Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #7, Fall 2006
January 19th, 2007

Members Present:
Becky Thilo (presiding), Paul Campbell (clerk), Ryan Stinnett, Spencer Crouch, John Horstman, Andrew Koller, Court Jackson, David Katten, Josh Levin.

Ombuds:
Lauren Hunt

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a lower-level social sciences course accusing Student A of submitting an exam for a re-grade after the exam had been altered in an attempt to regain undeserved points.

Evidence Submitted:

• Letter of accusation
• Written statement
• Copy of re-grade request
• Copy of originally submitted exam
• Copy of answer as submitted for re-grade
• Professor’s answer key
• Syllabus
• Original copies of all of the above
• Student’s notebook
• Copy of student’s previous exam
• Written copy of Student A’s opening statement
• Written copy of student’s closing statement

Plea:
Student A pled “Not In Violation.”

Testimony:
In his opening statement Student A explained why he was pleading not in violation.  First, he stated that he knew the professor kept copies of all student’s original exams before re-grading; making changes to a re-grade would have been noticed immediately.  Second, he stated and demonstrated that the additions made to his exam were insignificant, and alone they added nothing meaningful to the answer in question. Additionally any advantage gained by more points on the re-grade would have had no effect on his final class grade due to the grading system and original exam score.  Continuing, the student argued that his motivation for a re-grade was to guarantee an exam score that would demonstrate his strong abilities in his professor’s eyes. 

The Council asked why the student believed he should receive full credit for what was originally written on the exam.  Student A explained why his original graph was correct.  The Council then asked if the labels added to the graph had any significance and if they could have been changed without changing the answer.  The student responded that the points were implicit, and the additions added were merely used to clarify his explanation of the original graph.  The student argued that the shape of the graph was the fundamental component to make the graph complete.  Continuing on the subject of the labels, the student relented that the points did have significance in the sense that the letters represent three specific points usually represented with the labels written on the exam.  The Council asked the student why he wrote on the exam in pencil during the re-grade, given that he knew this to be against the course Honor Code policy.  The student contended that he should have used pen (since markings in a different writing utensil were permitted), but that writing in pencil shouldn’t have mattered if it added nothing to the exam.  Responding to another Council question, the student added that, because he thought the additions were meaningless, he did not feel it necessary to mention in his re-grade explanation that the additions made in pencil were made after taking the original exam. 

Verdict Deliberations:
In their initial impressions, Council members felt that a violation had occurred because an addition was made to the test that gave further meaning to the test which was in direct opposition to the re-grade policies of the class.  Even if the additions were not significant, they were still alterations of the exam which were indistinguishable from the writings of the original exam.

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:
In opening penalty deliberations, the Council was reminded to push out of their mind some character testimony in the letter of accusation.  Council members first considered the nature of the violation and the extent of cooperation provided.  No Council members found any aggravating factors.  All of the members felt that his cooperation was full to every extent, that the student did his best to try and be helpful to the Council.  In terms of nature, the views were a bit more mixed.  Those that were going to be mitigating on nature said that they give the student the benefit of the doubt that he intended his additions to be merely illustrious.  Other members felt that the labels were unique to the answer, and Student A verified this with his testimony.  When considering the assignment weight, the Council agreed that Student A made a very minor addition, although to some members the numerical value of the change is irrelevant.  The Council pointed out that the action was not malicious.

Straw Poll #3:  What is an appropriate penalty for Student A?

F in course & 2 semester suspension:             0     
F in course:                                                     0    
2 letter grade reduction in course:                  3
1 letter grade reduction:                                  0
1/3 letter grade reduction:                               2
Letter of reprimand:                                        0
Abstentions:                                                    4

The two Council members who voted for a 1/3 letter grade reduction felt that a minor violation occurred, but some punitive measure should be added.  One of the members who voted for a 2 letter grade reduction said that Student A did not understand that writing on the exam was a violation.  The other 2 letter grade reduction advocate stated that Student A changed the test in a meaningful way on a re-grade exam, which warranted a 2 letter grade reduction.  After further discussion, most of the Council came to the view that the change was substantive yet an unintentional lapse in judgment.

Straw Poll #4:  What is an appropriate penalty for Student A?

2 letter grade reduction in course:                  2
1 letter grade reduction in course:                  7
1/3 letter grade reduction:                               0
Abstentions:                                                    0

The Council has reached its required 2/3 majority but discussed further to strive for unanimity.  One of the Council members in the 2 letter grade reduction camp reiterated that violations on re-grades are an especially serious violation.  The other outlier was significantly convinced by the argument presented by the group advocating for the 1 letter grade reduction in the course.

Straw Poll #5:  What is an appropriate penalty for Student A?

2 letter grade reduction in course:                  1
1 letter grade reduction in course:                  8
1/3 letter grade reduction:                               0
Abstentions:                                                    0

Straw poll #5 was made binding.

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

Time of Hearing and Deliberations: 1 hour, 36 minutes.

Respectfully submitted,
Paul Campbell
Clerk