| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #22, Carried over from Spring 1995
Abstract of the Honor Council
November 17, 1995
Members Present: Alex Cestero, John Doll, Jay Fundling, Carolyn Gill
(presiding), Dan Grossman, Heather Morchauser, Floyd Walker, Courtney
Kelso (Voting in trial & observing in hearing), Erin McCanley (Voting in
trial and observing in hearing)
Ombuds: Scott Ruthfield
Investigator: Lauren Kern
Letter of Accusation
The Council received a letter of accusation from an instructor
in a lower-level science course. The letter stated that the short
essay portions of two students' tests (Students A & B) were
unusually similar, and that some form of cheating was suspected. In
an attachment to the letter, one of the graders of the course stated
that it was likely that Student B had copied from the test of Student
A. The grader supported this opinion by pointing out the similarity
of the answers, combined with the presence of many words in Student
B's answers which were simply out of place - as if a result of
mistakes in copying.
Evidence Submitted
Statements of the accused
The exams of both accused students
The statement of the grader in the class
Roughly 50 other exams from the class
The investigation procedure check-lists for each student
Pleas
Student A plead Not In Violation.
Student B plead In Violation.
Opening Statements
In his opening statement Student A said that he had completed
and turned in his exam, having done or noticed noting out of the
ordinary.
Student B stated that he had indeed copied portions of Student
A's exam. He emphasized that Student A knew nothing of his actions
nor in any way assisted him in cheating. Student B also stressed his
great remorse for his actions, and mentioned that he had been
diagnosed with clinical depression since the time of the incident
(though the condition was present at that time).
Questioning:
Student B stated that the grader's letter correctly identified
the parts of the test which he had copied, namely several of the short
answer questions. When asked why he copied these answers he responded
that he panicked because he realized that he was in danger of failing
the test.
Student B then explained that his depression was at least in
part due to a series of injuries which he had endured. These injuries
were so serious that they were responsible for his transfer from
another university to Rice, and were now preventing him from
continuing his life as it had been. He stated that the cheating
incident occurred during the period when he was beginning to realize
the full impact of his injuries upon his life and activities. This
realization was gradual, however, and there was no one moment in time
which marked a clear beginning to his depression.
Student A corroborated Student B's statement, stating that
Student B had become noticeably withdrawn beginning at around the time
of the incident.
Student B stated that he had been formally diagnosed with
clinical depression after the time of the incident, and had begun to
take medication for the condition.
Finally, it was submitted that the exam in question was worth
15% of the class grade.
Witness 1 - The investigator in the case
The witness stated that she had met with other members of the
students' study group in an attempt to acquire the study sheet from
which they had all reviewed, none of the students, however, still had
the sheet.
Closing Statements
Student A made no closing statement.
Student B once again expressed that he was aware of his
mistake, and that he was sorry for his actions. He stressed a desire
to move on with his education, and put the incident behind him.
Deliberation
All members of the council agreed that there was no evidence
which indicated that Student A was in any way aware or actively
participating in the incident. A Straw poll was thus taken for
Student A:
Straw Poll #1 - For Student A:
In Violation 0
Not In Violation 9
Abstentions 0
Deliberation then turned to Student B. Several council
members expressed their belief that the mitigating circumstance of
severe emotional stress directly relating to the violation was indeed
applicable to the case, even though there was no single event which
led to the violation. These members stressed that the violation
occurred during the time period in which the full impact of Student
B's injuries was beginning to sink in. Furthermore, they emphasized
the seriousness of clinical depression, and the weight that should be
given to a clinically diagnosed mental condition.
Other council members felt that it was not obvious that
Student B's depression extended all the way back to the time of the
violation. Furthermore, they stressed that was no sudden change in
Student B's emotional state which triggered the violation, nor did the
violation cause any change in his emotional state. Thus they
questioned just how directly related the emotional stress was to the
One council member brought up the fact that clinical
depression is often linked to anxiety, and thus the pressure of the
test could have produced the change in condition which triggered the
violation that other members had mentioned as not present.
Another council member stressed that this violation was an
extremely active form of cheating. This member submitted that copying
required an active decision made on the part of the student rather
than simply an omission (eg. sloppy footnoting), and was thus less
excused by depression or other forms of emotional stress.
Furthermore, the opinion was expressed that outright cheating on an
exam should carry a suspension in all but the most extreme
circumstances.
In response to the active cheating argument it was submitted
that this violation was something which occurred very quickly, and
could have been done on the spur of the moment (in panic), as opposed
to a violation on a paper in which one would have a great deal of time
to consider one's actions. Finally, those council members emphasized
the enormity of the emotional stress upon Student B, with both
clinical depression, and the loss of his way of life due to injuries.
A second straw poll was then taken as to the penalty for Student B:
Straw Poll #2 - For Student B:
F & 2 Semester Suspension 0
F & 1 Semester Suspension 3
F in the course 3 (+2 observing)
Abstentions 1
At this point a similar previous case was discussed. And both
sides reiterated their arguments and after a break in deliberations a
third Straw poll was taken for Student B:
Straw Poll #3 - For Student B:
F & 2 Semester Suspension 0
F & 1 Semester Suspension 3
F in the course 4 (+2 observing)
Abstentions 0
With no objections, the results from Straw Poll #3 for Student
B, and Straw Poll #1 for Student A were made binding. Thus, the Honor
Council finds Student A Not In Violation of the Honor System. Student
B is found In Violation and is assigned a penalty of an F in the
course in question.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 2 hours
Respectfully Submitted,
John Doll
Trial Clerk