Abstract of the Honor Council
Case 6, Fall 2006
January 18, 2007

Members Present:
Becky Thilo (presiding), Laura Campo (clerk), Paul Campbell, Ryan Stinnett, Tara Grigg, Jon Jackson, Chris Koops, Amber Raley, Erin Waller, Rachel Patterson (obs), Arjun Prakash (obs)

Ombuds:
Kristin Bresnahan

Letter of Accusation:
A student in an lower level social sciences course was accused of submitting an exam for re-grade after altering her submission to gain undeserved points. 

Evidence Submitted:

• Letter of accusation
• Written statement
• E-mail correspondence from student to professor
• Copy of student’s exam answers as originally submitted
• Copy of student’s exam answers as submitted for regrade
• Exam answer key
• Course Syllabus

Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation."

Testimony:
Student A began her testimony by explaining that had in fact altered some of the answers on her exam before asking the professor to regrade it.  She said she was aware of the course’s regrade policy and realized that changing her answers was a violation of the Honor Code at the time. 

A member of the Council asked Student A whether she had consulted the professor’s answer key before making alterations to her exam.  Student A responded that she had seen the answer key and used it for ideas of how to alter her exam.  She also said that the changes she made reflected the work she thought she could accomplish during the test had she been given more time.

Student A also asked for other questions which she had not altered (not present as evidence at the hearing) to be regraded because she felt that the grading on those questions was too harsh.

About two days elapsed between the exam being returned to students and when Student A resubmitted her exam for a regrade.  Student A clarified that she did change some answers in pencil to match the work she had originally done on the exam before resubmitting for a regrade.  When asked to explain why she was pleading in violation, Student A said that she pled in violation to changing answers on her exam and asking the professor to regrade them as if they were the original submission.

Student A also said that although she did cheat on the first midterm exam, she did not cheat on any subsequent exams in the course.

Verdict Deliberations:
Initial impressions of all members was that Student A was in violation.  Members cited the evidence of photocopies of Student A’s original submission and altered submission for regrade and her plea of in violation.

Straw Poll#1:
Is there clear and convincing evidence that a violation occurred?

Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #2:
Is there clear and convincing evidence that student A is in violation?

Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw polls #1 and #2 were made binding.

Penalty Deliberations:
Penalty deliberations opened with a discussion of mitigating factors.  The Council discussed the nature of the violation and decided that it did not fit the criteria for heinous.  The exam was worth 25% of Student A’s grade in the course, and some members discussed their view that cheating on the regrade is like cheating on the entire exam, which is worth a significant portion of Student A’s grade.  Several members agreed that they would not be mitigating on the nature of the violation, and a few said they might give slight mitigation.

Student A was cooperative with the Council by making a plea of “in violation” in good faith and by providing information about how the violation occurred. Most members agreed that they would mitigate for Student A’s cooperation.

Next, aggravating factors were considered, including deceit, false disclosure, attempts to conceal the violation, premeditation, and collusion with other students.  Some members felt that the violation may have been premeditated since Student A had two days in which to make the changes between receiving her exam and submitting it for a regrade.  Other members cited attempt to conceal the violation, saying that since Student A made changes on the exam in pencil, it was an attempt to conceal the violation.  Some members argued that writing in pencil on the exam to change answers was the violation itself and did not warrant additional aggravating on penalties.  Some members also doubted whether Student A had planned long in advance to cheat and stated that they would not be aggravating for premeditation.

Straw poll #3:
Choose an appropriate penalty for Student A.
F in the course and 2 semester suspension: 1
F in the course and 1 semester suspension: 4 + 1 observing
2 letter grade reduction in the course and 1 semester suspension: 1 + 1 observing
F in the course: 2
2 letter grade reduction in the course: 0
Abstentions: 1

The abstaining member said that she needed to hear everyone’s arguments fleshed out before she would feel comfortable choosing a penalty.

The member who voted for a 2 letter grade reduction plus 1 semester suspension said that perhaps the violation did not merit failing the course but was serious enough to warrant suspension.  Another member argued that if the violation was severe enough for suspension, it seemed that it should also be severe enough to fail the student in the course.  After this discussion, and to keep in line with past penalties, the Council decided to throw out the 2 letter grade reduction plus 1 semester suspension.

Next, some members argued that the violation merits suspension because abusing the exam regrade policy undermines the Honor System and is significantly damaging to the academic atmosphere at Rice.  In addition, by raising her own grade slightly, Student A could have lowered other students’ grades who did not cheat.

Other members argued that the case did not warrant suspension because Student A did not have very much to gain (in terms of the course grade) by cheating on the regrade and she was very cooperative with the Council.  These members argued that an F in the course is a very serious penalty which takes away credit for the exam in credit and is also punitive.

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

Since the two-thirds majority had been met, the Council strove for unanimity. Each outlying member discussed his or her reasons for staying at a penalty of either F + 2 semester suspension or F in the course and decided that they were uncomfortable changing their penalties to make the Council’s decision more unanimous.  Thus, the Council felt that it had made its best effort to strive for unanimity, and straw poll #4 was made binding.

The Honor Council thus finds Student A “In Violation” of the Honor Code and recommends that she receive an F in the course plus a 1 semester suspension.  A Prior Violation Flag will also be attached to her record.

Time of hearing and deliberation: 1 hour, 2 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,
Laura Campo
Clerk