| Honor Council Rice University |
Case#9, Spring 1993 Abstract of the Honor Council 16 March 1993
Members present: Tobey Blanton, Pervez Captain, Sam Cole, Marc Elliot, Chad Fargason, Steve Hackney, and Steve Tran with Brad Shisler observing.
Ombudsman: Katie Krolikowski with Pete Marketos observing.
Summary The facts of the case, because of the accused's admitted guilt, were not in dispute. The major issues of the case were this: 1) the accused is a senior and the course s/he cheated in is required for graduation 2) the accused has already been admitted to a prestigious, extremely competitive graduate program and it is possible that the admission could not be deferred a year, and 3) the accused has been under a great deal of stress this semester because of a serious family situation. For five hours of deliberation, the Council weighed each of these factors. Each Council member had a different view of how important these factors should be in determining the penalty. The violation fell into the low end of Major violations, and as such the Council's consensus penalty is an F in the course and a two semester suspension. The Council decided on a penalty of an F in the course.
Letter of Accusation The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in an upper level science class concerning an assignment worth 10% of the final grade. The accusation stated that the assignment was supposed to be completed without consulting other students although texts or notes could be used. The professor went on to explain that there were several correct answers to the problems, though some were simpler and therefore far more common than others. The professor explained in his letter that the answer obtained by the two students he accused was correct, but that he couldn't "think of any intuitive path of reasoning that would be likely to lead to that answer." The professor then detailed why the answer was so improbable and listed other similarities in the assignments which led him to believe that the similarities were not coincidental.
Henceforward, the accused will be referred to as Student A
Evidence Submitted The professor submitted as evidence the following: 1) The assignment handed out in class. 2) Student A's answer. 3) The answer of the other person named in the accusation but not involved in the violation.
Student A submitted the following: 4) Student A's previous version of the assignment.
Plea Student A entered a plea of Guilty.
Opening Statement After the Council reviewed the evidence in the case, Student A began his/her opening statement. Before Spring Break, Student A had a heavy workload and was under a great deal of stress. On the way to his/her class, Student A was asked to turn in an assignment for someone who would not be attending a class later in the day. Before Student A turned in the assignment, s/he looked at the assignment and saw that it was different from his/hers. S/he then copied the entire assignment. Student A stated that there were, however, a number of mitigating circumstances.
(Trial Clerk's Note: The following summary of questions and answers and deliberation should not in any way be considered a complete transcript.)
Questioning by the Council Council: Did you do the assignment yourself prior to copying the one you eventually turned in? Student A: Yes. The answer I copied was more straightforward and I got scared. We had two weeks to do the assignment, and I worked on mine for about a week.
Council: What's the structure of homework in the class? Student A: This assignment was not like regular homework because it was for a grade. It was a major assignment. The assignment was not given the type of respect as other take home assignments. Nothing was sealed in an envelope or stapled. There was nothing to remind you that you were not supposed to work on the assignment with other people. Copying was just a spur of the moment decision; nothing was premeditated.
Council: How are you doing in the class? Student A: Well. B, B-.
Council: Were you keeping up in class? Student A: Yes. Attended everyday. Doing the work.
Council: Do you need this class to graduate? Student A: Yes. I have a spot in graduate school next year. The admission is, however, contingent upon graduation.
Council: What were the mitigating circumstances you talked about earlier? Student A: There is a very serious family situation. I found out about this at the beginning of the semester and haven't been thinking straight since. [details omitted]
Council: Have you undergone counseling and therapy? Student A: No, but I probably should. I've been under academic stress and depressed all semester.
Council: The answer was partially given in the assignment, and your original answer was incorrect. Student A: Yes. I was hoping for partial credit. Immediately after the professor informed me of the violation, I went to the professor and told him that the other student was not involved and admitted everything that happened.
Council: Have you learned something from this? Student A: I always thought that I was a good person. I've made a horrible mistake that could effect my life for the next year. I agreed to live under the Honor System when I came to Rice. I broke it and should be punished. It's kind of ironic that my parents question the severity of the consensus punishments, and I have to defend them to my parents. I always believed, "Be true to yourself." This makes you re-evaluate everything. This is something worse than a crime. I'd rather have you take me outside and beat me than do this.
Council: We don't sit here in moral judgment of you. Student A: You are my peers. Part of the Honor System is to reduce the chance of cheating. I'm not used to doing the wrong thing. I'm not a criminal. I feel like this is the worst thing I could do.
Council: Did you know what you were doing was wrong? Student A: I knew the material I was writing down so I thought it was okay. Everything I wrote down I understood. I probably wouldn't have signed the pledge to it, however.
Council: How long did it take you to copy? Student A: 10 minutes. I got accepted to graduate school in January, so grades don't mean a thing.
Council: Is this class required for your graduate school? Student A: [specifics about the graduate program omitted] Other people will be very willing to take my spot.
