| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #1, Fall 1992 Abstract of the Honor Council December 9, 1992
Members present: Chad Fargason (presiding chair), Crystal Gobble, Sam Cole, Andrea Johnson, Mark Elliott, Purvez Captain, Jeff Nichols, Brad Shisler, and Abigail Martin.
Ombudsmen: David Webber, Joy Loh (observing), and Pete Marketos (observing).
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from the professor of a graduate level humanities course implicating one student of violating the Honor Code on two quizzes. A student in the class approached the professor after both quizzes had been graded and returned and reported that he had seen violations occur. The professor privately asked five other students in the class if they had witnessed infractions of the Honor Code, and four of the five said that they had seen violations occur. Thus, the professor turned the case over to the Council. The professor did explain in his letter that the accused had entered the department during the middle of the last academic year and had probably missed the official Honor Code orientation.
The accused pled guilty to violating the Honor Code on the first quiz but pled not guilty to violating the Honor Code on the second quiz.
In his opening statement the accused explained that he had arrived late to class on the day of the first quiz and had missed the professor's instructions. While taking the quiz he had referred to his notes, assuming that this was allowed. He now realizes that he was in violation of the Honor Code and understands why he is guilty. The accused pled not guilty to the second quiz because he felt that he had not used any unauthorized aids, since this quiz was an open note quiz. At one point during the quiz he had forgotten how to express a particular term and asked his neighbor to help clear up the ambiguity. His neighbor did point to the specific notation in his own notebook, but that was the only communication between the two students.
After this questioning began. We first asked about his entrance into Rice. The accused entered last year in January and said that he had not received any type of explanation of the Honor Code from the department or from the Honor Council. He had never seen the Honor Code handbook until being notified of this accusation. Before this class he had only been given one written test, for which the professor simply said to sign the pledge as a means of assuring that he would not cheat on the exam. It was noted that no where on the first quiz was it mentioned that this was a closed note quiz, and the accused said that he did not remember the professor mentioning beforehand that the quiz was closed note.
The student to whom the accused had spoken during the quiz was unable to attend the trial as a witness. Instead he had written a letter explaining what he had observed. In the letter he stated that he noticed nothing unusual during the first quiz. During the second quiz the accused asked him how to express a certain term and he did point out the notation in his own notebook. Other than that, he witnessed nothing unexpcted.
The first witness, who was the student that first approached the professor about the violation, claimed to have seen violations on both quizzes. On the day of the first quiz he had been in charge of collecting the paper and returning them to the professor. He had noticed the accused using his notes during the first exam. This witness also testified that the professor had mentioned the fact that this quiz was closed note during the previous class. During the second quiz he had heard the accused talk to the student sitting next to him, although he did testify that the question he heard the accused ask only concerned the notation of the answer, not what the answer was in and of itself.
The second witness was then sworn in and questioning began. This witness noticed nothing unusual during the first quiz, although he did say that he felt it was very clear before the day of the quiz that it was to be closed note. As for the second quiz, he claimed that the accused was blatantly cheating, enough so to disturb his own quiz taking. When asked if he heard the accused asking any questions he said that he had not. He had only seen the accused continually looking at the notes of the student sitting to the accused's right before writing anything down on his own quiz paper. In response to this the accused said that he had placed his own notes to the right of his quiz paper, and that he only looked at his own notes other than the single time that he had asked about the particular notation pointed out by the student to his right. This witness said that he could not be sure what the accused was glancing at during the quiz, but that he still believed it was very suspicious that the notes were to the accused's right where the other student was sitting.
After this, the third witness was sworn in. He was not present for the second quiz and could only testify about the first quiz. He said that the accused was sitting to his right and that he continually had the sensation that someone was looking over his shoulder during the quiz. He had also arrived late on this day, but had arrived before the accused did. He had no recollection of previous instructions as to this being a closed note quiz, nor did he have any recollection of the accused using his notes during the quiz.
The third witness left and the accused then summed up the case in his closing statement. He reiterated that he now knows ahout the system and knows that he can ask questions of the professors to clear up any ambiguities. He realized what he did wrong on the first quiz, but did not believe that he had committed a violation of the Honor Code on the second quiz.
The Council then entered deliberation. We first discussed the plea of not guilty on the second quiz. We felt there were problems in the corroboration of testimony of some of the witnesses, particularly the fact that the second witness did not remember hearing a question being asked but insisted that the accused was disrupting the class. It also seemed odd that no one, except the first witness who had reported this to the professor, felt that anything suspicious occurred until after being asked about it by the professor and then later by the Honor Council. It seemed clear to everyone that the accused did indeed ask his neighbor about the correct notation. It was pointed out that the central issue involved is whether we think that asking another student how to represent the correct answer is a violation of the Honor Code or not. We then took a straw poll:
Straw Poll #1
guilty 1
not guilty 7
abstentions 1
We first heard from the member who felt that the accused was guilty. He believed that even though the accused had not asked his neighbor for the answer to the quiz question, he had used an aid the professor had not intended by asking another student for the correct term. The other members, on the other hand, felt that asking for the correct notation was still within the spirit of the Honor Code because the accused already knew what the correct answer was, and they also pointed out that the accused had failed to receive an orientation to the Honor Code. They felt that other members in the class also interpreted this as an appropriate question. In particular the neighbor who did point out the correct notation and the first witness, whose main concern was using notes on the first quiz and testified as to the intent of the question asked during the quiz, were both representative of the belief that this was acceptable within this class. Another straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #2
guilty 1
not guilty 8
abstentions O
This straw poll was made binding, and we then focused our attention on penalty deliberation for the plea of guilty on the first quiz. Consensus for such a violation is an F in the class and a two semester suspension. Again it was mentioned that the accused had not received any orientation to the Honor Code and it was suggested that writing an essay on the Honor System might be a positive learning experience. It was also pointed out that the accused had used his notes out of ignorance. But other members questioned whether this should be a mitigating circumstance since the concept of having an open or closed note quiz is one which can easily be understood without an exact knowledge of our Honor Code. Thus the following lesser penalties were suggested and a straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #3
F in the class and a 2 semester suspension O
Written essay about the Honor System O
F on the quiz 2
Grade based on an average of other coursework excluding this quiz 4
The previous option with a written essay 1
Abstentions 2
We heard from the abstentions first. Both members expressed concern over the seeming negligence of the accused despite his ignorance of the Honor Code. Those who voted to compute the grade without averaging in this quiz explained this option as a means of not punishing the accused for his ignorance of the Honor Code while not giving the accused the unfair advantage of using his notes on this quiz. They felt that the accused should not be punished for the omission of the Honor Code orientation on the part of the department and the Council. Others on the Council who voted for an F on the quiz believed that the accused probably had a better understanding of the Honor Code than we thought and also agreed with the abstaining members in that the accused did show a certain amount of negligence by arriving to class late and by not asking the other students whether notes were allowed or not. Another straw poll was taken, excluding the two options which received no votes:
Straw Poll #4
F on the quiz 2
Grade based on an average of coursework excluding this quiz 5
The previous option with an essay O
Abstentions 2
The abstaining members reiterated their concerns and then asked for time to again consider the options. After a short break another straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #5
F on the quiz 4
Grade based on an average of coursework excluding this quiz 5
Abstentions O
This straw poll was made binding. Thus, the Honor Council recommends to the Dean of Students that the accused's grade be computed by taking an average of all coursework except the first quiz, and we find the accused not guilty of cheating on the second quiz.
Respectfully submitted,
Abigail Martin, Trial Clerk