| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #18, Spring 1994
Abstract of the Honor Council
March 11, 1994
Members present: Alex Cestero, Sam Cole, Chad Fargason, Crystal
Gobble, Steve Hackney, Bradley Monton, Thomas Page, Christopher
Stokes, Adam Thornton.
Ombudsman: Lan Huynh.
Letter of Accusation
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from the
professor of a lower-level science course, accusing a student (Student
A) of violating the Honor Code on a major exam. The letter
explained that, after the exams were graded, Student A's exam could
not be found. However, there was an exam that did not have a name
on it. The professor asked Student A to look at the nameless exam to
see if it was his/hers. The professor explained in the letter that
Student A was "pretty sure" the exam was not his/hers, because s/he
put his/her name on the test and wrote more elaborate answers than
were on the test.
Because of this, the professor gave Student A a makeup test.
The professor saw that the handwriting on the makeup exam was very
similar to the handwriting on the nameless exam. Because the score
on the nameless exam was much lower than the score on the makeup
exam, the professor hypothesized that Student A had denied
ownership of the first exam to attempt to improve his/her score, and
referred the case to the Honor Council.
Evidence Submitted
The exam without a name
Student A's makeup exam
Homework and class notes of Student A
Plea
Student A entered a plea of Not In Violation.
Opening Statement
Student A reviewed the circumstances of the case. S/he
explained that the handwriting on the nameless exam looked similar
to his/her own, but that it did not look like his/her work. In Student
A's conversation with the professor, Student A said that s/he was not
sure if the test was his/hers: there were specific problems s/he
distinctly remembered doing more work on, and s/he knew that s/he
had done better.
Student A said that, when s/he talked to the professor, s/he did
not know that a makeup was possible, because it was not mentioned
in the syllabus. When the professor offered a makeup exam, Student
A accepted. S/he could not take it right then because s/he had a
tutoring session. S/he scheduled to take the makeup exam the next
day, and did about a hour of studying before the makeup.
Questioning
Student A was asked what specifically s/he remembered doing
more work on than the nameless exam, and s/he pointed out the
problem on which s/he claimed to have done more scratchwork.
Student A explained that s/he knew s/he did well on the exam, and
thus felt that the nameless exam was not his/hers. S/he said that the
handwriting looked similar, but the work looked different than what
s/he had done.
Witness One -- Friend of Student A
This witness recounted what Student A had told him/her about
the exam situation. Student A had told the witness that the professor
has lost the exam and that Student A would have to take a makeup.
Upon questioning by the council, it was discovered that Student A
had not told the witness about the nameless exam.
Witness Two -- The Professor
The professor was asked if there were any other students who
were missing a test. S/he responded that no student had said so.
However, the class was large, so there could have been a student who
took the first test, forgot to put his/her name on it, and subsequently
dropped the course. The professor was asked about his/her
conversation with Student A, and said that Student A was pretty sure
the exam was not his/hers. The professor said that, if the nameless
exam was Student A's, s/he would have expected Student A to be able
to identify his/her test. When asked about the increase in score from
the nameless exam to Student A's makeup, the professor said that the
act of taking the first exam could have allowed Student A to increase
his/her score significantly.
Witness Three -- Student A's Tutor
This witness confirmed that s/he does tutor Student A
regularly, and that their tutoring session was probably why Student A
could not take the exam immediately after the professor offered
Student A the makeup.
Witness Four -- Friend of Student A
This witness, who is also in the class, confirmed that the two
of them studied together for the original exam. S/he also confirmed
that Student A only studied a little bit for the makeup exam.
Witness Five -- Friend of Student A
This witness collaborated Witness Four's statements.
Witness Six -- Friend of Student A
This witness collaborated Witness One's statements.
Witness Seven -- Student A's Father
This witness recounted what Student A told him about the lost
exam. The witness said that Student A had told him about the
nameless exam, and said that it was probably not his/hers.
Further Questioning
Student A reexplained that s/he only told the professor that
s/he was not sure whether the exam was his/hers, and the professor
was the person who offered a makeup. Student A was asked why s/he
didn't tell his/her friends about the nameless exam, and s/he
responded that s/he felt the makeup was just a contract between the
student and teacher, since the possibility of makeups was not
mentioned in the syllabus.
Closing Statement
Student A explained that s/he has been honest and up front. It
was the professor who offered the makeup, and Student A trusted
his/her judgement.
Deliberation
The council decided that Student A could only be found In
Violation if the council could show that Student A knew the nameless
exam was his/hers, but intentionally deceived the professor. The
council debated whether the nameless test was his/hers. The
handwriting was very similar, but there were some differences
between the way certain characters were written. Because it seemed
very unlikely that Student A's test was lost and an unclaimed
nameless test existed, most members concluded that the nameless test
was probably Student A's. However, many members felt that they
could not make that claim with a high degree of certainty.
The council then turned to the question of whether Student A
intentionally misled the professor. Some members noted that there
was great incentive to mislead the professor because the grade on the
nameless exam was so low. Student A kept saying that s/he knew that
s/he did better; possibly, Student A thought that s/he did better, and
thus decided to deny ownership of the nameless exam with the low
score.
Other members said that they were not completely sure that
the nameless exam was Student A's, and felt that, even if it was, it
would be reasonable for Student A not to be certain about it. These
members pointed out that they do not know the exact text of the
dialogue between Sudtent A and the professor, and both sides agreed
it was the professor who offered the retake.
At this point, a straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #1
In Violation 0
Not in Violation 5
Abstentions 4
The four abstentions were pretty sure that Student A had deceived the
professor, but had not decided if they were certain enough to vote for
In Violation. Further debate ensued: some members argued that the
council could not be certain of Student A's mindset, and thus could
not conclude that s/he intentionally deceived the professor. However,
other members argued that the nameless exam was Student A's, and
the council must assume that Student A realized this.
Another straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #2
In Violation 2
Not In Violation 7
Abstentions 0
With no objections, the results of Straw Poll #2 were made binding.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A Not In Violation of the
Honor Code.
Time of trial and deliberation: 3 hours.
Respectfully submitted,
Bradley Monton
Trial Clerk