| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #8 Fall 1994
December 10, 1994
Members Present: Fawn Burns, Alex Cestero, Sam Cole (presiding), John Doll,
Dan Grossman, Caline Mouawad, Michael Munson, Snehal Patel, and Ram Rajamony.
Ombuds: Erin Kellam and Emily Johnson (observing).
Investigator: Kevin Reed
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation claiming that a
fellow student (Student A) had used unauthorized aid during a take-home quiz
in a lower-level humanities course. The letter explained that the quiz was
strictly closed book and closed notes. Thus, the accuser became suspicious
when Student A stated that she had looked up two items of information while
taking the quiz. After having this conversation, the accuser talked to the
professor about Student A's actions. The professor said that she intended
the quiz to be closed book and that Student A's use of reference material was
inappropriate.
Evidence Submitted:
* Letter of accusation.
* Student A's quiz.
* Reference material used by Student A during the quiz.
* Summary of information learned in the class this semester.
* Course syllabus.
Plea:
Student A entered a plea of Not in Violation.
Opening Statement:
Student A explained that the letter of accusation was not accurate.
The class took frequent in-class quizzes during the first half of the semester.
Usually, the quizzes contained some new ideas the students had not seen before.
Because these new ideas were not being tested, the professor made a practice
of explaining these unfamiliar ideas while the students were taking the quiz.
Student A explained that she used the reference material to look up information
of this sort. She was not finding an answer, but only finding the information
that the professor would have provided had the quiz been taken in class.
Furthermore, the professor gave ambiguous instructions prior to the quiz and
failed to state that the quiz was closed-book.
Questioning:
The council asked Student A to explain the format of the quiz. She
identified the ideas being tested and described the irrelevance of the material
she referenced. She pointed out that the information she obtained did not
assist her in completing the quiz.
When asked about the professor's instructions for the quiz, Student A
admitted that although the professor did not describe the quiz as closed-book,
Student A assumed that the quiz was closed-book. Student A then qualified this
statement by emphasizing that she did not look up information tested on the
quiz, but only the facts that the professor would have supplied if the quiz
were given in class.
After turning in the quiz, Student A talked to the professor about her
use of reference material. The professor said that using references in this
manner would be acceptable.
Witness 1, Accuser:
The accuser described how she learned of the possible violation. She
had been discussing the difficulty of the quiz with Student A when Student A
admitted looking up information they had not covered in class. The accuser
did not feel that the references used by Student A were irrelevant to
completing the question, but that they provided significant aid while
taking the quiz.The accuser described the difficulty she had in taking the
quiz without knowing the unfamiliar information.
The accuser approached the professor about the supposed violation.
The professor told her that they could not look up anything for the quiz.
Witness 2, Professor:
When asked about her policy for the take-home quizzes, the professor
said that she never explicitly stated her policy. She assumed that students
would take the quiz under the "Honor Code," which she understood to
mean
that no outside resources would be used. She did not articulate specific
instructions for this quiz, creating an ambiguous testing situation.
According to the professor, looking up the information would not have
helped Student A on the quiz because the professor was testing different ideas.
Furthermore, the professor explained that she would have supplied this
information if the quiz were given in class. Since informed of this
accusation, the professor has included on subsequent quizzes explanations
of any ideas that may be unfamiliar to the students.
Witness 3, Another Student from the Class:
This student explained that the take-home quizzes were meant to
replace in-class quizzes. Thus, although the professor did not explicitly
state the policy, the witness assumed that outside references were not to
be used. The witness further confirmed that the professor's guidelines for
the quiz were ambiguous. Moreover, the witness believed that Student A's
use of outside references did not violate the professor's stated policy..
Closing Statement:
Student A reaffirmed that her actions were not against the Honor
Code in the class as illustrated by the testimony of the professor and
Witness 3.
Deliberation:
The Council first agreed that the professor's policy was ambiguous.
Every person who appeared before the Council had a slightly different
interpretation of the professor's guidelines. Furthermore, the professor
could not even state her policy when asked by the Council.
The Council then looked at the take-home quiz in the context of
replacing the previous in-class quizzes. Every witness confirmed Student
A's assertion that the professor frequently provided some information while
the students were taking the quiz. While taking the quiz, Student A used a
reference book to serve the same function the professor had served when the
quizzes were given in class.
Thus, the Council reached a general consensus that a violation of
the Honor System did not occur. At this time, a straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #1:
In Violation 0
Not in Violation 9
Abstentions 0
With no objections, the result of Straw Poll #1 was made binding.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A Not in Violation of the Honor System.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michael Munson
Trial Clerk
Time of trial and deliberation: 1 hour and 48 minutes.