| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #8, Spring 1993 Trial of the Honor Council 25 February 1993
Members present: Suzanne Angele, Tobey Blanton, Marc Elliot, Chad Fargason, Carolyn Gill (observing), Andrea Johnson, Korbin King, Jeff Nichols, Bradley Shisler, Steve Tran.
Ombudsman: David Webber.
Letter of Accusation.. The Honor Council received an accusation from a professor of a science class concerning an exam that had been submitted for a regrade. On a Sunday (we will call this Day 4 with the day the exam was returned to the students being Day 1), the professor found the exam and a note explaining the submission in his mailbox. He noticed that one of the problems submitted for regrade had been a common mistake among students taking the exam. Believing it was unlikely a mistake could have been made in the grading, the professor became suspicious. Known to all students in the class, he makes random photocopies of exams after they are graded but before he hands them back. He consulted the photocopied exams and discovered that he had indeed photocopied the accused's exam before handing it back. After comparing the photocopy to the exam submitted for regrade, the professor noticed that three of the problems had been altered (call them problems B, C and D). At this point, he wrote a letter of accusation (dated Day 5) to the Council outlining his findings.
Evidence Submitted. The professor submitted as evidence the following
articles:
- Article 1 The photocopy of the exam before it had been handed back.
- Article 2 The exam submitted for regrade along with a single page of
explanations written by the accused. Note: the page submitted asked the
professor to look at problems A, B, C, and D for regrade.
- Article 3 A handwritten note written by the accused dated Day 6 and found by
the professor in his mailbox on Day 21.
- Article 4 The syllabus handed out to the students of the class by the
professor outlining among other things his Honor Code Policy for the class and
procedures for regrades.
Plea. The accused pleaded Not Guilty.
Opening statement. After going off tape to allow the Council time to examine the evidence presented, the accused began her opening statement by noting that she had received her graded exam back late in the afternoon on Day 1. She immediately took the exam to her room where she began to look it over. At this point, she wasn't thinking of turning it in to be regraded. She soon discovered that one of the problems (call it problem A) had been graded wrong and decided to submit that problem to be regraded. Continuing to look it over, she decided to try to figure out what she had done on two other problems (problems B and C). She stated specifically that she wrote on problems B and C in an attempt to understand her mistakes. Addressing problem D, also submitted by the professor as a changed problem, she said that it did look very guilty to her, but it was a mystery and she had never touched this problem. On Day 2, she wrote the note explaining the regrade and placed it along with her exam in the professor's mailbox. On Day 3, the accused realized that she had submitted the regrade with her tinkerings on problem C intact, so she wrote a letter to the professor explaining her error and mailed it using Campus Mail on Day 5. She did not realize that she had also left her changes on problem B, and was totally unaware of the changes on problem D. The accused thought nothing more of the issue until she received a call from the Honor Council on Day 20 informing her that she was under investigation for an Honor Code violation. At this point, she could not figure out what class the investigation could possibly concern.
Questioning by the Honor Council. After the accused finished her opening statement, the Honor Council began questioning her. What follows is a general list of questions asked by the Honor Council with the accused's response in parenthesis. The list is not complete, but hopefully it is close.
-When was the answer key made available to students? (Day 1). -When was Article 3 written, and when it was mailed? (Day 3 and Day 5 respectively). -Did the accused actually make changes to problem B? (Yes, she did). -What about problem D? (She didn't know what had happened and did not make the change) Note: the Council and the accused agreed that problem D on Article 1 was different than problem D on Article 2. -Had she ever submitted regrades before? (Yes, once on a final exam). -Did she normally make corrections on her tests? (Yes, she almost always reworked problems she missed on tests). -What caused the accused to realize that she had left her correction of problem C on the exam that she turned in for regrade (Article 2)? (She wasn't sure; she just realized she had done something wrong).
Witness 1 -- The Professor. The Council then heard from the first (and only) witness, the professor of the class. After he was sworn in, he explained why he had submitted the accusation. Problem D initially caught his attention as being particularly strange and caused him to go back to his photocopies where he discovered that he had copied the accused's exam before handing it back. The professor explained why he thought problems B, C, and D had been changed and also at the Council's prompting stated if he would have given more credit on these changes. The Council and accused then began to question the professor, and a summary of those questions follows with the professor's replies in parenthesis. The summary should not be considered complete, and the questions and answers are presented in the language of the Trial Clerk.
-When was Article 3 received? (On Day 21 at 2:30 PM, in his mailbox which he checks regularly throughout the day). -How was it packaged? (In a plain gray envelope with just his name printed on it). The accused challenged the professor and claimed that it had his name, department and the words Campus Mail printed on it. The professor said he couldn't remember for sure, but it may have had Campus Mail on it. -Was there more than one correct answer for problem B? (Yes). -When he normally gets regrades, have the people written on the test? (No, usually they write on separate pieces of paper.) -When was the key posted? (On Day 1, when the exam was originally returned to the students). -How was the student doing in the class and how much did the accused stand to gain on the regrades? (The accused beat the mean by 3 on the first test, 20 on the second test, and the regrades may have yielded 5 points).
After the professor left, the Honor Council continued its questioning of the accused.
