| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #5, Fall 1993
Aostract of the Honor Council
Fall 1993
Members present: Chad Fargason, Sam Cole, Brad Monton, Cormac
Flanagan, Abigail Martin, Alex Cestero, Andrea Johnson, Adam Thornton,
Carolyn Gill, Christopher Stokes (observing).
Ombudsmen: Lan Huynh, Lauren Kern (observing), Snehal Patel (observing).
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from the professor
of a lower level science class implicating two students of
violating the Honor Code on a lab report. After examining the two
reports closely, he felt that the graphs and calculations were too
similar to be viewed as the independent work of the students, who were
also lab partners. As he stated in his syllabus that lab partners were
not allowed to work together on lab reports and that their graphs
could not be the same, the professor felt a violation of the Code had
occurred and reported his suspicion to the Honor Council.
Both accused students (student A and student B) pled not in violation.
The opening statements for both students were brief as they preferred
to go directly to the letter of accusation and address the professor's
concerns. Both students claimed that any violation that might have
occurred stemmed from a conversation that they had with their labbie
who said that the two lab partners could work together on the lab
report. According to the professor and his policy as stated in the
syllabus for the class, though, no collaboration between partners was
allowed. The two accused claimed that after a suitemate mentioned that
working on a report with your lab partner might be violating the Code,
the two students approached their labbie and asked him if they could
work together. Although he said they could, he did not mention
anything having to do with guidelines for doing graphs in reports.
Thus, the accused claimed that they remained in ignorance about graph
procedure for the class because the labbie never mentioned it. Both
students stated that they had not violated the code deliberately, but
had acted in good faith according to the rules as set by an authority
figure, their labbie.
In the letter of accusation, the professor stated the two accused
students had a graph that looked the same in their reports, which was
prohibited for lab partners, and some of their calculations were too
similar. He stated that there appeared to be a great deal of close
collaboration between the two partners that was not allowed. Student A
began by saying that she and her partner had indeed worked through
the lab together, but they had represented their own work. As for the
graph, she stated that she simply didn't know that she and her lab
partner couldn't have the same one. She stated that her conversation
with the labbie was the only knowledge she had concerning how to do
the lab reports, as she did not go to class often and did not hear
what the professor said about report rules and did not read the
syllabus. Student B stated that she had worked on the calculations with
both her partner and their labbie, but each student had done their
share of the work; it was a collaboration, not blatant copying. For
the graph, student B stated that as it was late and they were tired
and they felt that they had each done a fair share of the work,
student A entered the data that both partners had worked on together
to get both the graph (the same one for both students) and some of the
calculations. As for what the professor's rules were and her knowledge
of them, student B stated that she had read the syllabus, but it
didn't stick in her mind and that she rarely went to class and thus,
did not hear what he had to say about proper lab procedure. Student A
then stated that according to the professor's syllabus she was in
violation, but she felt she had not violated the Code because of what
her labbie said.
The first witness was the suitemate of student A, who was in another
section of the course. She stated that she had worked on previous labs
with the two students and saw that they worked through the labs
together and did not simply copy off one another. She also stated that
she had heard the professor say in class that lab partners couldn't
work together and thus she approached her suitemate, student A, about
her work with her lab partner.
The second witness was student A's roommate who simply said that she
saw both students working through the problems of their lab report;
there was no copying.
The third witness was the professor of the class. He started by saying
that it was ok to seek help on a report, but lab partners couldn't
have the same graph and couldn't work through the report together. He
stated that he had said that at the beginning of the year in class and
that it was clearly written in the syllabus he handed out to all
students. The professor said it was alright to talk to your lab
partner in general, but no specifics. He restated that the graphs of
students A and B were identical, as were some of their conclusions.
The professor also stated, though, that he understood that it was
possible that some labbies might interpret differently his policies.
He said that he met with all of the labbies to go over class and
grading policies, but he saw where there was room for misunderstanding
or for other interpretations of those policies. He repeated that what
he really wanted was for students to understand the work individually
and to do it separately.
The last witness was the labbie of the accused students. He stated
that he had told both students they could work together as long as
they each independently understood their work. He knew the two
students were partners and felt they each had a handle on the material
and that they did their own work. He said that graphs were not
discussed specifically.
In her closing statement, student B said she felt she had violated the
code in retrospect, though she hadn't meant to and did not believe she
was doing so at the time. Student A felt that according to what her
labbie said, she was not in violation. She also restated that she did
not know about the graph work.
