Abstract of the Honor Council
Case 54, Spring 2005
November 15, 2005

Members Present:
Chris Edwards (Chair), Brandon Mack, Becky Thilo, Casey Bonfield, Jacqui Cacan, Annalise Gill, Loyola Gressot, Robby Nelson, Allie Obermeyer

Ombuds:
Pete Choo

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of self-accusation from Student A regarding an assignment in a lower level social science class.  The letter accused Student A of working beyond the expressed time limit on a timed writing assignment.

Evidence Submitted:

• Letter of Accusation
• Written Statement
• Assignment in Question
• Assignment Prompt
• Course Syllabus

Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation.”

Testimony:
Student A pled “In Violation,” testifying that she did violate the Honor Code by continuing to write after the expressed time limit on her assignment.  After she finished hand writing the assignment, she typed the assignment, and noted where she thought the time ran out.  She submitted the section that was written over the time limit in order for it to be evaluated by the grader for future reference.  She also attempted to revise the paper in order for the section in which she thought she did worst was being graded, in order to correct for going overtime.

The Council asked the Student how she went over time. Student A could not recall exactly how she allowed herself to go over the time limit.

The Council asked why she decided to accuse herself. Student A said she felt bad about violating the Code, and felt it was her responsibility to accuse herself.  Student A also reported that she knew she had violated the code when she went overtime, and was typing her assignment.

Student A ended her testimony by apologizing to the Council for violating the Code and felt that all the evidence needed to render a decision was presented to the Council.

Deliberation:
The Council began deliberations by first establishing that there was presented sufficiently clear and convincing evidence that Student A had violated the Honor Code.

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

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

Then the Council took another straw poll to determine whether Student A was “In Violation.”

Straw Poll #2: Is there clear and convincing evidence that Student A is “In Violation” of the Honor Code?
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 found cause to question the propriety of the self-accusation under the Consensus Penalty Structure’s standard, and another straw poll was taken to establish whether Student A’s self-accusation was unprompted and made in good faith.

Straw Poll #3: Is the accusation in question an unprompted self-accusation made in Good Faith?
Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

The results of Straw Poll #3 was made binding.  Therefore, the Council used the Consensus Penalty Structure’s ceiling of a grade of “F” in the course.

The Council then continued to discuss mitigating circumstances.  The Council determined that there was no evidence to suggest that the violation occurred due to actions unknown to the accused, and/or extreme and unusual emotional distress which led the accused student to violate the Code.

The Council then discussed the issue of cooperation.  All members agreed that the plea was made in good faith, and that the Student did provide full disclosure of relevant information.

With regards to the nature of the violation, some of the Council members felt that the Student’s attempt to switch the sections made the nature of the violation worse.  Other members saw the switch as an attempt to rectify the situation.  Some Council members felt that she had multiple missed opportunities to not violate the Code in the course of constructing the violation, and that this enhanced the severity of the nature of the violation.

A Straw Poll was called to determine a penalty

Straw Poll #4: Choose a Penalty
F in the Course: 0
1 letter grade reduction in the course: 2
2/3 letter grade reduction in the course: 5
1/3 letter grade reduction in the course: 2
Letter of Reprimand: 1
Abstentions: 0

The Council member who voted for the Letter of Reprimand felt that grade reduction was almost too harsh given the level of cooperation by the Student.

The Council members who voted for a 1/3 letter grade reduction gave substantial consideration to the level of cooperation by Student A.  Council members who voted for the 2/3 letter grade reduction felt that the punishment should be punitive, in a sense, and felt that the nature of the violation was too severe to warrant only a 1/3 letter grade reduction.

Another Straw Poll was taken to determine a penalty

Straw Poll #5: Choose a Penalty
1 letter grade reduction in the course: 1
2/3 letter grade reduction: 4
1/3 letter grade reduction: 2
Letter of Reprimand: 1
Abstentions: 1

The Council member who abstained from voting was trying to decide between a 2/3 or 1/3 letter grade reduction.  The Council continued to discuss the nature of the violation.  Some Council members felt that Student A had many attempts in which she could have checked herself and prevented the violation.  Also, Council members were bothered about the Student’s decision to alter the paper in order to attempt to rectify the situation.  Additionally, some Council members raised the issue that the switching of the paragraphs could be an act of concealing the violation.

Another Straw Poll was taken to determine a penalty

Straw Poll #6: Choose a Penalty
1 letter grade reduction: 1
2/3 letter grade reduction:  7
1/3 letter grade reduction: 1
Letter of Reprimand: 0
Abstentions: 0

Many of the Council members moved because they agreed that Student A had multiple opportunities to decide against violating the Code, but chose to continue at each step in the process.  The greatest mitigating factor for the Council was the extreme level of cooperation and the self-accusation itself.

The Council attempted to strive for unanimity, but it was clear that members had settled into their respective positions and that a state closer to unanimity could not be reached.

Straw Poll #6 was made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A “In Violation” of the Honor Code and recommends that she receive a 2/3 letter grade reduction in the course.  A Prior Violation Flag will also be attached to his record.

Time of hearing and deliberation: 1 hour 11 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted

Brandon Mack
Clerk