| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #11, Fall 1993
Abstract of the Honor Council
January 27, 1994
Members present: Chad Fargason, Crystal Gobble, Adam Thornton, Sam
Cole, Steve Hackney, Christopher Stokes, Heather Morschauser, Thomas
Page, Carolyn Gill.
Ombudsman: Chris Vissers.
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a student
implicating the accuser's roommate and another student of cheating on
a lower level science course takehome exam. The accuser's letter
stated that she walked into her room and overheard the two students
discussing answers while they were taking the open-book exam. Several
days later, the accuser discovered that the two students had not been
allowed to discuss the exam with each other while taking it and
reported the incident to the Council.
Both students (student A and student B) pled not in violation.
Student A's opening statement explained that she and student B were
study partners and often worked together for the class. Both students
had a similar science background and often did their homework
together. She explained that she and student B shared some of the same
notes that they had compiled together in study sessions, so they had
planned to take the exam together. Student A stated that they had done
their work independently, though. Student B said in her opening
statement that she was a hard worker and that she and student A were
study partners, but that she did her own work. Both students wanted to
begin immediately by bringing in the witnesses for questions.
The first witness was the accuser, student A's roommate. The accuser
explained her letter of accusation and repeated the events she saw and
heard that led her to believe that student A and B were cheating.
After overhearing some of the material being discussed, she realized
it was the accused's exam and then overheard them asking questions and
discussing answers. The accuser also stated that the next day, she
heard the two students discussing the material again, which prompted
her to find out what the guidelines were for taking the exam. A few
days later, she wrote the letter of accusation. The accuser stated
that she felt that she and her roommate, student A, had a good
relationship before the accusation. At that point student A claimed
that she and the accuser had not had a good relationship previously
and she had, in fact, sensed a great deal of hostility from the
accuser.
The second witness was the mother of student A. The witness testified
that her daughter had called her and told her that she and student B
were going to take the exam in her room together as a type of moral
support and in order to share the notes they had taken together. The
witness also testified that her daughter, student A, had complained
for a long time about the tense relationship she had with her room-
mate. The witness stated that the accuser had been rude and hostile on
the phone with her.
The third witness was a friend of student A who helped both student A
and B in understanding the concepts of the course. The witness stated
that he had helped both girls two or three times and had helped the
two compile their notes. The witness also stated that he perceived
jealousy of student A from the accuser and believed that the accuser
had seen something questionable in the two students taking the exam
together and subverted it maliciously.
The fourth witness was a friend of student A who was also in the class
with the two accused. The witness stated that student A had told her
that she and student B were planning on taking the exam together. The
witness also stated that she thought the accuser was jealous of
student A. She said that she was aware of dramatic acts that the
accuser did when she felt passionately; she felt the accuser was
unstable.
The fifth witness was a friend of student A. She stated that she was
aware of the fact that student A and B worked closely together and
that they always did their homework together. She stated that she felt
the accuser often acted on impulses and her actions were often
inexplicable.
The sixth witness was the professor of the class. The professor said
that it was alright to use the notes taken from a tutorial session and
that there was no problem with the two girls taking the exam together.
The professor also felt that the problems that both students had
missed on the test were the harder ones, and that was therefore
understandable.
The seventh witness was a friend of both student A and the accuser.
She stated that the accuser had told her that she was jealous of
student A. The witness felt that it was possible that the accuser was
jealous enough to falsely accuse the two students.
After the testimony from the witnesses, the two accused described what
had happened the day they took the exam. Student A said she started
taking the exam first, but had called student B and told her to come
over to her room when she could. When student B finally came over, she
had brought some of the communal notes to student A's room and began
taking her exam. At that point student A had completed about 2/3 of
the exam. Both students said they spoke socially while taking the
exam. The accused said they did not discuss any specific problems
after taking the exam. In closing, student A reiterated her innocence
and claimed that the accuser had falsely accused her out of jealousy.
