Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #46, Spring 2005
October 23, 2005

Members Present:
Chris Edwards (presiding), Jacqui Cacan, Laura Campo, Simon Doyle, Court Jackson, J.L. Kiappes, Teresa Monkkonen, Ryan Stinnett, Ted Torous, Arianne Urus (observing)

Ombuds:
Risa Gordon

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a teaching assistant in an introductory engineering course accusing Student A and Student B of collaborating on two assignments.

Evidence Submitted:

• Letter of Accusation
• Course syllabus
• Student A's written statement
• Student B's written statement
• Deposition from the course instructor
• Supplemental commentary from the accuser
• Printout of student's network directories
• Assignment prompt
• Student A's submitted work
• Student B's submitted work

Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation.”  Student B pled “In Violation.”

Testimony:
Student A opened by stating that she did not believe they were violating the Honor Code at the time.  She worked with Student B because the only computer in their residence that was compatible with the software necessary to work on the assignments belonged to Student B.  She added that in retrospect, they should have consulted the professor before working together.

Student B opened by confirming that they both worked on the assignments together on one computer, and each person put their share of effort into their submissions.  She added that no one stole code from anyone.  She pled “In Violation” because she made a mistake but did not realize at the time that it was wrong.

The Council asked how the course’s Honor Code policy was made clear to students.  Student B said the policy was not available on the course website, but was stated a few times verbally.  Student A said that, in summary, the professor’s policy was that no code could be shared between students, except during designated lab times where teaching assistants were present.  She said that since the labs weren’t required, she did not go to them very often and was confused as to how code sharing worked there.

The Council asked Student A if the software she needed to work on the assignment was available on the Owlnet computers.  She said that it was, but she did not think about using them at the time because it was more convenient to use her roommate’s computer and did not feel like this would be a problem.  Student B added that they did not work on any other assignment before this because Student A’s computer was still usable at that point.

In closing, Student A felt this accusation was more a technicality, rather than actual cheating because she wasn’t trying to gain an advantage over other students.  She wished she had never done it.

Student B echoed these feelings by stating that she felt terrible and was confused at the time that the work in question took place.

Verdict Deliberations:

In their initial impressions, the Council agreed that since the code and timestamps in the directory printout were identical for the first assignment, a violation had indeed occurred since students were not allowed to share code outside of lab sessions.  Also, with respect to the second assignment, the submissions differed only in the comments each student included.

Straw Poll #1: Is there clear and convincing evidence that a violation occurred?
Yes: 9 + 1 non-binding vote
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

No discussion at this point indicated a need to separate the two assignments in deliberations.

Straw Poll #2: Is there clear and convincing evidence that Student A is In Violation?
Yes: 9 + 1 non-binding vote
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #3: Is there clear and convincing evidence that Student B is In Violation?
Yes: 9 + 1 non-binding vote
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw polls #1, #2, and #3 were made binding.

As members were about to start discussing their views on the various mitigating circumstances outlined in our CPS, some felt that each milestone should be considered as a separate submission since they were each turned in on different occasions.  A procedural poll was taken to decide how to handle the submissions.  The majority of the council felt that dealing with each separately was more appropriate since they were submitted separately and thus each could be a violation on its own.  The Chair pointed out that we would then have to reopen verdict deliberations, which was done following a unanimous vote to do so.

Since the result of straw poll #1 was not in question, it remained in effect.  Some members thought the students should be required to come before two separate panels for the assignments to be considered separately, but after more discussion they agreed that one panel looking at each individually was the best way to proceed.

Straw Poll #4:  With respect to the first assignment, is there clear and convincing evidence that Student A is In Violation?

Yes: 9 + 1 non-binding vote
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #5:  With respect to the first assignment, is there clear and convincing evidence that Student B is In Violation?

Yes: 9 + 1 non-binding vote
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #6:  With respect to the second assignment, is there clear and convincing evidence that Student A is In Violation?

Yes: 9 + 1 non-binding vote
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #7:  With respect to the second assignment, is there clear and convincing evidence that Student B is In Violation?

Yes: 9 + 1 non-binding vote
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw polls #2 and #3 were unbound and #4, #5, #6, and #7 were made binding by unanimous vote.

Penalty Deliberations:

Penalty deliberations were divided into separate parts for each of the two assignments.

