Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case 19, Spring 2005
March 28, 2005

Members Present:
Chris Edwards (presiding), Julia Bursten, Tina Chen, Andrew Koller, Travis Youngblood, John Horstman, Jeb Britt, Robby Nelson, Jon Jackson

Ombuds:
Risa Gordon

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of self-accusation from a student in an undergraduate social sciences course. The letter explained that Student A suspected he used unauthorized aid in the form of his own class notes on the first mid-term exam for the course. The letter stated that Student A did not realize this aid was unauthorized until after submitting his exam booklet for grading.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation."

Testimony:
Student A began his opening statement by explaining that he made an honest mistake in believing he was allowed to use personal class notes on the exam in question. He narrated the sequence of events that led to the potential violation: he was excused from the last lecture prior to the exam and the professor did not send him any information on the content of that lecture. When he arrived in the classroom to take the exam, he assumed the exam was in a closed-book, closed note format. A few of his friends and classmates mentioned otherwise, that exam was open-book, open-note. Student A then left his personal belongings with one of these classmates, and returned to his room to collect his books and notes.

When he got back to the classroom the professor had already left the class verbal instructions and the class had begun the exam. Student A picked up his personal belongings from his friend, who made no mention at the time of a change to the format of the exam. So, Student A proceeded to take the exam as an open-book, open-note examination. However, he discovered at a later date that the professor had given oral instructions to the class at the beginning of the exam period, saying the exam was to be open-book, closed-note.

He stated he had no intent to violate the Honor Code and saw himself as the victim of circumstance in the present case. He explained that after the exam period ended and he had turned in his exam, he heard from classmates that the exam had actually been open-book, closed-note. He contacted the professor immediately to confirm this, and notified the professor of his potential violation. Once the professor verified that the test had actually been open-book, closed-note, Student A wrote a letter of self-accusation and submitted it to the Honor Council.

A member of the Council asked Student A whether he had notified the professor that Student A would be absent from the lecture prior the exam period. Student A responded that he had not made direct contact with the professor, but that another mechanism for notification of his absence had notified all his professors of dates he would be absent from his courses. He also stated that he did not recall the professor mentioning the format of the test in any previous lectures.

A Council member asked Student A to elaborate on his use of his personal lecture notes during the exam. Student A responded that he referenced the notes sporadically and fruitlessly, searching for more for an inspiration to solving a problem than any specific guidance. He said he did not feel he gained any advantage from using the notes.

A Council member asked Student A how the professor had addressed the Honor Code in his course. Student A responded that the professor’s verbal instructions regarding the Honor Code were vague and Student A said he did not feel he had a clear understanding of the test’s format prior to taking the exam. Student A also said none of his classmates mentioned to him during the exam that his use of personal notes was violating the Honor Code.

As a closing statement, Student A reiterated that his mistake was an honest one and he felt he was the victim of circumstance. He said he saw the situation as unfortunate and thanked the Council for its aid in rectifying the situation.

Deliberation:
The Council initially arrived at a consensus that Student A had made a mistake and violated the Honor Code. A member of the Council then brought up a differing view, proposing that Student A had been inadvertently deceived into violating the Code. This member elaborated, saying Student A had no reasonable foundation for a belief that he was violating the Honor Code at the time the alleged violation occurred, and thus he could potentially not be found in violation of the Code.

The Council then debated whether this line of reasoning fell under the scope of actions unknown to the accused, a mitigating circumstance in penalty deliberations, or whether it would necessitate a verdict of “Not In Violation.” The strongest objection to this line of reasoning was the principle of due diligence, and it was argued whether Student A could be found to have fulfilled the principle of due diligence without first having contacted the professor directly to ask the format of the exam.

The Council then took a straw poll to determine whether a violation had occurred.

Straw Poll #1: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

After this was established, the Council consulted various passages of the Honor System policies and investigated the language regarding verdict decisions. The following passage was read: “Council members will vote on whether or not there is clear and convincing evidence that the accused is ‘In Violation.’” (Procedures II.9)

The Council considered two differing interpretations of “being ‘In Violation,’” debating whether this was an active or passive state. The Council member arguing in favor of the first view said he believed Student A committed a violation by undergoing a series of mechanical acts that were not in line with the Honor Code, but that Student A took reasonable precautions to guard against being in a state of violation at the time the exam was taken. Thus, this member at this interpreted the language in the Honor System’s policies to show that Student A was not in violation of the Honor Code.

The member arguing in favor of the opposing view stated that the argument given above was an argument for intent to violate the Honor Code, which was a potential mitigating circumstance in penalty deliberations but not an argument to find Student A not in violation of the Honor Code. The principle of due diligence was brought into discussion again, and members of the Council debated its merit but found they had reached a general consensus regarding Student A’s potential violation. Thus, another Straw Poll was taken to establish whether Student A was “In Violation.”

Straw Poll #2: Was Student A “In Violation”?
Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

The results of Straw Polls #1 and #2 were made binding.

Penalty deliberations opened with a discussion of Student A’s plea. The Council discussed whether the accusation was an unprompted self-accusation made in good faith, for the purpose of determining the appropriate penalty ceiling under the Consensus Penalty Structure. No member of the Council showed strong dissent to this view, and another Straw Poll was taken to establish whether Student A’s self-accusation was unprompted and made in good faith.

Straw Poll #3: Was Student A’s self-accusation unprompted and made in good faith?
Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

The results of Straw Poll # 3 were made binding.

The Council then discussed mitigating circumstances to Student A’s penalty. No cause for mitigation would be found for extreme and unusual emotional distress. Mitigation on nature was debated and the Council decided a small amount of mitigation could be given to nature. Mitigation would be given for a plea of “In Violation” made in good faith, for full cooperation with the Council, and for actions unknown to the accused. A member of the Council stressed that the latter mitigating circumstance was not restricted to actions of the accused that were unknown to the accused, and argued that the Council should mitigate strongly on this point. The Council then proposed a straw poll to decide an appropriate penalty for Student A, which yielded an abstention and a strong inclination towards a letter of reprimand.

The abstaining member explained that the reason for abstention was simply the need to think things through more clearly. A dissenting member then spoke to his vote, explaining that he felt the unauthorized use of aid on an exam could have given Student A an unfair advantage, which would be detrimental to the academic environment at Rice University. No other Panel members raised questions or objections, so another straw poll was taken once this explanation was given.

Straw Poll #5: What is an appropriate penalty for Student A?
F on the assignment: 2
Letter of reprimand: 7
Abstentions: 0

While the council does strive for unanimity in its penalty deliberations, no further arguments could be found to make the consensus of the Council unanimous. So, the results of Straw Poll #5 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A “In Violation” of the Honor Code and recommends that he receive a letter of reprimand. A Prior Violation Flag will also be attached to his record.

Time of hearing and deliberation: 1 hour, 46 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Julia Bursten

Clerk

Last modified Wednesday, March 6, 2003 09:44 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu