| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #10B, Spring 1993 (carry-over to Fall) Abstract of the Honor Council 30 August 1993
Members Present: Chad Fargason, Crystal Gobble, Steve Hackney, Abigail Martin, Larkin McReynolds, Bradley Monton, Heather Morschauser, Jeff Nichols, Adam Thornton, Alex Cestero (observing), Cormac Flanagan (observing), Marc Hirsh (observing)
Ombudsman: Lan Huynh
The Honor Council received an accusation from a teaching assistant in a lower level science/engineering course about similarities in two students' computer assignments. In this abstract, the two students will be referred to as Student A and Student B. The assignment represented a significant part of the final class grade, but assistance apart from actual copying was allowed. The teaching assistant alerted the Honor Council when s/he discovered several unusual similarities in the sequence of some answers, the variable names used, and the same mistakes made in the two assignments. Student A and Student B requested separate trials; the following is the trial of Student B.
Student A's trial has already been held (see Case #10A), and s/he was found not guilty of an Honor Code violation.
The evidence submitted included the letter of accusation from the teaching assistant, a copy of two Honor Code policies for the class, a copy of the assignment, printouts of the two students' work on the assignment, printouts of other students' solutions to the assignment for comparison, a record of the date and size of all email correspondence between Student A and B, and a record of logon times for the two students.
The accused entered a plea of Not Guilty.
Trial Proceedings The chair began by reminding all participants that anything said in Case #10A could not be used in this trial, because Student B has a right to review and dispute everything relating to his/her case.
In the opening statement, the accused stated that in these proceedings, we would go over the major facts of the case, and that the facts would bear out his/her innocence.
The council then began questioning Student B. In one part of the assignment, Student A had a function defined with a specific variable name. Student B had the same variable name in his/her solution, but it was undefined. Student B was asked about this. His/her explanation was that s/he had done most of the work for the assignment on paper, so that when s/he was copying the assignment from paper to the computer, s/he simply forgot to copy the line defining the variable.
Student B was asked to explain why, in one of the equations in the assignment, both Student A and B had a plus sign, where the question called for a minus sign. Student B said that s/he simply entered the equation incorrectly, but didn't notice the error because the computer output was still reasonable.
Student B was asked to explain why Student A and B had the same variable names in parts of the assignment. Student B presented a number of students' programs from a different course, to show that variable names can often be very similar.
Student B was asked about an extra, unnecessary step that both Student A and B had done in a part of the assignment. Student B pointed out that that step was included in an example in the text for the course, and both Student A and B had legitimately used the text to solve these problems. Student B said that s/he had asked Student A how to do one part of the assignment, and s/he directed him/her to the section in the book. Under the Honor Code policy for the course, this would not be cheating. Student B also said that in general on this assignment, minimal collaboration had occurred between him/her and Student A.
Student B was asked about a large email message that was sent from Student A to Student B, about two days before the assignment was due. This mail message was just slightly larger than Student A's completed assignment. Student B said that there were a number of large chain letters that were circulating over the computer around this time, and that large email message could have been one of them.
Student B was asked about the amount of time s/he spent completing this assignment. The computer records seemed to show that Student B had completed about three-fourths of the assignment in a three hour time period. Student B responded that s/he did do the assignment in one day, and since s/he had worked the answers on paper beforehand, s/he was able to do most of the assignment in that short time period. Student B was asked if s/he still had the paper work done for the assignment, but s/he stated that it had been thrown away.
The Council then heard from Witness 1, the teaching assistant for the course. S/he reviewed the contents of the letter of accusation, going over the parallels between the two students' work. A council member asked where the similarities as a whole would fall on a range of strangeness. Witness 1 found the similarities very strange. Witness 1 was asked if other students had the same similarities, including the same variable names. S/he responded that all the other students had very different work. Upon further questioning, Witness 1 said that Student B had not asked him/her for any help on the assignment, but that that was not unusual.
Witness 1 was asked if it would be helpful to do preliminary work for the assignment on paper. Witness 1 said that s/he would not find it helpful, because this assignment basically involves learning computer syntax - knowing exactly how the computer wants things entered.
Witness 1 was asked if there were long chain letters being sent via email at the time. S/he responded affirmatively. The witness was also asked whether s/he thought it would be possible to do three-fourths of the assignment in a three hour time period. Witness 1 said that it would be possible, but difficult.
The Council then heard from Witness 2, another student in the course. Student B asked the witness to verify that there were long chain letters being sent at the time, and that it is not uncommon for students to use the same variable names. Witness 2 verified this. A council member asked if Witness 2 could have done three-fourths of this assignment in a three hour time period, and if working the assignment on paper would help. Witness 2 responded affirmatively to both questions.
The Council then heard from Student A. Upon being asked, Student A said that s/he had not given his/her assignment to Student B, and that the collaboration between the two of them was minimal. Student A was asked about the protections on his/her account. S/he said that his/her assignment was in a protected directory, so no other student could examine it.
Council members asked Student A if s/he sometimes leaves her terminal without locking it. S/he said that s/he does, but only when friends are in the room, and they would tell him/her if anyone used his/her terminal. S/he also said that s/he never printed out the assignment. S/he said that it would have been nearly impossible for Student B to access his/her assignment.
