Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #28, Spring 2006
September 27, 2006

Members Present:
Becky Thilo (presiding), Laura Campo (clerk), Jonathan Jackson, Tara Grigg, Paul Campbell, Ryan Stinnett, Andrew Koller, Erin Waller, Court Jackson

Ombuds:
Risa Gordon

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a lower-level science class. The letter accused Students A and B of submitting extra credit papers that were similar enough for the accuser to suspect an electronic transfer of the paper from one student to another.

Evidence Submitted:

• Letter of Accusation
• Written Statements from Students A and B
• Assignment Prompt
• E-mail from professors
• Copies of both papers
• Originals of both papers
• Papers of other students in the course
• Course syllabus
• DVD

Plea:
Student A pled “Not In Violation”.
Student B pled “Not In Violation”.

Testimony:

Students A and B opened by saying they worked together on part of the assignment but they did not directly copy from each other’s papers.  They watched a DVD together and separately wrote down movie quotes. They also discussed the material they would be writing about, but wrote their own papers.  They explained that the accuser had mistakenly said that a grammatical error occurred in the same place in both papers, and the Council noted that the mistake actually was only in one of the students’ papers.  Students A and B showed the Council the portion of the DVD from which they independently wrote down the same quote explained that they both had misunderstood a word in the quote, and that was why they had identical quotes with a mistake in them.  The accused students pointed out that most of the identical passage was directly quoted from the movie.

A council member asked about the identical text surrounding this quote, and the students responded that it was a coincidence and maintained that they did not directly copy off of one another.

Student B said that she completed her paper first and gave it to Student A to proofread.  Student A had not started to write her paper when she received Student B’s paper.  Student A said that she did not copy off of Student B’s paper, but she did receive it before she began writing her own.
 
Verdict Deliberations:
The Council opened Verdict Deliberations with initial impressions.  A few members were convinced that a violation had taken place, but other members were not sure, because of the difficulty of determining directionality, the length of the passage under suspicion, and the similarity or difference of the structures between papers.

A straw poll was taken to establish whether a violation had occurred.

Straw Poll #1: Is there clear and convincing evidence that a violation occurred?
Yes: 6
No: 0
Abstain: 3

The abstaining members explained that they were unsure whether a violation occurred because it was suspicious that a few lines of the papers were identical, but they would need more discussion before they could make a decision.

Members who voted that a violation had occurred explained that those few lines of identical text implied that a violation must have occurred because it was improbable the students could both have written identical sentences without sharing their work.  The two papers were similar enough that members felt convinced that some type of unauthorized aid was used or that collaboration had occurred.

Straw Poll #2: Is there clear and convincing evidence that a violation occurred?
Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

The Council then began discussing whether or not they believed Student B was “In Violation.”  One member said she did not think the violation could not have occurred without Student B’s awareness, and therefore Student B was “In Violation.”  Another member countered by saying Student B was not necessarily aware that a violation had occurred if she simply gave her paper to Student A with the intention that Student A would proofread it and not use any of it to write her own paper.

Several members agreed that there was not enough evidence to say they were clearly convinced that Student B was “In Violation,” and that the only evidence the Council had were a few lines of identical text and the statements in agreement that Student B had given her paper to Student A to proofread.  A Council member argued that Student B should not be found “In Violation” because it was possible that she did not knowingly give aid, and that there was not enough evidence to prove otherwise.

Straw Poll #3:  Is there clear and convincing evidence that Student B is in violation?
Yes: 1
No: 8
Abstentions: 0

The Council next discussed whether they believed Student A was “In Violation” of the Honor Code.  Some members voiced the opinion that a violation occurred and that Student A must have been responsible for it based on the timeline that was presented by the accused students in their testimony.  Since Student A had access to Student B’s paper before Student A wrote her own paper and because lines of text matched exactly between the two papers, Student A must have copied from Student B in some way.

Straw Poll #4: Is there clear and convincing evidence that Student A is in violation?
Yes: 8
No: 0
Abstentions: 1

The abstaining member said that he did not vote because he felt that he had needed more time to think about the evidence, but he was now ready to vote.

Straw Poll #5: Is there clear and convincing evidence that Student A is “In Violation?”
Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Polls #2, 3, and 5 were made binding.

The Honor Council thus finds Student B Not In Violation of the Honor Code.

Penalty Deliberations:
The Council opened penalty deliberations for Student A by noting that Student A had been found “In Violation” of the Honor Code previously, and that if it felt necessary, the Council could exceed the consensus penalty of an “F” in the course and a two-semester suspension. 

The Council discussed mitigating circumstances, including nature and cooperation, and most members felt that they would be mitigating some based on one or both of these circumstances.

The Council then discussed aggravating circumstances, including multiple violations and deceit of the Council.  One member felt that multiple violations were very serious, and indicated a habitual behavior of cheating.  This member said that he would be aggravating based on this circumstance.  Other members did not feel the need to aggravate based on multiple violations because the hearing for Student A’s first violation did not occur until after the letter of accusation for her second violation had been submitted.  These members argued that there was not time between Student A’s first hearing and the time that the second violation occurred for Student A to learn her lesson, and that the Council should not aggravate based on this.

Straw Poll # 6:  Choose an appropriate penalty for Student A:
F in the course & expulsion: 0
F in the course & 2 semester suspension: 0
F in the course: 2
2 letter grade reduction in the course: 2
1 letter grade reduction in the course: 4
Abstentions: 1

The member who abstained said that he would have been deciding between a one- and two-letter grade reduction in the course if there had been no prior violation, but he was still considering the weight of the multiple violation.  Another member pointed out that the assignment was for extra credit and could only give the student a possible one-percent increase in the semester grade.  This member stated that a one-letter grade reduction would be both corrective and punitive, and that it was an appropriate penalty for the violation.  Finally, one member said that they felt strongly that the fact that it was a second violation showed a habitual behavior and should cause the penalty to be more severe.

Straw Poll #7:  Choose an appropriate penalty for Student A:
F in the course: 2
2 letter grade reduction in the course: 2
1 letter grade reduction in the course: 5
Abstentions: 0

One member who voted for 2-letter grade reduction said that he felt that he could move down to a one-letter grade reduction to strive for a 2/3 majority, and that he would feel equally comfortable at either penalty.

Straw Poll #8: Choose an appropriate penalty for Student A:
F in the course: 2
2 letter grade reduction in the course: 1
1 letter grade reduction in the course: 6
Abstentions: 0

The Council strove for unanimity, but all members said that they felt firm in their positions and would not move to a different penalty with further discussion.  Straw Poll #8 was made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A “In Violation” of the Honor Code and recommends that she receive a one-letter grade reduction in the course in question. A prior violation flag is also attached to her record.

Time of hearing and deliberation: 1 hours and 34 min

Respectfully Submitted,
Laura Campo
Clerk