-In what order did the accused recognize her mistakes on the exam and decide to submit the exam for a regrade? (She read problem A, decided to submit it for a regrade, then continued on through the test, making changes directly on it in pencil on problems B and C). Note: the original exam was taken in pencil. -When was she made aware she was under investigation? (Day 20). -When did she pick up her test? (Day 1, late in the afternoon). -Did she immediately fiddle with the test? (Yes). -When did she write the cover sheet submitted to the professor (part of Article 2)? (Day 2). -Did she have the test with her when she wrote this sheet and did she follow along on the test as she was writing her reasons for increased credit? (Yes, she had it with her, but she wasn't sure if she had looked at it while she wrote the cover sheet). -What was her schedule? (In the interest of confidentiality, the trial clerk decided to keep this secret, but on Day 2 the accused was in class both in the morning and afternoon while on Day 21 she was only in class in the morning). -Did you send Article 3 in Campus Mail? (Yes). -Did you ever consider phoning the professor or going to see him about problem C? (No). -Did she know of anyone that could hold a grudge against her who may have tampered with problem D? (No). -Did she change problem D at all? (No)
Several other questions were asked, but they concern issues that if revealed could seriously compromise the confidentiality of the accused.
Closing Statement. The accused believed that every issue had been covered in "exhaustive detail." She asked the Council to please keep an open mind, and understand that this was a strange set of circumstances. She also noted that if she were in the Council's position, she might find herself guilty. Reiterating that she was telling the truth "as far as I know" and that she had been as honest and forthright as possible, she asked the Council to please consider: 1) Article 3 in which she had attempted to rectify her mistake of submitting problem C for regrade with her fiddlings intact and 2) The facts and do what is right.
Deliberation on whether or not a violation had occurred. After the accused left, the Council began deliberation on whether or not a violation of the Honor Code had occurred. The initial thoughts of one Honor Council member were that a strong amount of evidence indicated the accused was guilty. He pointed out that she had known she was going to submit at least problem A for a regrade, yet she went ahead and changed problems B and C on her test. Additionally, Article 3 worried this member because if it had been mailed in Campus Mail as claimed by the accused, it would have taken 16 days to arrive, coincidentally got there a day AFTER she had been notified she was under investigation by the Honor Council, and arrived in the professor's mailbox at a time when the accused could not account for her whereabouts. Other members indicated that the length of time taken for delivery, while implausible, was possible. Problem D was also of great concern, as the accused had not admitted to changing this problem, yet had submitted it to be regraded and it was clearly changed from the time the professor handed it back. In order to believe the accused, the Council felt that it must believe some other person had tampered with the exam between the time that the exam was placed in a box for return to the students and the time the accused picked it up, which she had estimated at approximately 2-3 hours. Others noted that of four problems identified for regrade in Article 2, three of them showed significant alterations between the exam photocopied by the professor before he returned it and the exam submitted for regrade. Then a Council member pointed out that problem B was not discussed by the accused in Article 3, yet she admitted to making changes on it and subsequently submitting it for a regrade. He felt that no matter how the Council looked at the other inconsistencies, problem B represented a violation of the Code. Several members felt that it was extremely unbelievable that the accused could have made changes on her exam on problems B and C on Day 1, then written a note to the professor asking for problems A, B, C and D to be regraded on Day 2 and not remember that she had changed problems B and C. The issue of Article 3 and the problems it presented (being received by the professor after the accused had been notified of her Honor Council investigation and sixteen days after she claimed she sent it) was discussed further by the Council. Other points may have been discussed, but hopefully these represent the bulk of the of the arguments. Because most Council members appeared to have strong views on the guilt or innocence of the accused, a straw poll was then taken.
Straw Poll #1
Not Guilty 0
Guilty 9 (+1 observing)
Abstentions 0
The vote was made binding by the Council.
Deliberation on penalty. The Council began deliberations on the penalty by noting that this constituted a major violation under the published Consensus Penalties, and therefore the recommended starting place for penalty consideration was an F in the class + a one year suspension from Rice University. Several members believed that the accused had intentionally changed problems B, C and D to raise her grade, then placed Article 3 in the professor's mailbox after she learned she was under investigation by the Honor Council. Others concurred and saw no mitigating circumstances in this case. One member stated that perhaps she didn't intend to profit from her mistake of submitting changes to be regraded and therefore the penalty could be lowered. Others stated that ignorance is not a mitigating factor. The following points were discussed in detail: 1) The accused never admitted to changing problem D, yet it had clearly been changed. How could this be explained? 2) Problem B, which the accused admitted to changing then submitting to be regraded, was clearly a violation of important magnitude. The accused never mentioned problem B in her note, Article 3. 3) The note submitted along with the exam for regrade (Article 2) was written with the exam right in front of the accused. How could she not have realized what she was doing? 4) Article 3 was received by the professor a day after the accused was notified she was under investigation, several hours before her investigation, and 16 days after the accused claimed she sent it. She was also unable to account for her whereabouts at this time. Additionally, the note was dated Day 6, while the accused claimed she had written it on Day 3 and mailed it on Day 5. How can these inconsistencies be explained?
At this point, a motion was made for a straw poll and seconded. The results follow:
Straw Poll #2
F + 1 year suspension 7 (+1 observing)
Abstentions 2
After going off tape to allow everyone time to think, the Council heard from the two abstentions. One member expressed that a friend had been recently wrongfully accused in a non academic affair and he therefore wanted extra time to think. Additionally, he tried to look at the case entirely from the accused's point of view and reconsider the possible scenarios. The other member stated that she simply wanted more time to decide if this constituted a severe violation that was worthy of a harsh penalty. All members agreed that they were ready to take another straw poll.
Straw Poll #3
F + 1 year suspension 9 (+1 observing)
Abstentions 0
The vote was made binding, and a suspension clause was also attached to the accused's file. During the one year suspension, the accused can not attend any classes at Rice until the Spring of 1994, and she can not transfer credit to Rice from classes taken while suspended.
Time of trial and deliberation: 3.5 hours.
Respectfully submitted,
Bradley Shisler Acting Trial Clerk