| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #26, Spring 1994
Abstract of the Honor Council
September 14, 1994
Members Present: Alex Cestero, Sam Cole, Lauren Kern, Katie
Krowlikowski, Heather Morschauser, Ram Rajamony, Christopher Stokes.
Ombudsman: Lan Huynh with Jen Bullard (observing).
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 using
the unauthorized aid of a solution set to complete a homework assignment.
The professor had given Student A an extension on the homework due to an
illness, and thus the solutions were in the library when she was doing the
work. The letter explained that upon grading the assignment, the
professor noted great similarities between the solution set and Student
A's homework, including the use of a particular approach that she did not
think a student at this level would know to use.
Evidence Submitted
¥Homework of Student A
¥Statement from investigation of Student A
¥Set of solutions for that homework
¥Course syllabus
¥Course hand-out describing the purpose of homeworks
¥Sample homeworks of other students in the course
¥Textbook
¥Lecture notes
¥Student A's notebook containing work from Spring 1994
¥Letter of recommendation written by the professor for Student A
concerning her class performance
¥Example of Student A's requests for extensions
¥Medical records
Plea
Student A entered a plea of In Violation.
Opening Statement
Student A stated that she did use the solutions for the assignment
to some extent, but did not realize she was violating the Honor Code at the
time she checked them out from the library. She felt her use of the
solutions was not intended to substitute for the completion of the
homework, and she thought she had worked on the homework enough to
meet its goal - understanding concepts. To her knowledge, there were no
TA sessions available at the time she did the assignment, and she looked
at the solutions as non-interactive collaboration. She noted that she
consistently used the aid of authorized solutions in the library. She
discussed her high performance in the course and factors that may have
contributed to her disorientation and lack of understanding with regard to
a potential Honor Code violation. She was hospitalized for a serious
illness and was still having some problems after she returned to school
and was working on the homework. The illness had caused family concerns
and much emotional stress.
Witness #1 - Professor of the Course
The professor stated that she did not mention in class that using the
solutions to complete the homeworks would be a violation of the Honor
Code because she didn't foresee such a problem arising. The solutions
were only placed in the library after the students had turned in the
homeworks. It was only because of Student A's extension (granted due to
illness) that the solutions were in the library when she was doing the
work.
She said that on one problem, Student A used a very sophisticated
technique that she herself had not even thought of using. Student A also
put a question mark beside the problem and the professor didn't think
anyone would use that approach unless they were sure of using it.
Although there were no TA sessions available at the time, the
professor felt that she or a teaching assistant could have been reached for
help. She felt that using the solutions was not collaboration in the spirit
of the course, but still considered this a minor violation. She explained
the structure of the course, and stated that judging from a similar
problem on the final exam, Student A had mastered the concept.
When asked about writing a letter of recommendation for Student A
after writing this letter of accusation, the professor stated that she
assumed the prospective violation was a matter to be dealt with by the
Honor Council.
Questioning
Student A indicated that she had not previously used the
sophisticated technique mentioned above, and admitted that it probably
came from the solution set. Asked why she did not ask the professor or
another student for assistance, Student A answered that other students
were busy studying for finals and she felt that she had bothered the
professor enough already.
Upon being asked how her illness caused her to violate the Honor
Code, Student A responded that she was frustrated, anxious, tired, and
sick to the point that when she went to look at the solution set, she didn't
even think that it might be a violation of the Code. Upon returning from
the hospital, Student A had an inordinate amount of work to do, even with
the extensions. She did not consider taking incompletes or applying for
late drops because she wanted to complete all the work. But she said that
this was not simply a case in which she got so frustrated with the work
that she went to get the answers from the solutions. She emphasized that
she did not think of using the solutions as getting "quick answers,"
but as
checking work which she had already done. She stated that she spent at
least three to four hours of productive work on the assignment before
going to the library. She spent twenty to thirty minutes with the
solutions checked out, but did not use them for that entire time.
Student A said she didn't realize at the time how little this
assignment would affect her grade for the course; she just wanted to
perfect the assignment. She also noted that the generous grading
guidelines would have given her a lot of credit for the work she had done
before consulting the solutions.
Student A said that the emotional stress caused by the illness did
not cause her to consult the solutions. It simply distracted her thinking
so that she didn't realize what she was doing was wrong. When asked
when she did realize that she was in violation, Student A responded that
when the Chair of the Council told her the class that was involved in the
violation, she thought that the violation must concern this assignment.
Closing Statement
Student A stated that she was being honest with the Council. She
noted her good performance and the fact that she had been distracted from
it by unfortunate circumstances.
Penalty Deliberation
Several members expressed the initial opinion that the Honor
System is what allows Rice students to have appropriate accessibility to
solution sets. The consensus penalty for this type of violation would be
an F in the course. The Council agreed, however, that there were several
mitigating circumstances to be considered. The severity of the violation
was discussed as was the illness (both its emotional stress and
incapacitating nature). Each member put different weight on each of the
mitigating circumstances: some saying that the violation was as severe as
copying a homework from another student, and others saying that the
illness did not directly cause the violation - it did not prevent Student A
from completing the assignment. A straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #1
F in course 0
Loss of credit in course 0
Triple loss of credit on assignment 1
Single loss of credit on assignment 4
Letter of reprimand 1
Abstentions 1
One member explained that the mitigating circumstances definitely
lowered the penalty, but Student A did neglect the Honor System. Another
member pointed out that although Student A did master the concept, the
solutions are supposed to be used to help students master concepts after
they have turned in their corresponding assignments. The solutions should
not be used to get points on their corresponding assignments. The
abstaining member stated he believes that the illness clouded Student A's
judgment. With the removal of the penalties F in the course and letter of
reprimand, and the addition of double loss of credit on the assignment,
another straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #2
Triple loss of credit on assignment 1
Double loss of credit on assignment 3
Single loss of credit on assignment 3
Letter of reprimand 0
Abstentions 0
Those who increased the penalty they were voting for indicated a variety
of reasons. One member noted that Student A had wanted to check her
answers to see if they were right; this indicates that she would change
them if they weren't. There was also some reference to similar previous
cases, but the Council decided that because of the unique nature of this
case with its mitigating circumstances, there was no controlling
precedent. Other members expressed the opinion that a single loss of
credit was equivalent to simply not turning in the assignment, and they
felt that this violation was severe enough to warrant something a little
more punitive. Another straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #3
Triple loss of credit on assignment 0
Double loss of credit on assignment 5
Single loss of credit on assignment 2
Abstentions 0
With no objections, the results of Straw Poll #3 were made binding. The
Honor Council thus recommends to the Dean of Students that Student A
receive double loss of credit on the assignment in question. The Council
also recommends that a suspension clause be attached to Student A's
record.
Time of hearing and deliberation: 2 hours and 30 minutes.
Respectfully submitted,
Lauren T. Kern
Trial Clerk