| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #5, Fall 1994
Abstract of the Honor Council
November 11, 1994
Members present: Alex Cestero, Sam Cole(presiding), Carolyn Gill,
Dan Grossman, Heather Morschauser, Caline Mouawad, Ram
Rajamony, Kevin Reed, Chris Vissers, John Doll(observing), Ken
Matheis(observing).
Ombudsman: Jen Bullard with Erin Kellam (observing).
Letter of Accusation
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from the
professor of an upper-level science class accusing a student
(Student A) of copying the solutions for a homework. The letter
explained that several of the problems on a homework set that
Student A had turned in on an extension seemed identical to the
professor's posted solution set. The professor found it unlikely that
the similarities could be coincidental.
Evidence Submitted
- The homework of Student A
- The professor's solution set for the homework
- The homework format of the class
- The investigative statement of the accused
- The opening statement of the accused
- Three depositions of students in the class
Plea
Student A pled Not In Violation
Opening Statement
Student A explained in his statement that he neither copied the
solutions, nor was he informed that during the extension period he
could not look at the solutions before he turned in his homework.
He elaborated by stating that the professor had never verbally told
the students that they couldn't look at the solutions and thought it
was allowed to do so. He claimed that he used the solutions to help
him understand the problems, as he had time constraints which
made it hard for him to see the professor in person. Student A said
that he was unfamiliar with the use of computers when doing the
assignment and therefore followed the solution set closely. He
stated that he never would have used the solutions if he thought it
was not allowed.
Questioning
Student A was asked to recount how he did his homework set.
He explained that he had worked on the homework by hand, but he
had gotten stuck on several of the problems. He did not have time
to go to the help session, so he took an extension on the homework.
Later, when he tried working on the homework again, he looked up
the professor's solution set to help him on the problems where he
was stuck. On several of the problems, he saw his mistakes and
corrected his homework, using the professor's solutions as a guide.
Often, he had much of the raw data, but no results, so he worked
out the problem while looking at the answers. After working out his
homework by hand, he decided to use the computer to do the
homework. Because he did not understand how to use them, he
followed and typed in the professor's solutions step by step.
Student A was asked what his understanding of the homework
policy was, and he said that since the labbies and other students are
allowed to work so closely with you, even help you finish a problem,
he thought it was alright to use the solutions before he had turned
in his homework. He said that he did not remember the professor
ever saying that they couldn't use the solutions while they had an
extension. Student A explained that he knew that the solutions
weren't posted until after the work due date, but he thought that
students who had an extension could look at the solutions.
Witness #1--the professor
The professor explained his policy on homework and said that
although his homework format did not directly address the question
of the solution sets, it did say that students had to write and
complete their own homework. The professor further stated that he
had mentioned not looking at the solutions if you had an extension
on the first day of class, but felt that it should be obvious to the
students not to look at the answers before they turned in their
homework. The professor said that he encouraged students to work
together and knew that the labbies had the solutions in the help
sessions and it was at their discretion how much help they gave. He
concluded that it was clear that the students were responsible for
doing their own work and that Student A should have known that he
couldn't look at the answers before he turned in his work.
Further Questioning
Student A further explained that he didn't know that the policy
applied specifically to homework on an extension. He thought he
understood the policy of the class. He said he had classes in the past
where a student was allowed to look at the solutions manual. He
stated that he had worked on his homework 3-5 hours before
looking at the solutions and spent another 3-4 hours doing the
homework with the solutions manual.
Closing Statement
Student A reiterated that he hadn't known that he couldn't
look at the solutions for his extension and that he had only used the
solution set as a guide to help him understand the work.
Deliberation
The Council debated Student A's misinterpretation of the
policy for a long time. The question was whether or not his
misinterpretation negated a possible violation. The council
discussed the fact that the homework is generally completed by the
students in a very open environment and that the labbies can work a
problem until it is finished with a student. Some people thought that
kind of information sharing was essentially just like looking at the
solution set, and others felt that the labbies and other students
played an important buffer role that ensured that a student had to
work through a problem to get the answer instead of just being
given the answers out and out. From looking at the depositions and
listening to the accused, it was clear that several students were not
aware of the policy that applied specifically to the homework on
extension, but some felt that it was Honor Code policy that the
students are responsible for understanding the policy. Much of the
Council felt that it was simply not reasonable that a student look at
the solutions before they turn in their homework, regardless of
whether or not they had an extension. A straw poll was taken:
Straw poll #1
In Violation 5(+2 observing)
Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 4
After hearing from the abstaining members and discussing
again that it was ultimately not reasonable of Student A to look
at the solutions another straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #2
In Violation 9(+2 observing)
Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 0
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor
System.
Penalty Deliberation
Because this homework was worth around 2% of Student A's
final grade, the maximum penalty for the violation was an F in the
course. However, it was clear to the Council that there were
mitigating circumstances that would lower the penalty. The clear
lack of understanding of the policy showed the Council a great lack
of intentionality. Some Council members saw the violation as
purely technical and did not want the penalty to be punitive. Some
Council members proposed a letter of reprimand to the student
while others felt that he should not receive credit for the
assignment. After debating the merits of the two, one Council
member proposed a re-averaging of the student's final grade by
eliminating one homework from the pool of homeworks that part of
his grade was based on, in addition to a reorientation to the Honor
System. The Council felt that this penalty was not punitive, but
that it didn't give Student A an unfair advantage over others
because of that one homework. A straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #3
Loss of credit on assignment 0
Re-average and reorient 9(+2 observing)
Letter of reprimand 0
Abstentions 0
The Council then debated whether or not the suspension
clause should be added. The suspension clause is generally added to
the penalty of anyone found In Violation of the Honor System. If
that student were to be found In Violation of the Honor System a
second time, the suspension clause is a red flag that says to the
council sitting on that case that a previous council recommends
suspension. Suspension of the student becomes a penalty option,
but it does not have to be used or exercised by that council; it is
only an option. Some felt that it was too harsh and that it was only
punitive to include it in the penalty. Others felt that it was a way for
the Council to keep its options open in the future should maximum
penalties change. A straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #4
Yes 5
No 4(+1 observing)
Abstentions (1 observing)
The Council debated the issue further and another straw poll
was taken:
Straw Poll #5
Yes 6(+1 observing)
No 3(+1 observing)
Abstentions 0
With no objections straw polls #2, #3, and #5 were made binding.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor
System, and recommends to the Dean of Students that Student A
receive a re-averaging of his final grade to have one less homework
and a reorientation to the Honor System. The Council also
recommends that the suspension clause be attached to Student A's
record.
Time of trial and deliberation: 3 hours and 15 minutes.
Respectfully Submitted,
Carolyn Gill
Trail Clerk