First Assignment:

The Council agreed that they found no reason to mitigate for actions unknown to the accused or emotional distress, but that they should mitigate on cooperation since there was no reason to believe that the students did not cooperate fully.  Many points were discussed with regards to the nature of the violation.  The students did not try to hide the similarities in their submissions.  The assignments were a small portion of the class grade, but some members felt that the size of the assignment should not be considered.  The Council agreed that mitigation should be applied based on nature.  Having discussed all of the mitigating circumstances that the Council is required to consider, straw polls were taken.

Straw Poll #8: Penalty for Student A on Milestone One
F in the course and a 2 semester suspension: 0
F in the course: 2
2 letter grade reduction in the course: 5
1 letter grade reduction in the course: 1
Zero on the assignment: 1
Abstentions: 0 + 1 non-binding vote

Straw Poll #9: Penalty for Student B on Milestone One
F in the course and a 2 semester suspension: 0
F in the course: 2
2 letter grade reduction in the course: 5
1 letter grade reduction in the course: 1
Zero on the assignment: 1
Abstentions: 0 + 1 non-binding vote

The abstaining member was unsure whether an F in the course or a letter grade reduction would be more appropriate.  Members summarized their opinions on each possible penalty and another set of straw polls was taken.

Straw Poll #10: Penalty for Student A on the first assignment
F in the course: 2 + 1 non-binding vote
2 letter grade reduction in the course: 6
1 letter grade reduction in the course: 1
Zero on the assignment: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #11: Penalty for Student B on Milestone One
F in the course: 2 + 1 non-binding vote
2 letter grade reduction in the course: 6
1 letter grade reduction in the course: 1
Zero on the assignment: 0
Abstentions: 0

The Council felt that everyone had clearly reiterated their arguments several times now and their positions did not change as we strove for unanimity.  Thus, straw polls #10 and #11 were made binding.

As were about to begin deliberations for milestone two, one member stated that he was expecting both penalties to be served concurrently as opposed to consecutively, and that he had adjusted his vote for this reason.  The other members insisted that the Council must considered the penalties as separate in every, as if the cases had been heard by different panels.  With this in mind, another set of straw polls was taken. 

Straw Poll #12: Penalty for Student A on Milestone One
F in the course: 2 + 1 non-binding vote
2 letter grade reduction in the course: 5
1 letter grade reduction in the course: 2
Zero on the assignment: 0
Abstentions: 0

One member felt he could move up from a one letter grade reduction to reach the two-thirds burden required, but the Chair made it clear never to move to a harsher penality for this reason alone.  It could be a reason to decrease the penality, but only if absolutely necessary.

Straw Poll #13: Penalty for Student B on Milestone One
F in the course: 1 + 1 non-binding vote
2 letter grade reduction in the course: 6
1 letter grade reduction in the course: 2
Zero on the assignment: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #14: Penalty for Student A on Milestone One
F in the course: 1 + 1 non-binding vote
2 letter grade reduction in the course: 6
1 letter grade reduction in the course: 2
Zero on the assignment: 0
Abstentions: 0

Having reached the two-thirds burden required of the Council, straw polls #10 and #11 were unbound, and straw polls #13 and #14 were made binding.  Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A “In Violation” with respect to Milestone One and recommends that she receive a two letter grade reduction in the course.  A prior violation flag is also attached to her record.  Additionally, the Honor Council finds Student B “In Violation” with respect to Milestone One and recommends that she receive a two letter grade reduction in the course.  A prior violation flag is also attached to her record.

Second Assignment:

Most members believed the only difference between this milestone and the previous one was that the students had included different comments with their code, which showed that some individual work was done.  After this discussion, two straw polls were taken.

Straw Poll #15: Penalty for Student A on Milestone Two
F in the course and a 2 semester suspension: 0
F in the course: 0
2 letter grade reduction in the course: 6 + 1 non-binding vote
1 letter grade reduction in the course: 3
Zero on the assignment: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #16: Penalty for Student B on Milestone Two
F in the course and a 2 semester suspension: 0
F in the course: 0
2 letter grade reduction in the course: 6 + 1 non-binding vote
1 letter grade reduction in the course: 3
Zero on the assignment: 0
Abstentions: 0

Once again, the Council felt that it would not reach unanimity through more discussion.  Straw polls #15 and #16 were made binding by a unanimous vote.  Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A “In Violation” with respect to the second assignment and recommends that she receive a two letter grade reduction in the course.  A prior violation flag is also attached to her record.  Additionally, the Honor Council finds Student B “In Violation” with respect to the second assignment and recommends that she receive a two letter grade reduction in the course.  A prior violation flag is also attached to her record.

Time of Hearing and Deliberations: 1 hour, 51 minutes.

Respectfully submitted,

Ryan Stinnett
Clerk