| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #1, Fall 1994
Abstract of the Honor Council
Members present: Heather Morschauser (presiding), Carolyn Gill,
Fawn Burns, Thomas Page, Alex Cestero, Snehal Patel, Mike Munsen,
Dan Grossman, Christopher Stokes, Ken Mathis (observing).
Ombudsman: Jen Bullard.
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from one
student accusing another student (Student A) of asking for and
receiving unauthorized aid on a homework in a lower-level science
class. The accuser explained that Student A approached him for
help on a specific homework problem. The two students were alone
in the room and the accuser helped Student A with the problem.
Student A later returned to the accuser's room for additional help,
at which time, the accuser's room mate was present. After Student A
left the room, the room mate mentioned that he was somewhat
familiar with the class and thought that the problem Student A
asked for help on was non-collaborative. The accuser checked and
found that the problem he had helped Student A on was indeed non-
collaborative.
Evidence Submitted
-The statement of the accused
-The syllabus for the class
-The homework of the accused
Plea
Student A pled Not In Violation
Opening Statement
Student A explained that the problem he received aid on
was not an actual problem from the homework set, but rather a
problem that he made up that was similar to the one assigned.
Student A indicated that he knew that the problem was non-
collaborative, so he made one up that was similar so he could ask
for help on the new problem to better understand how to solve the
assigned one. The accused said that he had gone to the accuser
several times for help. Student A also claimed that he had asked a
friend if he thought it would be alright if he used the sample
problem to ask for help and better understand the real problem
assigned. Student A said that the friend stated that there would
be no conflict with the Honor System as long as the new problem
created wasn't too similar to the real one.
Student A explained how he got help from the accuser. Student
A went to the accuser's room for help, but he was not there. The
accused returned to his room and asked his suitemate for help, but
couldn't get any. After classes the following day, Student A returned
to the accuser's room and was able to get help. They were alone in
the room and worked for about ten minutes. Later that evening
Student A returned for clarification on the problem and left. The
room mate of the accuser was present then. Student A claims that
he understands the Honor Code completely. The accused didn't
think there was anything wrong with getting help on a fictional
problem that was similar to, but not exactly the same as, the
assigned non-collaborative problem.
Questioning
Student A was asked what his understanding of the syllabus
was and what non-collaboration meant to him. The accused said that
he thought he understood the syllabus, and all he asked for help on
was understanding the general concept of the assigned problem. The
accused claimed he had never made up a problem before to
understand other non-collaborative assignments. Student A said that
he and the accuser looked at the book some when he came for help
the first time. Student A also explained that he did not go to the
professor of the class to ask if it was alright to make up, and get
help, on a sample problem similar to the assigned homework.
Witness #1 -- The accuser
The witness explained that Student A had come to his room
twice to ask for help. He remembered that the problem was
handwritten. When the witness saw a copy of the assigned problem
he said it was identical to the one the accused showed him. When
the witness was shown a copy of the problem the accused said he
made up, the witness said it was not the problem Student A asked
him for help on. He said that he was positive that the problem the
accused brought to him had figures on it identical to the assigned
problem and that some of the numbers were the same as well. The
witness said that when his room mate was in the room the second
time that Student A was there, he saw the diagram and later
remarked at its similarity to the non-collaborative problem he had
seen from another student in the class. He checked the assigned
problem and recognized the similarities.
Witness #2 -- the professor of the class
The professor said that making up a new problem from an
assigned one in order to get help and understand that problem is
against the spirit of the Code in his class. He explained that the non-
collaborative problem was assigned one week after the material had
been taught in class. After the problem had been assigned, he would
not answer questions addressing the purpose of the problem.
Therefore, he explained, he wouldn't expect Student A to get help on
a problem that was similar to the one he assigned.
Witness #3 -- friend of Student A
The witness was brought in by the accused to testify to his
confusion when he was contacted by the Council. The witness stated
that the accused did mention that he thought there might be a
problem with the homework he got help on. The witness also said
that he had thought the sample problem the accused mentioned and
had got help on was assigned for help and therefore thought it was
ok that he got help on it.
Witness #4 -- room mate of accuser
The witness stated that he had seen the assigned non-
collaborative problem before he saw his room mate and Student A
working together. When he glanced at the paper Student A had and
he overheard their conversation regarding the problem, he
recognized the problem and spoke to his room mate after Student A
left the room.
Witness #5 -- suitemate of Student A
The witness stated that Student A had shown him the sample
problem before, when asking for help, and it did not look like the
assigned problem.
Witness #6 -- friend of Student A
( The witness could not be reached for the trial, so the
Council, the ombudsman and Student A agreed to let Student A
explain what witness #6 would have said, and the Council would
allow that as sufficient testimony unless they had further questions
that had to be answered, in person, by the witness.) Student A stated
that he had discussed making up a sample problem similar to the
assigned one with witness #6. He said that witness #6 thought
creating a new one would be alright as long as it wasn't too similar
to the non-collaborative problem assigned. Student A also recalled
that the witness had said it was a gray area.
Closing Statement
Student A stated that he knew and understood the Honor Code
policy for the class and tried to work within its limits. He reiterated
that the sample problem was created to help him understand every
aspect of the assigned problem and not just the few questions asked
for the homework.
Deliberation
One of the first questions the Council had was regarding the
chronology of the events. After reviewing the professor's testimony
and looking at the syllabus of the class carefully, it became clear
that after the homework was assigned in class, a student was not
allowed to get any help, beyond the text and notes on the problem.
Although the problem Student A asked for help on was not assigned,
he asked for help from another person, regarding the purpose and
point of the assigned homework. Asking for help to understand how
to do that problem was against what the professor expected. A straw
poll was taken:
Straw Poll #1
In Violation 4(+1 observing)
Not in Violation 0
Abstentions 5
The Council debated the clarity and meaning of the syllabus
and took another straw poll.
Straw Poll #2
In Violation 6(+1 observing)
Not in Violation 0
Abstentions 3
The Council debated whether or not is was alright to simply ask
about the concept of a non-collaborative homework and reviewed
the professor's testimony and the syllabus again.
Straw Poll #3
In Violation 8(+1 observing)
Not in Violation 0
Abstentions 1
Straw Poll #4
In Violation 9(+1 observing)
Not in Violation 0
Abstentions 0
Thus, the Honor Council found Student A In Violation of the
Honor System.
Penalty Deliberation
Because the homework was about 1-2% of the student's
grade, the consensus penalty was an F in the course and a one
semester suspension. However, the Council felt that the severity of
the violation was very low, and they wanted to mitigate down for
that. The fact that the accused was a freshman was also debated, but
the Council could find no direct link from him being a freshman to
the violation. Intentionality was also debated. Some of the Council
felt that the violation was unintentional, so they mitigated down for
that. A straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #1
F+ 1 semester suspension 0
F 0
Loss of credit in course 0
Triple loss of credit on assignment 7(+1)
Double loss of credit on assignment 0
Loss of credit on assignment 2
With no objections, the straw poll was made binding and the
suspension clause was added. The Honor Council thus finds
Student A In Violation and was given a Triple loss of credit on the
assignment.
Time of trial and deliberation: 4 1/2 hours.
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn Gill
Head Trial Clerk