| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #24, Spring 1994
Abstract of the Honor Council
Members present: Sam Cole (presiding), Dan Grossman, Carolyn Gill,
Katie Krowliwkowski, Fawn Burns, Kevin Reed, Ram Rajamony, Ken
Mathis (observing), John Doll (observing).
Ombudsman: Scott Ruthfield.
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a
student in an upper-level science class who accused a fellow class
mate (Student A) of copying another student's homework (Student
B). The accuser claims that she saw Student A pick up Student B's
homework from a pile, without Student B's knowledge or consent, at
the beginning of class and copy from that homework onto
something else, allegedly, her own work. Although the accuser left
class early and did not see Student A turn in anything, she reported
the incident to the Council.
Evidence Submitted:
- The homework of Student A and Student B
- The syllabus for the class
- The statement of the accused
- An analysis of the two homeworks by a science professor
- The text for the class
- A random sample of other homeworks from that class
Plea:
Student A entered a plea of In Violation.
Opening Statement:
Student A explained that at the beginning of class, before
she turned in her own homework, she went to the pile of homework
that was due and picked up the homework belonging to Student B,
whom she knew to have a good understanding of the material.
Student A was not sure that she had done well on the homework, so
she copied Student B's home work for study and comparison
purposes. She said that she never took her original homework out
and, therefore, never altered her own work. When she finished
copying the work, she put the notes in her bag. At the end of class,
when she turned in Student B's homework, she accidentally grabbed
the new homework notes, a copy of Student B's work, and turned it
in as her own by accident. She forgot about it entirely until the
investigation with the Council , at which time she looked over her
notes from last year and found her original homework.
Questioning:
The Council asked questions regarding the chronology of
events. The accused stated again that she only used the homework
for study purposes and never intended to turn the notes in as her
own work.The professor never posted solution sets and she didn't
go to any additional class meetings to discuss homeworks. Therefore
she never had a goodor correct copy of the homeworks done for
class. Student A knew Student B from previous study sessions for
other classes, and knew that she worked well. Student A said she
never asked Student B if she could borrow her homework because
she didn't feel comfortable around her. Student A told the Council
she had copied other homeworks several times before for studying,
but turning in the notes was accidental. The accused claimed that
when she pulled out the new homework and recognized it as the
material covered for the homework, she assumed it was her own
work and turned it in. Student A reiterated that she didn't know
anyone else in the class, didn't go to any study sessions, and didn't
feel confident about approaching anyone for help.The accused
explained that she boxed in the answers on the new homework, and
didn't do so on her original homework, for clarity later when
reviewing. The accused also told the Council that she had thrown
away all of her notes and homeworks from the class, but this
particular homework had been shoved in with work from another
science class that she kept.
Witness #1 -- the accuser
The witness explained that when she got to class, as she
was turning in her homework, she saw Student A pick up Student B's
homework off the top of a homework pile. The witness stated that
she observed Student A copying the homework of Student B, but left
before she saw Student A turn anything in. The witness also stated
that she knew that the professor did not review homework in class,
but did go over it in a separate study session.
The Council later called Witness #1 on the phone and asked
if she could remember if there were ever answer keys for homework
or tests given out. The witness said that there were not any.
Further Questioning
The Council, referring to the analysis of the two
homeworks by another professor, asked why there was seemingly
irrelevant information included in Student A's new homework. The
accused claimed that while she was copying, she was looking at the
text for the class and wrote down information from the book that
she felt was relevant to the homework. The accused stated that she
did not find the original homework until this year because she never
ended up using the homeworks to study for her exam, she only used
her text. The accused also pointed out that there were some
discrepancies in her work and Student B's work, which was
indicative of her effort to learn from the notes. She said she would
change some of the work if she thought it made more sense than
what Student B had written.
Closing Statement:
Student A restated that she never intended to turn in
Student B's work. She said it had been bad judgement not to talk to
Student B about using her work, but she didn't feel comfortable
approaching her.
Deliberation:
Because the homework was worth around 1% of Student A's
grade, the consensus penalty would be an F in the course. The
Council spent a great deal of time debating the intentionality of
Student A's actions. Some of the Council wanted to mitigate down
because they felt there was a lack of intentionality, but there was
also a great deal of negligence on her part. The fact that Student A
took no precautions to make sure that she turned in her own work,
and never carefully looked at what she did turn in showed an
overwhelming amount of negligence. After debating the issues of
intentionality, the Council decided that the high degree of
negligence would cancel out any mitigation for lack of
intentionality. Therefor, there were, in effect, no mitigating
circumstances. Some members of the Council also proposed two
other penalties: a loss of credit in the course and a triple loss of
credit on the assignment. Two straw polls were taken:
Straw Poll #1
F 5(+1 observing)
Loss of credit in the course (1 observing)
Triple loss of credit on the assignment 0
Abstentions 2
After hearing from the abstaining members another straw poll was
taken:
Straw Poll #2
F 7(+2 observing)
LCC 0
TLCA 0
Abstentions 0
With no objections, straw poll #2 was made binding and a
suspension clause was added. Thus, the Council recommends that
Student A receive an F in the course.
Time of hearing and deliberation: 3 hours and 20 minutes.
Respectfully Submitted,
Carolyn Gill
Head Trial Clerk