| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #8, Fall 1993
Abstract of the Honor Council
13 December 1993
Members Present: Bradley Monton, Dan Grossman (observing), Sam Cole,
Larkin McReynolds, Mark Teoh (observing), Wes Yeackle (observing),
Abigail Martin, Christopher Stokes, Alex Cestero, Adam Thornton,
Andrea Johnson, Chad Fargason.
Ombudsman: Lan Huynh with Chris Vissers (observing) and Lauren Kern
(observing).
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received an accusation from several students
in a lower-level humanities class claiming that a fellow student
(Student A) had worked past the deadline on a major (worth more than
10% of the total course grade) project. The letter simply said that
the students suspected that Student A had violated the Honor Code for
the class by making additions to the project after the established
deadline. Their suspicions arose from the fact that the appearance of
the project Student A turned in was markedly different from the
appearance of the project shortly before the deadline.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of Accusation
Student A's Final Project
Plea:
Student A entered a plea of IN VIOLATION.
At this time two members, Larkin McReynolds and Christopher
Stokes, were dismissed (only seven members attend a hearing while
nine are necessary for a trial) and the hearing commenced.
Opening Statement:
Student A began by explaining the circumstances surrounding the
assignment in question. The deadline for the final project was on (for
the purposes of this trial) Day l. At this time the projects were
supposed to be finished and all work stopped. Student A took his/her
project home one half-hour before the deadline. The project was to be
presented with the rest of the projects from the class on Day 6. The
accusation stemmed from the fact that the project that Student A took
home on Day 1 was observably different from the project presented by
Student A on Day 6 for grading. Student A went on to explain that
after taking the project home on Day 1, s/he went to sleep. On Day 5
Student A went back to the project and finished the incomplete areas.
Student A said that because s/he touched the project after the
deadline, they had committed a violation of the Honor Code. However,
Student A claimed that at the time, the action did not "seem"
wrong. Student A went on to say that s/he was sorry and certainly
wouldn't do it again, realizing that the violation was foolish. Again
Student A states that, looking back, s/he was ignorant and stupid,
and at the time the act seemed reasonable. Student A then suggested
that possible explanations for the violation were the fact that the
Honor System was new to him/her and that s/he had no contact with
such system in their previous school. S/he went on to say that s/he
was under a great deal of physical and mental stress at the time of
violation. Student A finished by restating how sorry s/he was and
reiterating the fact that they now regret touching the project and
would never make the mistake again.
Questioning:
Student A was asked if they were told that they were supposed to
be finished with their project at the specified time on Day 1. Student
A stated that s/he knew of the deadline. Student A went on to clarify
exactly the changes made to the project after Day 1 and before its
grading.
Witness 1: Student 1
Student 1, one of the accusers, is also a member of the class in
which the project in question was assigned. When asked why s/he turned
in the letter, Student 1 replied that all the students in the class
had been working hard on the project and that the deadline was clear.
Student 1 also said s/he noticed a remarkable difference between
Student A's project on Day 1 and on Day 6. Student 1 went on to
emphasize that all the students knew of the deadline and in fact at
the time of the deadline, the professors entered the working area and
told Student 1 that to continue even a minor task would be a violation
of the Honor Code. When questioned about whether it was a problem for
students to leave the working area with their projects, Student 1 said
it was allowed but not recommended, however some people did so
anyway. Student 1 said that the atmosphere was tense at the time of
the deadiine and that no member of the class finished the project as
much as they would have liked. Student 1 also answered questions
about how much the project was worth saying that it was
"serious" and that there were five or six other deadlines that
semester.
Witness 2: Student 2
Student 2 also was a member of the class. When asked to explain
the letter and the circumstances surrounding the accusation, Student 2
claimed that many people n the class noticed the difference in Student
A's project from Day 1 to Day 6, however Student 2 cannot specifically
say what the exact changes were. When asked what the students were
told about the deadline, Student 2 responded that s/he knew that the
project was due at the specified time and any further work after that
time would be considered an Honor Code violation. S/he went on to say
that the class took the project seriously, but realized the grading
was very subjective so no one knew exactly how much the project was
worth. S/he did say that the professors had emphasized to the students
that process was more important than the end product. Student 2 also
said that in the past, deadlines were often considered to have a
fifteen minute leeway and sometimes peopled worked past the deadline
to make "finishing touches". Student 2 said that the professor
allowed students to make the project "presentable" after the deadline
on previous projects.
Questioning:
Council members then asked Student A if indeed s/he took the
project home on Day 1 and did not do any work on it until Day 5. S/he
responded that was the case. On Day 5 s/he constructed part of the
project. The Council then asked Student A if s/he had taken the
project home with the intention of finishing it later and Student A
responded that s/he considered the project "finished" when s/he took
it home. Council members asked Student A how the deadlines had worked
in the past and Student A said that on previous projects s/he had
finished. When asked if Student A realized that everyone in the class
was not taking the project home, Student A replied that s/he noticed
that some projects were missing when s/he left and that some of the
materials necessary for finished his/her project were at home. The
Council asked Student A if s/he had ever received a written syllabus
or statement about class procedure for the Honor Code and Student A
answered that no, they hadn't but this violation was just out of
ignorance and was because s/he was worried about how the project
would look, wanted it to look a certain way, and thought it
would be a better project if the changes were made.