Student B said that she understood how the accuser might have thought
it looked suspicious, but that she and student A were innocent.
In deliberation the Council discussed that since the two had obviously
worked so closely throughout the term and even shared some notes,
there was a great possibility that their exams would look very
similar. Though they claimed they relied on their homework in the
exam, in looking at some of their homework, they answered some
problems correctly and then got those similar types of problems wrong
on the exam. The Council took a straw poll early on and the results
were:
Straw poll #1:
In violation: 0
Not in violation: 3
Abstentions: 6
At that point the Council decided to systematically review the
material evidence (the exams). A large portion of the questions the
two students got wrong were identically incorrect (the exam was
multiple choice). A second straw poll was taken and the results were:
Straw poll #2:
In violation: 2
Not in violation: 2
Abstentions: 5
The Council then decided to send a copy of the exams, with the names
blocked out, to three professors and to ask for systematic evaluations
and for their opinion on the likelihood that the two students could
err so similarly so many times. The Council adjourned for one week to
wait for the results of the exam.
The Council reconvened one week later to review the new evidence and
to present it to the accused. The new evidence included: l) a
compilation of answers on the exam from l3 other students in the
class, 2) a memo from a section grader with his results, 3) a memo
from another science professor with his results, 4) a compilation of
student A and B's answers from the exam which had been submitted to be
analyzed and 5) another letter from the accuser.
The memo from the science professor showed that the probability that
the two would have so many identical wrong answers was extremely low.
In her opening statement student A stated that she felt that the new
letter from the accuser should not be accepted by the Council. She
also felt that the sample group of l3 random exams should be
disregarded because those l3 were not necessarily people who had
worked together on homework, nor did they have similar science
backgrounds as she and student B had.
The first witness was the accuser who presented and explained her new
letter. In it she stated that she remembered that witness #4 had
called and left a message on their machine asking if student A was
taking the exam without her.The accuser stated that she felt the
information was relevant to the trial and had not mentioned it the
previous week because she was upset by the personal attacks she
received from the accused.
The second witness was the professor of the class who presented his
results to the Council regarding his analysis of the two students
exams. He stated that although he felt the sample group was small, he
felt it was adequate for analysis. The sample group had very few
identical wrong answers on the last 2/3 of the exam, which was where
the two students erred most similarly. In fact, in the last 2/3,
roughly 1/3 of those questions were identically incorrect. Student A
interjected that a lot of the problems on the exam came from the
homework and that she and student A had similar homework since they
worked together and would, thus, have similar answers.
The third witness was the person that the accuser claimed left the
message. The student denied ever leaving the message or wanting to
take the exam with the two accused.
After the testimony from the witnesses, both students repeated that
they relied heavily on their homework to do their exam, which they had
done together, and that was the reason for their similarities.
In closing, both students rejected the letter of the accuser and
stated that they didn't like the size or the random composition of the
survey group.
During deliberation, the high degree of correlation in the exam that
was remarked on by all three professors, especially the professor of
the class, was discussed. It was also noted that on many of the
homeworks, the two been corrected differently or not at all. The lack
of similarity in the corrected homework that the two students used in
the exam was important to some on the Council. Another point
that was raised was the fact that most of the argument from the two girls
was against the accuser and rarely attempted to refute the material
evidence. The accused barely addressed the issue of the large amount of
similar wrong answers. Two straw polls were taken:
Straw Poll #1:
In violation: 7
Not in violation: 0
Abstentions: 2
Straw Poll #2:
In violation: 9
Not in violation: 0
Abstentions: 0
The second straw poll was made binding and the Council found student A
and student B in violation.
The consensus penalty for the violation is an F in the course and a
two semester suspension. The Council felt there were no mitigating
circumstances and took a straw poll:
Straw Poll #3:
F and 2 semester suspension: 9
Abstentions: 0
Straw poll #3 was made binding and a suspension clause was added. The
penalty given to student A and student B was an F in the course, a two
semester suspension and the suspension clause was added.
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn Gill