Council: Can you substitute this class for another and still graduate? Student A: No.
Council: What did you say to the person you copied this from? Student A: I told her everything. I'm ashamed and embarrassed.
Council: Do you think you'll do this in graduate school? Student A: There is no way I'm ever going to cheat again. People at Rice sometimes don't understand the severity of what they do.
Witness 1 -- The Professor Council: Please tell us what you know. Professor: The two answers were virtually identical and very unusual. Those two are the only ones who had that particular correct answer. Even their presentation is similar. I stated everything in my letter.
Council: Could you please look at Student A's original answer and tell us how correct it was? The Council went off-tape to give the professor time to look at the original answer. Professor: This does not look like it's coming close to being a correct answer. [specifics omitted]
Student A: I don't think one part of this homework represents my knowledge of this class. Professor: This was a difficult assignment and many people missed it. This was the first major assignment in class.
Council: What proportion of the grade was this assignment worth? Professor: 10 percent.
Council: What consultation was permitted? Professor: Very little.
Council: Why didn't you have students sign the pledge on the assignment? Professor: I've never done that before.
Council: Could you explain your correspondences with Student A after you turned him/her in? Professor: I had a note prepared so I wouldn't have to say anything in front of anyone. When s/he asked for his/her homework, I handed him/her the note.
Council: How important is this assignment? Professor: One of the most difficult assignments of the course. It's a way of demonstrating real excellence.
Council: What percentage is necessary to pass the class? Professor: It's very unusual for someone not to pass the class. Maybe 1 person in 3 years. No real formula.
Neither the Council nor Student A had any further questions for the professor, and he was excused.
Further Questioning of Student A by the Council Council: What do you think your penalty should be? Student A: If I were a junior, I'd say an F. By giving me an F in this course, you could jeopardize my acceptance into graduate school. I do deserve some penalty.
Council: Do you know what the consensus penalty is? Student A: Yes. But this isn't the same as a take home exam. It's something that took 10 minutes to copy. It was done without thought. Unpremeditated. The percentages on the consensus penalty are rather arbitrary. This was another homework assignment; it happened to be worth 10% of my final grade.
(Trial Clerk's Note: The consensus penalty definitions, as published in the Thresher, state that any violation on an assignment worth more than 5% of the class grade is a Major violation.)
Council: To what extent do you think your future rides on this decision? Student A: Completely. I've been completely dysfunctional this passed week. I've worked so hard at this school. To let it slip away at the last minute is unthinkable. I didn't start off well, and I didn't like it. I've learned how to work hard. Everyone here works hard. I'll debate anyone that Rice is a better school than the Ivys.
Council: Do you think that it's possible to be accepted into that graduate program next year? Student A: It wouldn't be easy, especially explaining an F. I think, however, that if I want something bad enough, I'll do it.
Closing Statement Student A admitted that s/he'd made a mistake. S/he said that by readily admitting his/her mistake, s/he showed his/her true character. His/her family crisis has caused him/her to lose focus. S/he also emphasized that the assignment was not treated like a major one; there was no pledge to sign, no sealed envelope, etc.
Student A stated that s/he wanted the opportunity to pass the class. A light penalty would not be jeopardizing the System. S/he emphasized that s/he learned his/her lesson.
"I ask for your compassion," s/he said.
Student A was dismissed, and the Council began the deliberation.
Penalty Deliberation After some initial reactions, the Council attempted to determine whether the violation was a Major or Minor one. Some members felt that, although it was clearly a Major violation this year, it might not have been in previous years. A member stated that he thought the percentage line for Major and Minor violations was rather arbitrary. A member responded that this is what the Council voted on and should be followed. After some more debate, the Council concluded that this was a Major violation, carrying with it a consensus penalty of F in the course + 2 semester suspension.
The Council decided it should then look at mitigating circumstances. One member stated that the Council should not confuse mitigating circumstance with the character of Student A. One member felt mitigating circumstances were something that happened, prior to the violation, that caused the violation. Debate focused on whether the family difficulties should be considered a mitigating circumstance.
The Council discussed Student A's mindset when the violation occurred. Some members thought that, because of the stress from his/her family, s/he panicked when s/he saw the correct answer. The central question seemed to be whether Student A would have committed the violation if it weren't for the difficulties in his/her family clouding his/her judgment.
Some Council members wondered why Student A looked at the other person's homework in the first place. It was then suggested that the Council not attempt to divine what Student A was thinking at the time of the violation, but rather should focus on mitigating circumstances.
A member reiterated that the central question the Council needed to focus on was whether the family difficulties affected Student A's judgment. One member pointed out that if the difficulties had occurred 5 or 20 years ago, the Council would not think it was a mitigating circumstance. The member went on to say that this wasn't really a mitigating circumstance; Student A was likely to cheat in general because of his/her family situation.
One member pointed out that the Council must consider the ramifications of the penalty on this particular student. A member responded that the Council must find a punishment within its academic jurisdiction.
