| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #16, Spring 1994
Abstract of the Honor Council
February 17, 1994
Members present: Alex Cestero, Sam Cole, Chad Fargason, Carolyn Gill,
Steve Hackney, Bradley Monton, Heather Morschauser.
Ombudsman: Lauren Kern.
Letter of Accusation
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from three
students, accusing a fellow student (Student A) of copying a homework
in a lower-level science class. The letter explained that one of the
accusers left his/her homework on his/her desk for the afternoon, and
returned to find his/her desk rearranged. This student then found
Student A's homework, and saw that Student A's homework was a
duplicate of his/her homework.
Evidence Submitted
The homework of Student A
The homework of the accuser from which Student A was accused of copying
Plea
Student A entered a plea of In Violation.
Opening Statement
Student A explained that s/he was not going to deny the letter
of accusation, and that s/he will take whatever punishment is given.
Questioning
Student A was asked why s/he copied. S/he responded that the
academic competitiveness of Rice and the difficulty level of the
assignment were factors. Student A was asked what s/he was thinking
when s/he did the copying. S/he said that s/he knew it was a
violation. S/he was asked abour her O-Week orientation, and s/he said
that s/he had been oriented to the Honor System.
Witness -- one of the accusers
This witness briefly explained the homework problems. S/he
said that s/he and Student A had worked together last semester, but
not this semester.
Closing Statement
Student A said that the evidence was clear, and that s/he
trusts that s/he will be judged fairly.
Deliberation
Because this homework was worth less than 10% of the total
course grade, and because some collaboration was allowed, the
consensus penalty for this violation is an F in the course. It was
clear to the council that there were no mitigating circumstances. One
member proposed a penalty of loss of credit on the assignment because
that was the penalty given in the previous lower-level science
homework case. However, it was decided that this case was different
because in the previous case the violation had been at least partially
unintentional. Two straw polls were taken:
Straw Poll #1
F in course 6
Loss of credit in the course 0
Abstentions 1
Straw Poll #2
F in course 7
Loss of credit in the course 0
Abstentions 0
With no objections, the result of Straw Poll #2 was made binding. The
Honor Council thus recommends to the Dean of Students that Student A
receive an F in the course in question. The council also recommends
that a suspension clause be attached to Student A's record.
Time of hearing and deliberation: 30 minutes.
Respectfully submitted,
Bradley Monton
Trial Clerk