| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #10A, Spring 1993 (carry-over to Fall) Abstract of the Honor Council 26 August 1993 28 August 1993
Members Present: Crystal Gobble, Steve Hackney, Jeff Nichols, Abby Martin, Bradley Monton, Larkin McReynolds, Andrea Johnson, Chad Fargason, Carolyn Gill, Heather Morschauser (observing), Alex Cestero (observing), Adam Thornton (observing), Cormac Flanagan (observing)
Ombudsman: Lan Huynh
The Honor Council received an accusation from a teaching assistant in a lower level science course concerned about similarities in two students' final computer assignments. The project represented a significant part of the final class grade but all assistance apart from actual copying was allowed. The teaching assistant alerted the Honor Council when s/he discovered several unusual likenesses in the sequence of some answers, the variable names used, and the mistakes made in the two projects. Student A, the accused student in this trial, requested a separate trial from Student B (whose trial will be held at later date).
The evidence submitted included the letter of accusation, a copy of the Honor Code Policy for the class, a copy of the assignment, printouts of the two students' work (the work of other students in the class was also available), and printouts of the students' correspondence (time and size) and logon records. Student A also submitted the text for the class and the copy of the Honor Code policy in the syllabus s/he received.
The accused entered a plea of Not Guilty.
In the opening statement, the accused stated that s/he had worked with Student B, as well as other students, on the assignment in question, but had indeed done his/her own work. Student A explained that the similarities in variable names could be attributed to the fact that both students were in the same major and therefore approached problems similarly. S/he claimed the mistake made in both projects was the result of an oversight that was easy due to the format of the assignment. To explain the peculiar approach to one part of the assignment used only by these two students, Student A referred to the text, in which an example problem like the one assigned was worked out. S/he stated that s/he used the book to solve the problem and suggested to Student B to do the same, therefore explaining the similar sequence. At this point the accused also cited the syllabus for the class, which did say that students were allowed to give/receive any assistance they could find, as long as they did not directly copy another's work. Student A then went on to cite specific examples in other student's work (not Student A or B's) which were remarkably similar, claiming that the similarities between the two projects in question were not extraordinary. Student A said s/he did all of his/her own work, but with a great deal of assistance, while Student B did most of the work on his/her own. Student A also addressed concerns about correspondences between the two students which were suspiciously similar in length to the actual problems in question. S/he claimed that these correspondences were merely chain letters often sent during finals. The accused said that later witnesses would confirm his/her statements. The accused finished the opening statement by telling the Council that the assignments in question were relatively easy and straightforwardness is likely the cause of the similarities. Student A also stated that s/he had worked hard to make it into this University and would not have jeopardized his/her position by cheating.
The Council then questioned the accused about why exactly the two projects would have similar variable names, and the accused claimed that the classes required by their major have taught them to use variable names that students without that background probably would not use. Council members then asked whether other people, particularly the witnesses yet to be heard, were present when Student A and Student B were working on their projects and why then the witnesses' projects were not similar to Student A's if they gave/received the same assistance. The accused responded that some were around when s/he was working, but that they probably would not have similar answers because they did not have the same course background.
The Council then heard from the Witness l, the teaching assistant for the class. S/he graded the two projects one directly after the other and therefore noticed the similar variables. S/he noted that while the variable in Student A's work was defined as a function, the variable in Student B's work had no particular purpose. A council member then questioned the witness about why it was strange that while Student A had a long record of time spent working on the project, Student B had only a short time recorded as spent on the project and specifically did the last problems extremely quickly. The witness responded that this project was the easiest assigned that semester, but Student B spent a remarkably short time working on the problems. The Council then asked the witness how peculiar the variable names Student A and B used compared to the variable names used by other students in the class. The witness responded that the variable names used by the accused were significantly longer than the names used by other students in the class, but that they were not necessarily illogical. Basically, s/he said they were peculiar and noticeable but not so weird they were inconceivable. The witness then mentioned that one variable which appeared in both students' work seemed useless to the code in Student B's project. The witness also said that the sequential similarities did follow an example in the text, but that the text used an extra step the assignment did not ask for which appeared in both students' work. The witness, when asked about the similarity between the sequences, said the two student's work seemed like they used the same procedure, line by line, to find the solution which in itself was not necessarily bizarre, but was strange in conjuction with the other similarities. The Council then asked the witness how copying could have occurred if indeed it did. The witness responded that Student A's work was accessible to Student B, but his/her final answers were not. Student B probably would not be able to get the final solutions just from Student A's raw work, so therefore, the only way information was passed was either through correspondence or direct replication. The witness said that the variable that was undefined in Student B's final work was only defined in Student A's raw work and not in his/her final work. The witness also said that s/he did recall chain letters sent during the time of the assignment approximately the length of the correspondence in question.
