Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #49/50, Fall 2005
August 31, 2005

Members Present:
Jon Horstman (Chair), Ted Torous (Clerk), Chris Edwards, Andrew Traverso, Divya Pande, Laura Campo, Julia Bursten, Ryan Stinnent, and Jackie Cacan

Ombuds:
Pete Choo

Accusation:
The Honor Council received two letters of accusation against student A, in a lower level science class. The first letter accused Student A of changing his midterm exam after it had been returned and then resubmitting it to be regarded. The second accusation concerned Student A doing the same action on his final. Due to their similar nature, the two cases (49/50) were grouped together.

Evidence Submitted:

• Letter of accusation
• Student A’s written statement from investigation
• Student A’s midterm (exam 3)– original copy
• Student A’s midterm  (exam 3)– edited copy
• Student A’s final exam – original copy
• Student A’s final exam – edited copy
• Emails from Student A’s professors
• Grades for Student A’s exams

Plea:

Student A plead in violation to both Accusations

Testimony:

Student A stated that he did change his midterm exam and thus was changing his written statement. He then proceeded to go over what changes had been made on the exams. Then he went over his motives for cheating on the exams; which included parental pressure and family threat to be removed from school. Student A stressed his remorse for his actions and a desire to change his ways. In his closing statement, Student A reiterated his assertions of extreme stress, remorse, and highlighted his cooperation with the council.

Deliberations:

It was decided that penalty deliberations would be separated for each case.

Case #49:

Straw Polls were taken to determine whether or not a violation occurred and if so was Student A in violation.

Straw Poll #1: Is there clear and convincing evidence that a violation occurred on exam 3
Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #2: Is there clear and convincing evidence that student A is in violation with regard to case 49 exam 3?
Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

After these polls, the consensus penalty structure was reviewed. Council members agreed that a plea of ‘in violation’ was made in good faith and that Student A had cooperated with the council. However there was discussion about whether or not the Student A’s personal statement was fallacious. This did not overly concern most council members.

Next, it was discussed whether or not Student A was under ‘extreme and unusual emotional distress’: A council member raised the question of whether the emotional distress was not rooted in academic stress. Questions were raised whether or not parental stress is “extreme and unusual”. Little consensus was agreed upon.

Finally, the nature of the violation was discussed. One council member stated that this was a near heinous violation – since it not only cheated the class by also questioned the graders competence.  There was a discussion on the language of a “heinous violation” as referred to by the blue book. In response to this discussion straw poll #3 was taken.

Straw Poll #3: Does this violation rise to the level of heinous?
Yes: 0
No: 8
Abstentions: 1

After concluding that Student A’s violation was not of a heinous nature, a straw poll was taken to gauge council members’ opinions on penalties (straw poll #4).

Straw Poll #4: Choose a penalty
F + 2: 0
F + 1: 3
F: 5
2 letter grade reduction in class: 1
2 letter grade reduction in class + 1: 0
Letter of reprimand: 0
Abstentions: 0

There was general discussion on whether or not cheating on a re-grade was less serious of an infraction then cheating on a normal exam.  There was further discussion of full cooperation and how council members are allowed to mitigate down. Straw poll #5 was then taken:

Straw Poll #5: Assigning a penalty to student A for case 49
F + 1: 0
F: 4
2 letter grade reduction in class: 3
Zero on assignment: 1
Abstentions: 1

There was further discussion on the nature of the violation and yet another straw poll was taken:

Straw Poll #6: Assigning a penalty to student A for case 49
F + 1:  0
F:  4
2 letter grade reduction in class: 2
Zero on assignment: 3
Abstentions: 0

There was discussion of why assignment specific penalties should not be used. Due to an inability to reach a 2/3rds majority, a 5 minute break was taken.

Straw Poll #7: Assigning a penalty to student A for case 49
F + 1:  0
F:  3
2 letter grade reduction in class: 5
Zero on assignment: 1
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #8: Assigning a penalty to student A for case 49
F:  5
2 letter grade reduction in class: 3
Zero on assignment: 1
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #9: Assigning a penalty to student A for case 49
F:  6
2 letter grade reduction in class: 1
Zero on assignment: 2
Abstentions: 0

A 2/3rds majority was thus reached.  The results of straw polls 1,2,9 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A “In Violation” of the Honor Code and recommends that he receive a grade of “F” in the course in question. A prior violation flag is also attached to his record.

Case #50:

The council took two polls on whether or not a violation had occurred on the final exam and if so, was Student A in violation.

Straw Poll #1: Is there clear and convincing evidence that a violation occur on the final exam of case #50?
Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #2: Is there clear and convincing evidence that Student A is in violation of the honor code on the final exam of case 50?
Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Polls one and two were made binding.

The council then moved onto the penalty deliberations, the council was reminded that Student A now had a prior violation flag and thus the council was no longer bounded by the Consensus Penalty Structure.

There was some discussion on whether or not Student A was under extreme emotional distress.  Arguments were presented for both sides.

There was also discussion concerning the cooperation made by Student A. The council agreed that the plea was made in good faith.

Finally there was discussion of the nature of the violation. There was discussion that this was a repeat offence and this violation occurred on a final exam.

Thus the council decided to take a general straw poll to determine an appropriate penalty for the violation.

Straw Poll #3: Assigning a penalty to student A in case # 50
F + 2: 3
F + 1: 3
F: 3
Two letter grade reduction in course: 0
Zero on Assignment: 0
Abstentions: 0

There was a historical perspective on repeat offences.

Straw Poll #4: Assigning a penalty to student A in case # 50
F + 2: 2
F + 1: 4
F: 3
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #5: Assigning a penalty to student A in case # 50
F + 2: 5
F + 1: 1
F: 3
Abstentions: 0

There was discussion that the violation was on a final.

Straw Poll #6: Assigning a penalty to student A in case # 50
F + 2:  6
F + 1: 0
F: 3
Abstentions: 0

The council tried to strive for a unanimous decision, however none could be reached.

Straw Poll 6 was made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A “In Violation” of the Honor Code and recommends that he receive a grade of “F” in the course in question and receive a two semester suspension from the university.

Time of hearing and deliberations: 2 hours and 20 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Ted Torous

Clerk