| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case 4, Fall 2006
December 5, 2006
Members Present:
Becky Thilo (presiding), Chris Koops (clerk), Jackie Ammons, John Horstman,
Jon Jackson, Farhan Katchi, David Katten, Ryan Stinnett, Erin Waller, Ashutosh
Gupta (observing), Glenisha Wilson (observing)
Ombuds:
Pete Choo
Willam Pryor (observing)
Letter of Self-Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter from Student A accusing herself of working
for 40 minutes beyond the 5-hour maximum on a take-home midterm exam in a
lower-level natural science course.
Evidence Submitted:
Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation.”
Testimony:
Student A chose not to make an opening statement.
Student A was asked to specify exactly which parts of the exam she had worked on beyond the allowed time limit. She stated that she had worked on one problem in full and two other problems in part during this time, and pointed these parts out to the Council. A Council member asked Student A whether she had made use of any illegitimate resources during the exam, or whether the perceived violation consisted entirely in working beyond the allowed time limit. Student A stated that the latter was the case. Another Council member asked Student A about her motivation for accusing herself. Student A mentioned her religious motivation and that discussions with her mentor and others had led her to submit a letter of self-accusation. Further questions by the Council concerned the exact date on which Student A took the mid-term exam and the exact number of minutes which she had worked beyond the time limit. Student A specified that she had taken the midterm on the 21st of October and that she had worked 40 minutes beyond the assigned time limit.
In her closing statement, Student A apologized for her actions and thanked the Council members for their fairness in coming to a verdict.
Verdict Deliberations
In expressing their their initial impressions, all Council members agreed that
a violation had occurred. One Council member specified that the violation
which had occurred was in the form of exceeding the time limit on a self-scheduled
exam.
Straw poll #1: Is there clear and convincing evidence that a violation
occurred?
Yes 9
+ 2 non-binding votes
No 0
Abstentions 0
Straw poll #2: Is there clear and convincing evidence that Student A is
in violation?
Yes 9
+ 2 non-binding votes
No 0
Abstentions 0
Straw polls #1 and #2 were made binding.
Penalty Deliberations
Initial thoughts about an appropriate penalty were collected, starting with
mitigating circumstances. Because the accusation was an unprompted self-accusation
made in good faith, the maximum penalty allowed is a grade of F in the course.
All Council members stated that they would consider Student A’s cooperation
with the Honor Council as a mitigating circumstance. As an example of cooperation,
it was mentioned that she had voluntarily specified for the Council the exact
amount of work which she had completed beyond the time limit. Most Council
members also mentioned they saw mitigating circumstances in the nature of
the violation. The following were mentioned: the fact that, by comparison
with other known cases of using illicit aid on a take-home exam, Student
A’s actions constitute a non-severe form of cheating; the fact that
the amount of time which Student A worked beyond the time limit constituted
only 15% of the total time allowed; the fact that the amount of points gained
through Student A’s actions amounts to only a small percentage, about
4.2 percent, of the overall course grade. On the other hand, it was pointed
out that the penalty should reflect fact that the violation occurred on a
take-home exam, which is a part of the Honor Code that is unique to Rice
University. Moving on to possible aggravating circumstances, the Council
agreed that no such circumstances applied.
The following possible penalties were proposed: an F in the course, a 1-and-1/3- letter course grade reduction (calculated on the basis of an estimated 4.2 percent gain of points toward the course grade), a 1-letter course grade reduction, a letter of reprimand.
Straw poll #3: What is an appropriate penalty for Student A?
F in
the course 0
1-and-1/3-letter
course grade reduction 2
1-letter course grade reduction 4
Letter of reprimand 2
+ 2 non-binding votes
Abstentions 1
There was discussion of the rationale for the proposed 1-and-1/3-letter course grade reduction. It was further mentioned that the penalty should include a corrective component beyond what is reflected in a letter of reprimand. It was pointed out that although Student A’s self-accusation might be seen as a sign of rehabilitation in itself, the notion of ‘correction’, as used by the Honor Council, is distinct from ‘rehabilitation’.
Straw poll #4: What is an appropriate penalty for Student A?
1-and-1/3-letter
course grade reduction 1
1-letter course grade reduction 7
+ 2
Letter of reprimand 0
Abstentions 1
One Council member explained that, upon reconsidering the overall grade distribution on the midterm exam, the 1-and-1/3-letter course grade reduction appeared to reflect more accurately the amount of points gained by Student A.
Straw poll #5: What is an appropriate penalty for Student A?
1-and-1/3-letter
course grade reduction 1
1-letter course grade reduction 8
+ 2
Abstentions 0
As the Council had reached the 2/3 majority required to come to a penalty decision, they strove for unanimity. Straw poll #5 was made binding.
The Honor Council thus found Student A in violation of the Honor Code and recommends to the Assistant Dean of Student Judicial Programs that she receive a 1-letter grade reduction in the course. A prior violation flag will also be attached to her record.
Total time of hearing and deliberations: 40 minutes
Respectfully submitted,
Christian Koops
Clerk