After the two accused were excused, deliberation began. It was
established by the Council at the beginning of deliberation that the
calculations for the report had not been made independently. Also,
because of their conversation with the labbie, some Honor Council
members felt that the student's misunderstanding of the class policy
regarding work with your lab partner was understandable. However, as
the rules regarding graphs were never discussed with the labbie, the
Council felt that the professor's policy on graphs that was printed in
the syllabus was still in effect. Straw poll #1 and #2 were taken to
establish wether the two students were in violation or not in
violation.
Straw Poll #l:
Student A: Student B:
In violation 7 (l non voting) 7 (l non voting)
Not in violation 0 0
Abstentions 3 3
Straw Poll #2:
Student A: Student B:
In violation lO (l non voting) lO ( l non voting)
Not in violation 0 0
Abstentions 0 0
Straw poll #2 was made binding. Next the Council discussed assessment
of penalty. The consensus penalty in this case would have been an F in
the course and a two semester suspension. However, some members of the
Honor Council felt that there were mitigating circumstances which
would lower the penalty; specifically lack of intentionality, their
attempt to act within the Code, as shown by their conversation with
their labbie in which they attempted to understand the rules of the
class and the fact that they were freshmen. A large portion of the
Council felt that the fact that the two students were freshmen and had
not been at Rice for long was a legitimate excuse for their confusion
over how the Code works. Although it is generally the policy of the
Council that students are responsible for finding out what each
professor's rules are in a class and that ignorance is not an excuse,
the fact that the two students had only been at Rice for a matter of
months was mitigating for some.
Alternative punishments were suggested by various members and
eventually, five straw polls were taken (the fifth made binding) to
determine a penalty. Some of the alternative punishments suggested
were for the two students to redo the lab, a forced late drop from the
course, a half loss of credit of the course, a full loss of credit of
the course, and loss of credit for the assignment. Student A and
student B were voted on together (as one), as the Council felt that
they should receive the same punishment. A great deal of debate took
place concerning the severity of the punishment. The majority of the
Council felt that it was unnecessary for the two students to leave
Rice for any amount of time. After a great deal of debate, the
majority of the Council decided not to take rehabilitation into
account as a mitigating circumstance as we have no way of verifying it
through signs of remorse or otherwise. The results of the straw polls
for the assessment of a penalty were as follows:
Straw Poll #1:
Redo the lab 0
Late drop of the course 3 (plus l non voting)
Half loss of credit (of the course) l
Single loss of credit (of assignment) 4
Abstentions l
Straw Poll #2:
Late drop of the course 4 (plus l non voting)
Half loss of credit (course) 0
Single loss of credit(assignment) 4
Abstentions l
Straw Poll #3:
Late drop of the course 3
Full loss of credit (course) l (plus l non voting)
Single loss of credit (assignment) 5
Abstentiohs 0
Straw Poll #4:
Late drop of the course 3
Single loss of credit (assignment) 6
Full loss of credit (course) 0
Abstentions l (non voting)
Straw Poll #5:
Late drop of the course 3 (plus l non voting)
Single loss of credit (assignment) 6
Full loss of credit (course) 0
Abstentions 0
Taking the final five straw polls took a long time during deliberation
because of the Council's attempt to determine what the mitigating
circumstances were exactly and to then alter a punishment to fit the
two students. The Council felt that the consensus penalty was too
harsh, but determining what we could use as mitigating and what we
couldn't took a lot of thought and energy. In the end, the fact that
the two students had attempted to work within the rules for the class
and had approached an authority figure to understand the Code was
viewed as a definite mitigating circumstance. The fact that they did
not do all that they should, and could, have to understand the rules
led the Council to believe that a reorientation was necessary in
addition to the punishment. Their lack of intentionality was another
mitigating circumstance when debating the severity of the penalty. It
was clear that neither student was aware that they were cheating, nor
had they meant to, as their talk with the labbie showed. The third
mitigating circumstance was their status at Rice as freshmen. The
students simply didn't understand the importance of reading the
syllabus and questioning everything that they didn't understand. The
Council decided in the end that loss of credit for the course was too
severe, in light of the three mitigating circumstances, and that loss
of credit for that assignments was appropriate, with a reorientation.
The fifth straw poll was made final and a suspension clause was
attached. The final punishment for the two students was as follows:
single loss of credit (loss of credit for the assignment) and
reorientation, with the suspension clause.
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn Gill