Student A was then asked about chain letters. S/he said that s/he did remember long chain letters circulating, and that there was a very good chance s/he sent one to Student B.
The Council then heard from Witness 4, another teaching assistant of the course. Upon questioning from Student B, Witness 4 verified that Student B does not normally ask teaching assistants questions. Witness 4 also explained the directory permissions that are in place for the students in this course.
At this time, Student B gave his/her closing statement. S/he said that the facts bear out his/her innocence, that all the questions raised in these proceedings have been answered, and that the evidence will speak for itself.
Deliberation of Violation Council members were initially divided over whether or not Student B was guilty of an Honor Code violation on this assignment. Some members said that since we did not have the actual mail message that was almost the same size as Student A's completed assignment, we could not assume that the mail message was the assignment. Against those council members who felt that the mail message probably was the assignment, it was pointed out that we were bound by the verdict in Case #10A, finding Student A not in violation. A member who felt that the mail message probably was the assignment stated that he did not think that with enough certainty to convict Student A. There was incontrovertible evidence showing that Student A had worked for a long period of time on the assignment, and that Student A had completed the assignment before Student B started. The council seemed to agree that if copying had occurred, it would have been Student B copying off of Student A's assignment. However, some members felt that the evidence in support of copying was too circumstantial.
Some members felt that the similarities in the assignments were compelling enough to vote guilty, regardless of whether the council knew exactly how Student B had obtained access to Student A's assignment. However, at least one council member felt that s/he could only vote guilty if s/he knew a specific way the copying probably happened.
In order to better gauge how members were leaning, a straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #1
Guilty 1 (+2 observing)
Not Guilty 4 (+1 observing)
Abstentions 4
The council member who voted guilty felt that the other members were not fully appreciating the similarities between the assignments of Student A and B. Thus, the council proceeded to go through the two assignments line by line, looking for similarities. With each similarity found, the council looked at the assignments of about ten other students in the class, to help decide if the similarities showed copying. The council found a number of similarities between the work of Student A and B that were not found in the assignments of any of the other students. One of the similarities found was another sign error: where the question had an equation with a plus sign in it, both students had a minus sign in their assignments.
After going through the assignments line by line, a council member asked for an informal poll: putting aside questions about a conceivable scenario as to how Student B got access to Student A's work, who felt that it looked like Student B copied from Student A? Eleven of the members felt that the evidence seemed to show that Student B had copied from Student A's assignment, and one member abstained.
At least one member felt that it wasn't enough to know that Student B cheated: we also had to know how s/he obtained Student A's assignment. Another member argued that in this case, we know who copied from whom - we didn't have to consider possible scenarios for the copying.
The debate did move to what possible scenarios there were for Student B to access Student A's work. Most members felt that the most plausible scenario was that Student A mailed his/her assignment to Student B. However, this was not certain enough to convict Student A, because there were other possible scenarios where copying happened without the knowledge of Student A. But, in all the possible scenarios that explained the material evidence, Student B was guilty of an Honor Code violation.
Because it appeared that members' opinions had changed, a second straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #2
Guilty 7 (+2 observing)
Not Guilty 0
Abstentions 2 (+1 observing)
The abstentions stated that every possible doubt in their minds had not yet been cleared up, and wanted the case to be further discussed.
One member said that s/he had incorrectly thought that the council had to be reasonably certain how Student B got Student A's assignment. But, s/he realized that we just needed a plausible way as to how Student B copied, and the council had come up with a number of plausible ways.
One abstaining member said that, except for the two sign errors, all other similarities could be explained away. However, another abstaining member went though all the similarities again. This member then asked if the other abstaining members felt that, given the similarities, the two assignments could have possibly been independently achieved. The abstaining members then called for a straw poll.
Straw Poll #3
Guilty 9 (+3 observing)
Not Guilty 0
Abstentions 0
With no objections, the results of the third straw poll were made binding. The Honor Council thus finds Student B guilty of a violation of the Honor Code.
Deliberation of Penalty Because this assignment was worth more than 5% of the total grade for the course, the consensus penalty for this violation is an F in the course and a two semester suspension from the university. Because the council did not see any mitigating circumstances in this case, no other penalties were proposed. A straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #4
F + 2 semester suspension 6 (+1 observing)
Abstentions 3 (+2 observing)
One member proposed a penalty of F in the course and a one semester suspension. There was some debate as the whether the current council was bound by the consensus penalties of last year's council. It was decided that the current council is bound by them until new consensus penalties are established.
After the abstaining members felt that they had been given sufficient time to think, another straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #5
F + 2 semester suspension 9 (+3 observing)
F + 1 semester suspension 0
Abstentions 0
With no objections, the results of the fifth straw poll were made binding.
The Honor Council thus recommends to the Dean of Students that Student B in Case #10B receive a failing grade for the course in question, that s/he be suspended from Rice University for the Fall of 1993 and the Spring of 1994, and that a suspension clause be attached to his/her record.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 6.5 hours.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bradley Monton Trial Clerk