Witness #3: Professor 1
Witness #3 was one of the two professors for the class. When the
Council questioned Professor 1 about the different deadlines used in
the class, the Professor explained that there were two kinds of
deadlines used in the class in an effort to get the new students used
to the idea of time management around a deadline. Previous projects
had "flexible" deadlines to allow the professors to gauge how
the students were doing. The final project deadline was a pencils down
deadline. However, because the final project was a culmination of many
smaller projects, students were allowed to fix problems with previous
steps after the deadline. When the Council asked Professor 1 about
what the class was told about the deadline, Professor 1 said that the
class was told the deadline was a specified time on day 1 and that
this deadline was not as flexible as previous deadlines. When
questioned about how much this project was worth to the overall grade,
Professor 1 replied that because the class is not graded
project-by-project, and instead an overall grade is given to the
student which encompasses several criteria, it was difficult to
determine exactly how much this project would he worth to a particular
student. Professor 1 went on to say that this was the most complex and
difficult project of the semester, but because the class did not
progress in a linear manner, it was difficult to put a value on how
much weight this project would be given in one student's evaluation.
When the Council asked what proportion of the Student A's overall
grade this project represented, Professor 1 said over 10%. The
Professor also stated at this time that if the project would have
remained unfinished the grade would not necessarily have suffered a
great deal. After Student A explained the specifics of the situation
to Professor 1, Professor 1 asked why Student A hadn't just finished
the project without taking it home. Student A responded that s/he
considered the project done at the time s/he left. The Professor then
said that Student A should have simply brought the unfinished project
and the pieces to the grading session and the grade would not have
suffered much.
Witness #4: Student 3
Student 3 is also a student in the class in question. Student 3
said that one half-hour before the deadline, s/he noticed that pieces
of Student A's project were not finished. Council members asked
Student 3 about the deadline and Student 3 said that everything was
due at the specified time and not even erasing was allowed after that
time. S/he went on to say that most everyone knew that the deadliiie
was "final" but this fact was never spelled out and written
down for the students. When asked what percentage of the class grade
this project was Student 3 said they were not sure, but they
themselves had spent as much time on this project as on the previous
one.
Questioning:
The Council now asked Student A if not finishing the project
would have drastically impaired its presentation, and Student A said
it would have. The Council also asked Student A if slhe had any
contact with work of this sort previous to this class and Student A
said no.
Witness #5: Student 4
Student 4 was not an accuser, but was a member of the class and
is the quad-mate of Student A. Student 4 said that s/he did not see
Student A working on the project over the weekend but did see the
unfinished project in Student A's room and then saw the finished
project at the grading session. Student 4 did not know however when
the changes were made. When asked about the grading procedures,
Student 4 said that s/he was unsure about the grading procedures but
that most students were not concerned about the grade, that an
individual project could not affect it that much and that "process
over product" was emphasized to the students. Student 4 said that
this project took approximately three weeks to complete, including
developing the idea, but that some of this time was spent on exercises
that eventually proved to not help the project.
Witness #6: Professor 2
Witness #6 was the second professor for the class. Professor 2
explained that the deadline was told and explained to the students
during in-class meetings and was written on the blackboard. Professor
2 also said that students were sent home at the time of the dead-
line. The Professor said s/he gave verbal guidelines for the deadline
of what students could and could not do and that for this particular
deadline, no work could be done after the specified time except for
putting the projects up. When the Council asked the Professor if it
would be difficult to "miss" the verbal deadline and not
realize that it was an absolute deadline, Professor 2 said yes. When
the Council questioned. Professor 2 said that this project was worth
more to Student A because it represented some of his/her best work.
In answer to a Council member's question, Professor 2 said that s/he
would consider the violation a serious one if it was intentional. When
Student A explained the specific circumstances, the Professor
commented that the situation appeared to be one of all attempt to get
something "basically done" finished, and not an example of
"working and working" to get done. When the Council asked the
Professor to elaborate on the distinction, the Professor explained
that the hardest work and the bulk of the time had already been
completed on Student A's project before the deadline and that what was
left to do was relatively "minor" and "quick" to do.
However the Professor went on to specify that this distinction is not
made prior to the deadline and that the students are told that any
work after the deadline is not allowed.
Questioning:
The Council asked Student A how much time was required to finish
the project after the deadline and Student A responded that s/he
worked for about a half-hour. Council members then asked Student A if
s/he considered this work as working past the deadline. Student A
responded that at the time slhe did not consider it work past the
deadline and instead just wanted the project to match all internal
"vision" and therefore at the time thought the work was OK.
Student A said at the time s/he didn't consider the work done really
a "change" to the project and that s/he certainly was not
trying to break the Code. When asked if s/he realized this deadline
was different from the previous deadline, Student A answered that s/he
realized what the deadline was and wasn't thinking about it at the
time of the violation.
