Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #1, Fall 2006
October 9, 2006

Members Present:
Becky Thilo (presiding), Spencer Crouch (clerk), Paul Campbell, Jackie Ammons, Ryan Stinnett, Josh Levin, Chris Koops, Annalise Gill, Tara Grigg, David Katten (observing), Joseph Rausch (observing)

Ombuds:
Lauren Hunt, Emanuel Jonas (observing)

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a student accusing Student A of posting two essays on a website before the assignment was due. This letter was forwarded through a professor.

Evidence Submitted:

• Letter of Accusation
• Student A’s written statement
• Assignment Prompt
• Deposition of submission times
• Copies of essays returned to Student A
• Myspace profile printout
• Printout of essays posted on Myspace
• Procedures, Guidelines and Technical Requirements for assignment
• Email confirmation of first essay’s submission
• Email confirmation of second essay’s submission
• Email sent to students regarding essay submission difficulty

Plea:
Student A pled “Not in violation”

Testimony:
Student A opened his testimony by explaining that when he tried to submit his essay electronically, the submission site was not working. This prevented him from successfully turning in the assignment before the original due date. The accused student said that he posted his essays on Myspace just to show others his work, not to receive help. He also showed that he only got two responses, neither of which was beneficial to the assignment. He claimed that no cheating had occurred because the posted essays were identical to those he submitted for grading.

After his opening statements, several members of the Council tried to establish a timeline for the violation. Student A explained that he had tried to submit the essays on Sunday, but was unable to because of the submission site’s difficulties. At the same time, he posted the essays on his Myspace account. The next day, Student A claimed to have emailed the Office of Admissions to try to figure out how to submit his essays and tried to resubmit them throughout the day (though he did not have a copy of this email). He then received an email from the submission site that extended the deadline of the assignment and said that the submission problem had been fixed, at which time he resubmitted the essays- one on Sunday night and the other on Monday night. Student A later claimed that although he had posted the essays before submission, no cheating had occurred and none could be proven.
           
A member of the Council asked to whom the essays posted on Myspace would have been available. Student A responded that, at the time, his account was public and could be viewed by anyone who had an internet connection. The student also pointed out that nowhere in his Myspace account did he request help on the essays. Another Council member later pointed out that the title of the essay page had been altered between the time of accusation and the time of the hearing, removing the phrase “input welcome” from the essays’ heading.

When asked whether or not he had followed the Honor Council link provided in the assignment and read the Honor Code, Student A replied that he had not. In his closing statement, Student A pointed out that he had had no intention of giving or receiving aid and submitted his essay in an unaltered format. He called the entire situation a misunderstanding.

Verdict Deliberations:
There was no immediate consensus in the Council members’ initial impressions. While most believed that a violation had occurred, a couple did not, and one was undecided. Most members disagreed with Student A’s claim that he had a right to post his pledged work on Myspace before the submission deadline and discussed the potential of his having given aid.

Straw Poll #1: Is there clear and convincing evidence that a violation has occurred?
Yes: 6 + 2(observing)             
No: 2              
Abstentions: 1

One of the dissenting members altered his vote after further review of the assignment prompt in evidence, which indicated that students may not discuss the questions or their responses with anyone. After hearing the majority opinion that the posting of the essays on a public discussion forum was a blatant contradiction to the assignment prompt under the Honor Code, the abstaining Council Member and the other dissenter changed their vote.

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

Straw Poll #3: Is Student A in violation of the Honor Code?
Yes: 9 + 2(observing)             
No: 0              
Abstentions: 0

Straw polls #2 and #3 were made binding.

Penalty Deliberation:
The Council Chair explained special circumstances regarding the penalty possibilities. Since the assignment was not typical, “F in the course” was taken to mean “F on the assignment” for the purposes of deliberation.
Most of the Council members chose to mitigate a large amount on the nature of the violation and some also chose to mitigate on cooperation of the accused. One of the members considered aggravating based upon a possible attempt to conceal the violation in Student A’s alteration of the Myspace essay page’s title after the accusation was received. This member decided, though, that the attempt did not reach a necessary threshold to warrant significant aggravation. 

Straw Poll #4: What is an appropriate penalty for Student A?
F on the assignment +2 semester suspension: 0                     
Letter of reprimand: 9 + 2(observing)           
Abstentions: 0

The Council had reached unanimity on the penalty decision and made Straw Poll #4 binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A in violation of the Honor Code and recommends that he receive a Letter of Reprimand. A prior violation flag is also attached to his record.

Time of Hearing and Deliberations: 1 hour, 10 minutes

Respectfully submitted,
Spencer Crouch
Clerk