| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #41, Spring 1992 (carry-over to Fall) Abstract of the Honor Council August 18, 1992
Members Present: Sam Cole, Marc Elliot, Chad Fargason, Crystal Gobble, Korbin King, Larkin McReynolds, Jeff Nichols, Bradley Shisler, and Steve Tran.
Ombudsman: Ben Lynch
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in an upper level Humanities course. The letter requested that the council conduct an investigation to determine whether two students, henceforth known as Student A and Student B, had collaborated or otherwise violated the honor code on the final take home exam for the course.
Student A began his opening statement by explaining that the test in question was an open book-open note exam and that both he and Student B (as well as several others from the course) had used the same copy of the same book from the library as a reference during the test. Student A and B's exam, sample exams, and a copy of the the reference book used for the test were submitted as evidence.
After this statement, the Council began questioning the accused as to the chronology of taking the exam. Student A answered that he and Student B are roommates and both took the exam in their apartment. Student B said that he took the exam first while Student A was writing a paper in Mudd Lab which was corroborated by Student A. He then testified that he finished the exam and then went into another room in the apartment where he began taking another exam. Student A said that he took the exam later that same day.
The Council began questioning the two accused as to the uncanny similarities in their answers to over half of the test questions. They replied that since they were using the same reference book to find the answers, it was not unusual for them to have similar answers.
The professor for the course was then sworn in as a witness. He stated that during the process of grading, he had found Student A and Student B's tests too similar to be coincidental. Given that the test was an open book exam, he had given them the benefit of a doubt, but after finding seventeen almost identical short answer questions on the two exams felt that it was a matter that should be addressed by the Council. The Council then asked the professor about specific questions on the exam and the likelihood of the answers being paraphrased from the reference book identically. Using a random sampling of tests of other students in the course, the professor showed that the probability was slim for such an occurrence on so many different questions.
After the professor had left the room, the council began questioning the accused as to the similarities in the content of their exams. Student A was also questioned about a random sheet of paper that had been included in his exam. Student A replied that he wasn't really sure how that sheet had gotten stapled in with the rest of his test, but to him it appeared to be either a rough draft of the exam or a page of his class notes. Following this line of questioning, the accused gave their closing statements. They reiterated the chronology of taking the test and of the whereabouts of each while the other was taking the exam. They once again offered the fact that they had used the same book exclusively to reference the answers as explanation for the similarities in their exams. The accused then left the room.
The Council began deliberation by examining the two exams closely. It seemed very suspicious that the accused would have paraphrased identically and even made identical grammatical errors on such a large portion of the test. It was noted that the paper of Student B contained more information on several of the questions involved that the paper of Student A. Several members felt that the answers of Student A seemed to be a subset of Student B. At this point a straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #1 Student A Student B Guilty 8 Guilty 1 Not Guilty 0 Not Guilty 2 Abstentions 1 Abstentions 6
Following the straw poll, the Council opened discussion on Student A. The members felt that his test was too similar to Student B's test to be mere coincidence. The extra page in Student A's exam that appeared to be an earlier draft of the exam or class notes was a strong indicator to many members that Student A had copied the exam of Student B. The extra page contained answers to half of the exam all of which were noticeably different than the answers cited by Student A in the portion of the exam that he had submitted. In once instance, the scratch page contained the correct answer to a question that had been answered incorrectly on the actual exam. The council then took a straw poll on Student A.
Straw Poll #2 Student A Guilty 8 Not Guilty 0 Abstentions 1
After the abstaining member made his reasons for abstaining known to the Council, another straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #3 Student A Guilty 9 Not Guilty 0 Abstentions 0
This vote was made binding.
Deliberation on Student B then began. Three possible scenarios were suggested: (1) that the two students had collaborated, (2) that Student B had given Student A permission to copy his exam, and (3) that Student A had copied Student B's exam without his knowledge. After some discussion, the Council members agreed that the collaboration theory had a faulty notion in that Student A's exam was more of a subset of Student B's exam than vice versa. A straw poll was then taken.
Straw Poll #2 Student B Guilty 0 Not Guilty 8 Abstentions 1
After the abstaining member had made clear his reasons for abstaining, another straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #3 Student B Guilty 0 Not Guilty 9 Abstentions 0
This vote was made binding.
At this point penalty deliberation for Student A began. It was brought to the attention of the Council that Student A had been convicted of two prior violations and had an indefinite suspension clause attached to his Honor Council record. Following consensus, the first suggested penalty was an F in the course and an indefinite suspension. After some discussion, a penalty of an F in the course, an indefinite suspension with a minimum of six semesters away from Rice, and an indefinite suspension clause attached was suggested. The Council felt that the specification of a minimum amount of time away from the university was necessary to reflect how strongly the Council felt that Student A no longer belonged at Rice. Another penalty of an F in the course, an indefinite suspension with a minimum of eight semesters away from Rice, and an indefinite suspension clause attached was then put before the Council. At this point a straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #1 Penalty for Student A F in the course and an indefinite suspension 0
F in the course, indefinite suspension (min. 6 semesters) + indefinite suspension clause 8
F in the course, indefinite suspension (min. 8 semesters) + indefinite suspension clause 1
This vote was made binding.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student B not guilty of an honor code violation and finds Student A guilty of an honor code violation. The Honor Council recommends to the Dean of Students that Student A receive an F in the course and an indefinite suspension with a minimum of six semesters away from Rice, and that an indefinite suspension clause be added to his record.
Respectfully submitted,
Crystal R. Gobble Trial Clerk