Closing Statement:
Student A stated that because s/lie was a new student, and just
arrived at Rice, s/he was not used to the idea of an Honor System even
if s/he was ready to follow it. S/he went on to say that at the time
of the violation however, s/he didn't think of the Code and instead
just wanted the project to "look good", and was very proud of
this piece of work. Student A went on to explain that his/her
specific major is also new to him/her and that s/he was trying to do
as well as possible. Student A said that there were a great deal of
adjustments s/he had to make during the course of the semester, that
s/he was under lots of pressure, and that s/he was not comfortable at
Rice yet. Student A emphasized the fact that s/he had no intention
of breaking the Code and was not trying to take advantage of the
privilege.
Deliberation:
The consensus penalty for a violation of this kind is an F in
the course and a two semester suspension. The Council thus needed to
decide if there were any mitigating circumstances that warranted
lowering the penalty.
The Council decided that ignorance was not a mitigating
circumstance because the deadline was made public and no other student
from the class seemed to have any confusion about what it entailed.
The Council decided that emotional stress was not a mitigating cir-
cumstance because of the fact that it was late in the semester and the
accused had as much time to adjust as everyone else, nor had had
particularly extraordinary experiences to justify not adjusting, so
therefore emotional stress would not be considered a mitigating
circumstance.
Another mitigating circumstance discussed was the fact that
Student A was a new student, also a mitigating circumstance used
before by the Council. Some members argued against this as a
mitigating circumstance because the other students in the class were
exposed to similar stress and did not violate the Honor Code. Recent
case law was cited in which this was considered a mitigating
circumstance in conjunction with other mitigating circumstances.
The Council then discussed whether or not intentionality was a
mitigating circumstance in this case. It was noted by members of the
Council that the accused waited three days before doing any work on
the project, and that s/he then presented the project with the rest
of the class to be graded as legitimate work. Because the violation
could have been easily avoided and consciously was not, the Council
decided that lack of intentionality was not a mitigating circumstance
in this case.
The Council then questioned whether the standard rule that any
violation after the tenth week of classes would result in a suspension
beginning the next consecutive semester would apply in this case and
decided that it would in absence of good reason for it to be sus-
pended. At this point, the first Straw Poll was taken:
Straw Poll #1:
F in course + 2 Semester Suspension 2 (+1 observing)
F in course + 1 Semester Suspension 1 (+1 observing)
Abstentions 4 (+1 observing)
When the abstaining members were questioned, they raised
questions about whether the penalty fit the violation. It was argued
that it was important that decisions are consistent from one case to
the next. The Council then discussed the mitigating circumstances
again.
While the majority of the Council felt that the fact that the
accused was a new student was indeed a mitigating circumstance, many
of the members felt that it was not an influential enough mitigating
circumstance in this case to justify lowering the penalty from
consensus by an entire semester. Some members still maintained that no
mitigating circumstances existed and the consensus penalty should be
given. The question was then raised whether the Council could
"mitigate" a penalty by allowing the accused to choose which
semester, either fall `93 or spring `94 would he his/her first
semester away from the University. Another Straw Poll was called.
Straw Poll #2:
F + 2 Semester Suspension 2
with choice of semester
F + 2 Semester Suspension 1
(no choice of semester)
F + 1 Semester Suspension 2 (+ 2 observing)
Abstentions 2 (+ 1 observing)
The members voting F + 1 Semester said they were voting such
based on a mitigating circumstance of the accused being a new student.
A majority of the Council agreed that this was a reasonable mitigating
circumstance but was not valid enough to lower the penalty by 1
semester. The general consensus was that the "choice" adage
allowed an increment between the F + 2 Semester suspension penalty and
the F + 1 Semester suspension. The third Straw Poll was taken at this
time.
Straw Poll #3:
F + 2 Semester Suspension 2
F + 2 Semester Suspension
with choice of Semester 3 (+ 2 observing)
F + 1 Semester Suspension 2 (+1 observing)
The Council then discussed the traditional policy that the
Council will strive for unanimity when assessing penalties. Debate
about mitigating circumstances continued.
There was a call to question.
Straw Poll #4:
F + 2 Semester Suspension 1
F + 2 Semester Suspension 5 (+ 3 observing)
with choice of semester
F + 1 Semester Suspension 0
Abstentions 1
Another Straw Poll was taken:
Straw Poll #5:
F in the course + 2 Semester Suspension 2
F in the course + 2 Semester Suspension
with choice of semester 5 (+ 3 observing)
With no objections, the results of Straw Poll #5 were made
binding. The Honor Council therefore recommends to the Dean of
Students that Student A receive an F in the course as well as a two
semester suspension which can begin with either the Fall 1993 semester
or the Spring 1994 semester and must be concurrent. The Council also
recommends that a suspension clause be attached to Student A's
record.
Time of hearing and deliberation: 5.75 hours
Respectfully Submitted,
Andrea Johnson
Trial Clerk