was left in the room alone. During that time Student A’s exam was in the room completed and in the envelope provided by the professor, but had not been sealed with adhesive.
The Council asked Student A to clarify some points on his exam, including mistakes and markings.
Student A responded to questions by presenting testimony that he had a multi-function copier/printer device in his room. He also explained the layout of his room.
Several attempts were made to contact Student B for witness testimony, but the Council was unable to make contact.
Student A ended his testimony by reiterating that the work was his own and that he had not colluded with Students B or C.
Deliberation:
The Council began the deliberations by discussing the striking similarities between the two exams. There was discussion about eraser marks in the two blue books. Most Council members felt that Student B had the opportunity and means to make a photocopy of Student A’s exam. There was discussion about the relevance and credibility of the phone bills and roommate statements.
A straw poll was taken to establish whether or not a violation had occurred.
Straw Poll #1: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstain: 0
A straw poll was taken to establish whether Student A was In Violation.
Straw Poll #2: Is there clear and convincing evidence that Student A is In Violation?
Yes: 0
No: 9
Abstain: 0
There was discussion about whether the conversation between Student A and Student B about the exam constituted a violation. Most Council members felt that Student A engaged in the conversation with the understanding that both he and Student B had completed their exam and that the substance of the conversation was such that their specific answers were not revealed.
Straw Poll #3: Is Student A “In Violation” in light of clear and convincing evidence?
Yes: 0
No: 9
Abstain: 0
Straw polls 1 and 3 were made binding.
Thus the Honor Council finds Student A “Not In Violation” of the Honor Code.
Time of hearing and deliberation: 2 hours.
Respectfully Submitted,
Andrew Hawthorn
Clerk
Last modified Tuesday, March 8, 2005 08:21 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu