| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case 32, Fall 2005
October 18, 2005
Members Present:
John Horstman (presiding), Paul Campbell, Court Jackson, Simon Doyle, Becky Thilo, Andrew Traverso, Ben Carson, Tina Chen, Laura Campo
Ombuds:
Risa Gordon, Lauren Hunt (observing ombuds), Robert Dahnke (observing ombuds)
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a grader in an undergraduate math/science course. The letter explained that Student A had submitted a homework assignment that suspiciously resembled the grader’s answer key. The grader suspected that the student had obtained and copied a previous solution on this assignment, but testified that none of Student A’s previous work appeared to have been copied.
Evidence Submitted:
Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation."
Testimony:
Student A began her opening statement by explaining that she had decided to look at the course webpage during the fall semester of 2004 when she registered for the course in question for spring semester 2005. She had little to no background in the subject, and decided to download the homework assignments, solutions, and course notes to her computer to study them over winter break. She didn’t know at that time that the homework from the fall semester would be the same as the spring semester.
Student A testified that she saved all the homework solutions on her computer, and used one of the homework solutions from the previous semester on an assignment to understand how to solve the problem. She claimed that she did not copy and paste the solution directly into her homework, but that she looked at the past solution before beginning the assignment.
Student A said that there were many opportunities to get help on homework in the class, such as asking TAs at lab sessions and working in groups with students currently enrolled in the course. She testified that the TAs sometimes give out portions of the solution code, and she didn’t go to the lab for that assignment. At the time she rationalized using the past year’s solution to help her on her assignment in a way similar to asking TAs for help.
Student A testified that the professor for the course had specified that no outside tutors or students who had previously taken the class were to be contacted about homework. She said that the syllabus never stated explicitly that previous year’s solutions could not be consulted, although she suspected that it was implied that she should not have used the solution.
Student A cited an incident where her mother received a speeding ticket and she had to deal with the Houston courts. She claimed that she was stressed out and busy during the week when the assignment was due, and would not have used the past year’s solutions under normal circumstances.
A council member asked Student A what she did with the homework solutions after winter break, and she responded that she kept them filed away on her computer, but never looked at them until the assignment in question.
A council member asked Student A if she realized that the questions would be the same for both semesters at the time of downloading, and the student said no, that she didn’t know they would be the same.
A council member asked Student A why she downloaded the solutions in the first place. Student A responded that she didn’t have any background in the subject and wanted to look at the homeworks, solutions to homeworks, and lectures during break to understand what the subject was. However, she never intended to look at the solutions to cheat on assignments during the spring.
A council member asked Student A how she used the previous year’s solution when writing up her homework. She replied that she figured she needed help on the assignment, but didn’t go to the lab session or ask a TA, so she looked at the solution before she started writing her homework. She claimed that she never copied and pasted the solution.
A council member asked Student A when she realized that the assignments from the two semesters were the same. She responded that she realized about two or three homeworks into the semester that they were the same from both semesters. She figured she would never use the past year’s solutions and left them filed away on her computer.
A council member asked Student A why she didn’t delete the solutions at that time. She responded that it was her habit to not delete any school-related materials from her computer, and that she kept the solutions, but never intended to use them.
A council member asked if the TAs give exact answers in lab, or just hints and tips. Student A responded that some of them do give exact answers, and some help students arrive at the answers on their own.
A council member asked Student A if it was her opinion that it was implicit that students were not allowed to consult previous homework solutions. Student A responded that it probably was implicit, but that it was never explicitly stated in the professor’s honor code policy.
A council member asked Student A if there was more emphasis on writing the homework or understand what it was saying. The student responded that the understanding and application of the assignment was more important than simply writing it up. She added that lots of help is given in class and answers can be obtained from TAs during lab sessions, but that students had to interpret these answers on their own.
A council member asked Student A if she hadn’t looked at the solution set if her assignment would still have looked the same. She responded that it would not look exactly the same, but that there are a limited number of ways to complete the homework and that it would be similar even if she hadn’t looked at the solution before attempting the assignment.
A council member asked Student A if she worked with any other students currently enrolled in the class on this assignment. Student A responded no.
Student A voiced her concerns with the accusation made by her grader. The grader mentioned consulting another grader about the possible violation in her letter of accusation, and the student was concerned about procedure and confidentiality. Student A also mentioned that she never got this particular homework assignment back, and was not sure if it was ever graded or recorded. Student A submitted an electronic copy of her homework to the professor for grading, but doesn’t know if that copy was ever graded either.
Student A mentioned that she took the class just to learn, that it was not required for her major, and that she felt that she still got something out of the class. She also testified that she didn’t feel at the time that she was violating the code, but knows now that she violated the professor’s intentions for the course policy.
Student A also stated that the homework assignment was worth about 5% of the total course grade and that she understood everything in the code, which was supported by an evaluation of her assignment by another professor in the department.
Deliberations:
Initial impressions of seven members were in violation, and two members weren’t sure.
Abstaining members explained that their confusion stemmed from the fact that the professor never explicitly said that students could not consult past solutions. They also thought it was not clear what the difference was between working with classmates or obtaining solutions from TAs and getting the answer from a past solution. They also mentioned that the student had clearly understood and explained the solution, even if she had gotten it from a past year’s solution.
Another member argued that use of previous years’ homework solutions is almost never acceptable if the assignments are the same from year to year. This is supported by the deposition of the professor, stating that no previous solutions were to be consulted. This member also said that it is the student’s responsibility to find out from the professor whether solutions from past semesters could be consulted.
Other members agreed with this argument, adding that working with other students in the class is okay because the student would still be coming up with some original content for the solution. However, simply using a solution from a past year is not the same, and therefore constitutes a violation. Also, Student A should have talked to the professor as soon as she realized that she had in her possession the solutions to all of the semester’s homework assignments. This type of action is expected by the Honor Council, and it is reasonable to expect the student to clarify the issue with her professor.
One member who wasn’t sure if a violation had occurred stated that the solution could come from a group, but as long as the interpretation of the solution was Student A’s own work, it wouldn’t constitute a violation. Also, the professor said after the fact that solutions were not to be consulted, and this should have been explicitly stated in the syllabus or verbally stated in class.
Other members argued again that it was the student’s responsibility to find out whether it was okay to use the solutions. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution was cited to support this statement. It was also argued that the student’s testimony supports the idea that a violation occurred, since Student A said she knew now that the professor’s intent was that students not consult solutions from past semesters.
The two unsure members decide that they agree that a violation occurred and straw poll #1 was taken to determine whether a violation had occured.
Straw Poll #1: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 9, No: 0, Abstentions: 0
Straw poll #2 was taken to determine whether Student A was in violation.
Straw Poll #2: Was Student A “In Violation”?
Yes: 9, No: 0, Abstentions: 0
Straw Polls #1 and #2 were made binding.
The members who were swayed to vote “in violation” were asked to explain why they voted the way they did. These members explained that students were allowed to “develop” the solution together as long as their interpretations were written separately, and Student A did not “develop” anything by copying the previous year’s solution, so she was therefore in violation.
Penalty deliberations opened with a discussion of mitigating factors. No Council members felt that Student A was affected by extreme and unusual emotional distress that led her to violate the code. It was also decided that the violation did not result from an action unknown to the accused.
Next, the Council considered the nature of the violation. One member argued that there was a lot of room to mitigate because Student A did seem to understand the solution and had put some thought into it. Another member countered by saying that there was premeditation involved since Student A obtained the solutions before the class and didn’t delete them after finding out that the homework assignments from the two semesters were the same.
Next, cooperation was discussed, and the Council agreed that Student A cooperated by fully disclosing pertinent information and by making a plea of “in violation” in good faith.
Penalties of F in the course and 2 semester suspension, F in the course, 1 letter grade reduction in the course, 1/3 letter grade reduction in the course, and a letter of reprimand were suggested and straw poll #3 was taken.
Straw poll #3: Choose a penalty
F and 2 semester suspension: 0
F in course: 0
1 letter grade reduction in course: 4
1/3 letter grade reduction in course: 3
Letter of reprimand: 0
Abstentions: 2
Abstaining members were asked to discuss why they hadn’t chosen a penalty. Reasons cited were that these members were between a one letter grade reduction and a two letter grade reduction in the course and were not sure how to vote. Other members agreed that perhaps two letter grade reduction should be added to the poll.
Some members who voted for 1/3 letter grade reduction argued that this was an appropriate penalty since Student A copied the solution, but had an original interpretation of this solution. One member also said that since Student A didn’t know she couldn’t use past solutions, the penalty should be lower.
Other members argued that the student’s ignorance of the code is not a reason to mitigate, and that 1/3 letter grade reduction is not a severe enough penalty for the violation, since Student A set herself up to have solutions to all the homework assignments and didn’t delete them after finding out that the homework assignments were the same from year to year.
A 2 letter grade reduction in the course was added to the poll, and F and 2 semester suspension was taken off. Straw poll #4 was taken to choose a penalty.
Straw Poll #4: Choose a penalty
F in the course: 0
2 letter grade reduction in course: 5
1 letter grade reduction in course: 1
1/3 letter grade reduction in course: 2
Letter of reprimand: 0
Abstentions: 1
The abstaining member said he did not vote because he was between a 1/3 letter grade reduction and 1 letter grade reduction, but agreed that 1/3 letter grade reduction was hardly a penalty at all, and that the penalty should probably be higher.
Another member suggested that the penalty should be partly rehabilitative and partly punitive, and that 1/3 letter grade reduction was too lenient.
F in the course and letter of reprimand were removed from the poll. Straw poll #5 was taken to choose a penalty.
Straw Poll #5: Choose a penalty
2 letter grade reduction in course: 5
1 letter grade reduction in course: 4
1/3 letter grade reduction in course: 0
Abstentions: 0
The Council agreed that it should strive to compromise and achieve unanimity in its decision. One member suggests a 1 ½ letter grade reduction in the course, but the Council is unsure how this penalty would be implemented, so a 1 1/3 letter grade reduction in the course is discussed.
A 1 and 1/3 letter grade reduction in the course was added to the poll, and F in the course and letter of reprimand were removed from the poll. Straw poll #5 was taken to choose a penalty.
Straw Poll #6: Choose a penalty
2 letter grade reduction in course: 5
1 1/3 letter grade reduction in course: 2
1 letter grade reduction in course: 2
Abstentions: 0
Members who voted for 2 letter grade reduction feel that going below 2 letter grade reduction is not appropriate for the violation, and that the penalty should be more punitive than 1 1/3 letter grade reduction in the course. The Council continues to strive toward a consensus.
A 1 ½ letter grade reduction in the course is again suggested and added to the poll. Straw poll #7 is taken to choose a penalty.
Straw Poll #7: Choose a penalty
2 letter grade reduction in course: 0
1 ½ letter grade reduction in course: 5
1 1/3 letter grade reduction in course: 3
1 letter grade reduction in course: 1
Abstentions: 0
Most members feel comfortable where they are, but would be reluctant to move up or down to compromise. One member who voted for 1 1/3 letter grade reduction would be willing to move to 1 ½ letter grade reduction for a consensus. Some members have doubts about how a 1 ½ letter grade reduction in a course would be implemented, and it is decided that the penalty should be in 1/3 of letter grade increments so that there is no ambiguity. A 1 2/3 letter grade reduction in the course is added to the poll, 2 letter grade reduction in course is removed from the poll, and straw poll #8 is taken to choose a penalty.
Straw Poll #8: Choose a penalty
1 2/3 letter grade reduction in course: 1
1 ½ letter grade reduction in course: 1
1 1/3 letter grade reduction in course: 6
1 letter grade reduction in course: 1
Members are asked to explain why they moved up or down on their penalties. Responses are that they went up or down to compromise on a penalty, and it is decided that this does not jeopardize fairness of the decision as long as members feel comfortable voting the way they did, and not pressured.
The Council strives for unanimity in its decision, and straw poll #9 is taken to choose a penalty:
Straw Poll #9: Choose a penalty
1 2/3 letter grade reduction in course: 1
1 ½ letter grade reduction in course: 0
1 1/3 letter grade reduction in course: 8
1 letter grade reduction in course: 0
Abstentions: 0
Straw poll #9 was made binding.
The Honor Council thus finds Student A “In Violation” of the Honor Code and recommends that she receive a 1 1/3 letter grade reduction in the course. A Prior Violation Flag will also be attached to her record.
Time of hearing and deliberation: 2 hours, 11 minutes
Respectfully Submitted,
Laura Campo
Clerk