Witness 2, an expert on the network used for the assignments, was then heard by the Council. The Council asked whether or not the one correspondence between Student A ad Student B that was almost exactly the same size as the assignment in question could be obtained as a piece of evidence. The witness said that it might be possible to get a copy for the Council, but that it would take a day. S/he also noted that the letter also may not be on record any longer and therefore impossible to find. S/he noted that it was extraordinarily long for just a letter. At this time the accused reiterated the fact that s/he did not send any work to Student B.
The third witness was another teaching assistant for the class, but was not assigned to either Student A or Student B and therefore had not graded any of their work. The accused asked the witness to attest to the fact that s/he had done his/her own work and the witness confirmed that while Student A received help, s/he did complete the problems on his/her own. The witness also affirmed the accused's claim that chain letters were circulating at the time of the assignment. When the council asked the witness whether the size of the correspondence in question was particularly long, the witness responded that s/he thought that the length was conceivable for a chain letter. Upon reviewing the evidence the witness went on to claim that the two students used different programs to do their projects and therefore would not have been able to simply pass each other's work for their own. To cheat, the witness said, Student A's work would have to be completely replicated by Student B, which s/he considered unlikely.
Witness 4 was also a teaching assistant for the class but not for Student A or B. The accused asked the witness to confirm that while s/he helped the accused a great deal, s/he did their own work. The witness confirmed this as well as the existence of chain letlea circulating at the time of the assignment. The witness also said that the length of the correspondence in question was not of an unreasonable length. The witness also said that s/he only helped Student A, not student B and did not give any specific assistance on the problems. When questioned by the Council, the witness gave a range of time necessary to do the last problems of the project and said that s/he couldn't say if it was possible to do the problems in the amount of time Student B claimed to have finished them in.
The fifth witness was another student in the class and in the same major as Student A and Student B. The accused asked the witness to affirm that s/he saw Student A do his/her own work and that Student A commented that it was easy. The witness concurred that the assignment was easy and that s/he saw the accused doing his/her own work. When questioned by the Council, the witness also said that it was not unusual for two people in their major to spend the amount of time together working that the evidence indicated Student A and B did.
Witness 6 was Student B. When asked by the Council whether or not s/he sent or received any of the problems in question, the witness said no. The witness claimed that s/he asked only a few non-specific questions of the accused and did not copy any work. When asked by the Council for an explanation for the length of the suspicious correspondence, Student B said it was probably a chain letter. The witness also said s/he did the work all in one day because s/he was running late on the assignment. When the Council asked the witness if s/he asked any specific questions of the accused, s/he said that the only specific problem they discussed had an example in the book where the accused said it would be. The witness also said that because s/he usually worked on the problems ahead of time, the last problems in the project took less time. When asked, the witness said that the similar variable names were probably due to past course work.
At this time, the Chairman suggested that after the closing statement was heard, we suspend proceedings until Witness 2 found the evidence about the correspondence. In the Closing Statement, the accused again claimed that s/he did not partake of any Honor Code violation and if one occurred it was without his/her knowledge. S/he went on to claim that the witnesses had testified that similarities in the Student A and Student B's work were explainable and coiifirmed that the accused did his/her own work.
At this time the proceeding were suspended and reconvened on 28 August 1993 for deliberation and decision. At this time, the Chairman reported that it had been impossible to locate the evidence in question and the accused was allowed to make another closing statement.
The accused's second closing statement stated that there was no binding evidence to convince the Council that a violation had been committed. The accused again claimed that the correspondence was simply a chain letter. The accused then reminded the Council of the testimony by Witness 3 and claimed that the difference in materials used would have prevented any cheating. Student A then said that the assignment was easy and straightforward and that all similarities had been accounted for. The accused said that all witnesses, including the accuser, said s/he had done his/her own work. The accused then restated that all the evidence was circumstantial and none of it was clear enough to convict.
In summary, the Council members had substantial problems with the fact that the unavailable correspondence was almost exactly the same size as the assignment in question and was sent at a time that seemed suspicious. The Council also noted the differing programs was really a moot point because duplication would still be very possible. The Council agreed that while the evidence was suspicious, it was circum- stantial and was not compelling enough to be sure of a violation by Student A. The Council as a whole concurred and the first straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #1
Not Guilty- 8 (+3 observing)
Guilty- 0
Abstentions- 1
The abstaining member, after exercising his right, made up his/her mind and the second straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #2
Not Guilty- 9 (+3 observing)
Guilty- 0
Abstentions- 0
With no objections, the second straw poll was made binding and the accused was found not guilty of an Honor Code violation.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 5.5 hours
Respectfully Submitted,
Andrea Johnson Trial Clerk