| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #6, Fall 1993
Abstract of the Honor Council
January 17, 1994
Members present: Alex Cestero, Chad Fargason, Cormac Flanagan,
Carolyn Gill, Steve Hackney, Larkin McReynolds, Bradley Monton,
Heather Morschauser, Adam Thornton, Thomas Page (observing).
Ombudsman: Lauren Kern.
Letter of Accusation
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from the
professor of a lower-level science class implicating two students
(Student A and Student B) of violating the honor code on a lab report.
The reports were worth greater than 10% of the total course grade.
The professor felt that the graphs and calculations were too similar to
be viewed as the independent work of the students, who were lab
partners. The professor had stated in the syllabus that lab partners
were not allowed to work together on lab reports and that they had to
use different graphs.
Evidence Submitted
The lab reports of the two students were submitted as evidence.
Plea
Both Student A and Student B entered a plea of Not In Violation.
Opening Statements
Student A said that s/he had not gone against the spirit of the
honor code on the lab report, and thus felt that s/he was not guilty.
Student B claimed that the charges stated by the professor were false,
and that there was a reasonable explanation for the similarities.
Questioning
With regard to one of the calculations in the lab report, the
students explained that the reason their wrong answers looked so
similar was that they both independently sought help from the same
lab assistant. However, the students were not sure if they simply
misunderstood the lab assistant or if s/he told them the incorrect
method.
With regard to the graphs, Student A explained that, at first,
s/he had done the graphs independently from Student B, as required
by the course syllabus. However, Student A said that these graphs
were incorrect, because Student A miscopied the data from his/her
lab partner, Student B. Thus, Student A went over to Student B's
room to get the correct data and work on the lab there.
Student B explained that, before Student A came to his/her
room, s/he had also done the graphs. However, s/he had also done
them incorrectly. Because the two were so confused, they decided to
work on the graphs together. One of the accused sat at the computer,
while the other one watched. They produced a graph and printed one
copy out. They then made minimal changes to the graph, and printed
out a second copy for the other student to hand in. The reason they
made these minimal changes, the students explained, was that they
understood that their graphs were not supposed to look the same.
The students maintained that they had not violated the spirit
of the honor code because originally, they had each worked on the
graphs separately. They had made some errors, and only then decided
to work together. When they did work together to produce the graphs,
the students explained that they each understood the process, and that
one had not blindly copied from the other.
Witness 1 -- The Lab Assistant
Upon questioning, the lab assistant explained that when s/he
helps students with calculations, their answers can often be very
similar. S/he could not remember whether he had helped Students A
and B on the calculation in question. S/he discussed the honor code
policy for the course, and explained that lab partners were allowed to
consult with each other, but were not allowed to work together to
produce the same graphs.
Witness 2 -- The Professor
Upon questioning by the accused, the professor explained that
the reason s/he does not allow students to work together in producing
graphs is that s/he wants the students to make presentation decisions
for themselves. S/he said that making the students work
independently is the best way of ensuring that they can each do the
work for themselves. Because these students did not go through the
process of producing the graphs independently, the professor said,
they have violated the honor code policy.
Witness 3 -- Student B's Roommate
Witness 3 explained that s/he did see both Student A and
Student B working on the computer doing the lab.
Witness 4 -- Student A's Roommate
Witness 4, who is also in the course, said that s/he did see
Student A originally try to do the graphs in their room. Witness 4
went with Student A over to Student B's room to work on the lab with
them. Witness 4 said that s/he and his/her lab partner entered data and
did the graphs separately on the computer, because that was what the
honor code policy for the course required. Witness 4 said that s/he
saw Students A and B working on the computer together, but did not
confront them because s/he figured they knew what they were doing.
Further Questioning
The accused were asked if they noticed Witness 4 and his/her
lab partner doing their graphs independently. The accused said that
they did not notice. They explained that they did do their graphs
together, but felt that they were following the spirit of the honor code,
because they understood what they were doing and because each had
originally worked on the graphs separately.
The accused were asked why they made minimal changes to
differentiate between the two copies of the graphs. They explained
that they understood that the graphs were supposed to look different,
so made these changes.
Closing Statements
The accused reexplained that they did not violate the spirit of
the honor code for the class. They said that they had worked hard on
their lab reports, and deserved to keep the grades they got.
Deliberation
At this point the accused left the room and deliberation began.
It was clear to council members that the students were in violation of
at least the letter of the honor code policy for the course, because they
had worked together to produce the graphs. A straw poll was taken on
the guilt of both Student A and Student B:
Straw Poll #1
Not in Violation 0
In Violation 8 (+ 1 observing)
Abstentions 1
After hearing from the abstaining member, another straw poll was
taken:
Straw Poll #2
Not in Violation 0
In Violation 9 (+ 1 observing)
Abstentions 0
Thus, the council finds both Student A and Student B in violation of
the Honor System.
Penalty Deliberation
The consensus penalty for a violation of this sort is an F in the
course and a two semester suspension from Rice. One council
member proposed a penalty of single loss of credit on the assignment.
The member argued that the students lacked intentionality: they did
not feel that they had violated the honor code course policy, because
they thought that they were conforming to the spirit of the policy.
Also, a very similar case to this one had just come before the council
(see Case #5), and for the purposes of consistency, the same penalty
would have to be given.
While most council members agreed with this, one member
proposed a penalty of F in the course and a one semester suspension.
This member felt that the students had intentionally violated the letter
of the honor code, and thus should be held strongly culpable for their
actions. This member felt that the major difference between this case
and Case #5 was that in Case #5, the students did not know the full
honor code policy for the course. In this current case, the students did
know the policy, and chose to violate it.
Other members argued that the violation was not really
intentional because the students thought they were following the
spirit of the honor code. Because it seemed most members had made
up their minds, a straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #3
F in course + 2 semester suspension 0
F in course + 1 semester suspension 1
Single loss of credit on assignment 7 (+ 1 observing)
Abstentions 1
The abstaining member asked to hear again from the member who
voted for F+1. After further debate, it was decided that Students A
and B would benefit from a reorientation to the Honor System.
Another straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #4
F in course + 1 semester suspension 1
Single loss of credit on assignment + reorientation 8 (+ 1 observing)
Abstentions 0
With no objections, the results of Straw Poll #2 and #4 were made
binding. The Honor Council thus finds Student A and Student B In
Violation of the Honor System, and recommends to the Dean of
Students that each receive a single loss of credit on the assignment in
question. The council also recommends that the students be
reoriented to the Honor System, and that a suspension clause be
attached to their records.
Time of trial and deliberation: 3 1/4 hours.
Respectfully submitted,
Bradley Monton
Trial Clerk