| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #20, Spring 1994
Abstract of the Honor Council
April 18, 1994
Members present: Alex Cestero, Sam Cole (presiding), Chad
Fargason, Cormac Flanagan, Carolyn Gill, Katie Krolikowski,
Bradley Monton, Heather Morschauser, Christopher Stokes, Kevin
Reed (observing).
Ombudsman: Lan Huynh with Jen Bullard (observing) and Julie Song
(observing).
Letter of Accusation
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a
professor, accusing two students (Student A and Student B) of
copying on a lab in a lower-level science class. The letter explained
that, as stated in the course syllabus and on the lab itself, students are
allowed to discuss lab reports with other students, but cannot work
together or copy from other lab reports. Student A and Student B had
very similar lab reports, including exactly the same numeric answers
where they would be expected to be slightly different.
Evidence Submitted
The lab reports of Student A and Student B
The syllabus for the course
Plea
Student A and Student B entered a plea of In Violation.
Because only seven council members are required for a
hearing, Heather Morschauser and Cormac Flanagan were dismissed.
Opening Statement
Student A, speaking for both accused, explained that there
were mitigating circumstances which should be taken into account
when determining a penalty. S/he said that the two had no intention to
cheat. Student A had done some work on the lab, and then went over
to Student B's room to explain certain calculations. When in Student
B's room, s/he used extrapolated values from Student B's graph in
his/her lab report. Student A now admitted that this was a mistake.
Student A felt that there was an ambiguity in the course policy: there
is a fine line between consulting other students and working together.
Student B also said that the policy was never explicitly explained to
the accused by the professor or the lab instructor.
Questioning
The students were asked about the chronology of events.
Student A had done a little work on the graphs, and Student B had
done all of the graphs, before the two got together in Student B's
room. The students helped each other with some of the calculations,
using Student B's values from his/her graph. When Student A did
his/her calculations and graphs, s/he used Student B's values.
The students were asked about the syllabus for the course.
They said that they had read they syllabus at the beginning of the
semester, but did not remember at the time of the violation what it
specifically said about Honor System violations.
Witness One -- roommate of Student A
This witness explained that s/he did see Student A working on
his/her lab report independently in Student A's room. S/he said that,
during the two times s/he saw Student A working, Student A was
working on his/her graphs.
Witness Two -- the professor
The professor explained that, while students are allowed to
ask each other general conceptual questions about the lab, the
analysis of data is supposed to be done individually. S/he said that
this was in the syllabus, occasionally mentioned in lecture, and
written on the lab report.
Further Questioning
Student A and Student B were asked about some of the
similarities in their lab reports. Both students had very similar but
incorrect titles for one of their graphs: both titles had the x and y axes
switched, and misreported the units for one axis. Student B said that
s/he had done the graph first. Student A said that s/he had not copied
the graph from Student B, and pointed to differences in the graphs to
show this.
The two students had the same number of significant figures
in almost all of the answers on the lab report. Each student explained
that s/he thought this was a reasonable number to use.
One calculation was laid out in almost the same fashion on
both Student A and Student B's lab report. Also, both labs had a left
parenthesis at one point in the calculation, but both were missing the
corresponding right parenthesis. Student A said that s/he had done
this calculation first. Student B said that s/he did not copy from
Student A, but could have looked at his/her calculation briefly for
guidance.
The students were asked what part of their working together
they considered a violation. Student A responded that, since s/he used
the values from Student B's graph for his/her calculations and graph,
s/he has violated the Honor System. Student B said that s/he was a
willing participant in this and thus should be held equally culpable.
However, both students said that the other aspects of their working
together were not a violation of the Honor System.
Closing Statement
The students said in their closing statement that the professor
did not want them to blindly copy, and the differences in the lab
reports make it clear that they did not do that. The students said that
they had no intention of breaking the Honor Code, and thought they
were within the lines set out by the professor.
Deliberation
Because this homework was worth 10% or less of the total
course grade, and because some collaboration was allowed, the
consensus penalty for this violation is an F in the course.
At the start of deliberation, many council members seemed
swayed by the testimony that the violation was unintentional. Many
members initially felt that gross copying had not occurred; the
students had simply shared certain values from Student B's graph
when they should not have. However, some members pointed out that
it seemed likely that the students worked together more than they said
they did, and the evidence behind this claim was examined.
The three main similarities from which a blind copying
scenario could be inferred were:
1. the fact that the two students mistitled a graph in almost exactly
the same unusual way, by switching the axes and putting the wrong
units down,
2. the fact that one major calculation was laid out on the page in
almost exactly the same way on both lab reports, and
3. the fact that both labs had a left parenthesis in a certain place in the
calculation, with no corresponding right parenthesis.
After some discussion, most council members agreed that, based on
these similarities, some amount of blatant copying had occurred.
Also, it appeared based on the lab reports that copying went both
ways, from Student A to Student B and vice versa.
It was then discussed whether this blatant copying could have
been unintentional. After debate, most members decided that,
because it was explicitly stated on the lab report that copying was not
allowed, the students had to be aware of this fact. Also, the students
quoted from that statement on the lab report in their opening
statement, and never denied being aware of that statement while they
were doing the lab.
One member stated that, since both students tried to do part of
the lab report on their own, there could not be any malicious intent in
their cheating. However, it was pointed out that they still copied on
some of the lab report; even if it was not malicious, they still
knowingly violated the Honor System.
This case was compared to Cases #5 and #6, which also
involved copying on lab reports. In both those cases, the accused
were given single loss of credit on the assignment. It was clear that
this case differed from Case #5, because in Case #5 the students had
made an effort to understand the Honor System policy for the course,
but were misled by or miscommunicated with the lab instructor. It
was decided that this current case also differed from Case #6,
because in Case #6 the students thought they understood the spirit of
the Honor System policy, and sincerely attempted to abide by it. In
Case #6, the students worked together too much, but there was no
blind copying, because the students understood that blind copying
was outside the spirit of the Honor System. In this current case,
however, blind copying did occur, even though the accused knew that
blind copying was outside the spirit of the Honor System policy.
At this point, three penalties were proposed and a straw poll
was taken:
Straw Poll #1
F in course 6 (+ 1 observing)
Triple loss of credit on the assignment 0
Double loss of credit on the assignment 0
Abstentions 1
The council heard from the abstaining member, and intentionality
was again briefly debated. It was agreed that the two penalties which
did not receive votes would be dropped, and another straw poll was
taken:
Straw Poll #2
F in course 7 (+ 1 observing)
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 and Student B receive an F in the course in question. The
council also recommends that a suspension clause be attached to the
records of Student A and Student B.
Time of hearing and deliberation: 3 1/2 hours.
Respectfully submitted,
Bradley Monton
Trial Clerk