At this point a Council member proposed a penalty of an F in the course and a 1 semester suspension. He noted that Student A's cooperation with the Council and the family difficulties mitigated the violation. One Council member responded that the Council must consider the entire penalty. That is, if Student A will no longer be able to attend graduate school because of this penalty, that must be something to consider. If Student A were a sophomore and the Council gave him/her an F and suspended him/her, the penalty would be lighter. A member responded that the Council doesn't know how its penalty will affect Student A's life. The question of whether the Council should consider graduate school was further debated.
One Council member asked if Student A's cooperation equaled remorse or understanding of the seriousness of what had occurred. This Council member suggested that Student A did not truly understand the full ramifications of his/her violation; the penalty Student A suggested was too light.
At this point penalties of F + 2 semester suspension, F in the course, and quadruple loss of credit were added to the already suggested penalty of F + 1 semester suspension. A Straw Poll was then taken.
Results of Straw Poll #1
F in course + 2 semester suspension 1
F in course + 1 semester suspension 2 + 1 non-voting
F in course 1 Quadruple loss of credit 0
Abstaining 3
One Council member enumerated his reasons for mitigating the penalty down to an F in the course: - Family difficulties. - Student A convincingly claimed s/he won't cheat in graduate school. - S/he plead guilty and went very far in trying to correct the situation.
Again debating the penalty, a Council member asked if giving less than an F would be doing the system justice. A member pointed out that the Council must consider outside (e.g. society's) punishments as well as the ones the Council directly controls. Disputing this, one member remarked that the Council was playing the game of how can it punish Student A without really affecting him/her.
After more debate, a Council member suggested giving a 2 semester suspension without an F in the course. This penalty was added to the list, and a second straw poll was taken after more debate.
Results of Straw Poll #2
F in course + 2 semester suspension 1
F in course + 1 semester suspension 1 + 1 non-voting
F in course 2
2 semester suspension 2
Quadruple loss of credit 1
Members gave their views of why they voted for the particular penalty. One Council member responded that Student A copied a whole 10% of the class grade, and the penalty should not be bumped down to that of a Minor violation.
Another member stated that the Council should go down a tier only if mitigating circumstances directly affected the violation.
A member who voted for an F remarked that this assignment was really a homework. Giving someone a suspension for cheating 10 minutes on a homework would be wrong. An F seems reasonable. In previous years, the Council would not have ever considered a suspension.
A Council member responded that this was not just a homework. It was much more serious. The Council further debated the nature of the assignment in question. The assignment had 1 page out of 3 devoted to rules and regulations, someone pointed out.
The Council debated at length how much, if any, it should consider graduate school in its consideration. Some members were vehement in stating that the Council must look at the whole picture, and other members responded that the Council should not even consider outside effects in its penalty decision.
A Council member said he didn't think the consensus penalty structure was appropriate in this case. Someone asked that member whether if, when the Council decides consensus penalties, he feels any compulsion to follow them. The member responded that they should be followed as guidelines, and this case is an exception that sticks out. The Council again debated the type of assignment and the severity of the violation.
Moving back to Student A, someone mentioned that, if s/he had come in and had been a jerk, someone the Council didn't like, the Council would have never dropped the penalty so much. You empathized with him/her, and you liked him/her, he said.
A member said a fundamental flaw with the Council in general is that it looks for mitigating circumstances. Someone responded that, since the Council is in the unique role of both prosecuting and defense attorneys, it's the Council's job to look for them.
After further discussion a third Straw Poll was proposed. The Council decided to remove the penalty of F + 2 for the sake of unanimity.
Results of Straw Poll #3
F in course + 1 semester suspension 1 + 1 non-voting
F in course 3
2 semester suspension 1
Quadruple loss of credit 1
Abstaining 1
The Council debated whether of an F in the course or a 2 semester suspension without an F was harsher. The member that voted for the suspension without an F said he thought that the F would make it much more difficult for Student A to get into a graduate program again. A member who voted for an F said that he knew of a number of instances where people failed courses their senior year and could not graduate. The students were still able to attend graduate school, make up the failed course there, and transfer the credit back and receive a Rice diploma.
Some Council members rejected the idea that graduate school should even be a factor. A member stated that bringing the penalty down to an F trivializes the violation.
A fourth straw poll was proposed because it appeared that some members had changed their mind with the idea that Student A might still be able to attend graduate school next year.
Results of Straw Poll #4
F in course + 1 semester suspension 2 + 1 non-voting
F in course 5
2 semester suspension 0
Quadruple loss of credit 0
With no objections, the results of the fourth straw poll were made binding with the understanding that a suspension clause would be added to the penalty.
The Honor Council thus recommends to the Dean of Students that Student A receive an F in the course in question with a suspension clause.
Time of hearing and deliberation: 7 hours
Respectfully Submitted,
Sam Cole Trial Clerk