| Honor Council Rice University |
Case 30, Carry-over from Spring 1995
Abstract of the Honor Council
Preliminary Hearing: October 5, 1995
Trial: October 26, 1995
Preliminary Hearing
Members Present: Alex Cestero, John Doll, Jay Fundling, Dan Grossman,
Lauren Kern (presiding), Erin McCauley, Heather Morschauser, Stephanie
Wardwell
Ombuds: Daniel Whiteson
Investigator: Ron-Li Liaw
Letter of Accusation
The Honor Council received a letter accusing a student of
falsifying a drop/add form. The accusation suggested that the accused
had forged a pass/fail designation on her copy of the form in an
attempt to convert a class to pass/fail after the deadline for doing
so. Because the registrar's copy of the form did not have the course
in question designated pass/fail, the student's request to convert the
grade was denied. The matter was then referred to the Council.
Evidence Submitted
The accused's request to change the registrar's designation of the
course to pass/fail and related correspondence: two letters regarding
the status of her request and a letter from the professor of the
course explaining that she did not mind the student taking the class
pass/fail.
A photocopy of the accused's copy of the drop/add form in question
(with the pass/fail box checked).
The original of the registrar's copy of the drop/add form in question
(with the pass/fail box not checked).
Two other drop/add forms used by the accused at other times.
The accused's statement from the investigation.
Plea
The accused entered a plea of Not in Violation.
The accused opted to delay the trial rather than to proceed
immediately.
Trial
Members Present: John Doll, Jay Fundling, Dan Grossman, Lauren Kern
(presiding), Erin McCauley, Heather Morschauser, Thomas Page, Jennifer
Rich, Floyd Walker, Stefanie Wardwell.
Opening Statement
The accused felt that she had been victimized by having to go
through the lengthy and troubling process that the Honor System case
had become. However, she still believed in the Honor System.
Questioning
The accused explained that she could not offer a better
explanation for the discrepancy between her copy of the form and the
registrar's than anyone else could. However, she did not alter her
copy to misrepresent the status of the course in question. The
accused found out that the registrar had not designated the class
pass/fail weeks after the form (which included multiple adds and
drops) had been processed. Although the student watched her schedule
be changed when she turned in the form, she did not pay close
attention at the time. The original of the accused's copy was not
found for the case, but the accused did not specifically remember
throwing it away. A photocopy of it was available because the student
had made a copy when requesting that the course be changed to
pass/fail. Incidentally, the accused no longer wants the class to be
designated pass/fail because it is required for her major.
Witness - friend of the accused
A friend of the accused testified that the accused had
mentioned more than once during the semester that she was taking the
class pass/fail. The accused explained that this helped show that she
thought that she had designated the class pass/fail.
Further Questioning
The accused had dropped another class in-between the time that
the add/drop form in question was submitted and the accused discovered
the discrepancy, but the accused did not notice the discrepancy when
this second form was submitted. Furthermore, the accused did not
examine the copies of her schedule mailed out by the registrar.
The accused then brought up 7 points in her defense: a lack of
pressure applied to the add/drop form due to haste may be a possible
explanation for the discrepancy, the professor had no problem with the
accused taking the class pass/fail, if a photocopy is generally
considered more accurate than a carbon copy and since one of the
photocopies of another add/drop form presented as evidence did not
accurately reflect the original, then carbon copies should be given
even less credence, the entire issue did not fall under the Honor
Council jurisdiction according to the Honor System Constitution, the
entire issue was trivial and might compare to a case from a prior year
where a student forged a signature to get into a class with limited
enrollment, the insufficiency of applying pressure to the form is
evidenced by the registrar's separate stamping of "processed" on each
copy, and the accuser only said that the form was "apparently"
altered.
Finally, the accused was not sure what type of writing
implement she had used to fill out the form.
Closing Statement
The accused re-iterated her enumerated points.
Deliberation
The Council felt that there were two issues involved: whether
the accused had changed her add/drop form and whether, if she had,
this was a violation of the Honor Code. Some Council members felt
that they should first decide what had transpired and then if all
agreed that the form had been altered decide if it was a violation.
Others felt that jurisdiction should be decided first, because if it
was not for the Honor Council to decide, then it did not matter what
members thought had occurred. In the end, both issues were discussed
pretty much concurrently.
As for whether the form was altered, some Council members felt
that it obviously was. The Council had the original of the
registrar's copy and the pass/fail box was clearly not checked even
though the rest of the form was clear and easy to read. Some Council
members, however, felt that since the registrar's copy is not the top
copy, the evidence was not convincing.
As for whether this case fell under the Council's
jurisdiction, Council members disagreed. Those feeling that it did
argued that this issue was fundamentally academic. The forgery of
this form would affect the accused's grade. They felt it was similar
to submitting an altered exam for a re-grade or breaking into a
computer to change a grade (which has been used by the Council as an
example of a heinous violation). The purpose of the Honor System is
to build a community of trust at Rice, not just in coursework.
Finally, the Honor System Constitution includes this type of violation
when it explains that students may not violate, "the trust placed in
them in any way" and that the students must protect the, "validity of
credits."
Those feeling that this issue was outside of the Council's
jurisdiction argued that student forgery of University records is
handled by the University Court. Specifically, forged advisor's
signatures on the add/drop form are handled that way and these Council
members found that to be the most relevant precedent. Furthermore,
the Constitution defines violations as pertaining to exams, papers,
and other work designated by the professor. Thus, to interpret
"trust" as extending to issues outside of coursework is too broad an
interpretation of the Constitution. Still others felt that since no
trust is placed in students in dealing with the registrar, the Honor
System -- which entails both benefits and responsibilities -- does not
extend in this area. Also, the student body may not generally
consider this a violation of the Honor System. The student was not
misrepresenting the work he had done for the course and it would not
change the credit she had received for that work. Finally, although
the Council has no official policy on this sort of matter, at recent
meetings a majority of Council members had felt that dealings with the
registrar's office did not fall under the Honor System.
A straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #1
In Violation 2
Not In Violation 6 (+ 1 observing)
Abstentions 1
Council members explained why they voted as they did. Those voting in
violation obviously felt that this issue was under the Council's
jurisdiction and that the accused had forged the pass/fail
designation. All of those voting not in violation felt that the issue
was outside of the Council's jurisdiction. Roughly half of these also
felt that the evidence was insufficient. The other half felt this was
irrelevant; it is not the Council's job to determine what occurred in
this case.
A final straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #2
In Violation 3
Not In Violation 6 (+ 1 observing)
Abstentions 0
With no objections, the result of Straw Poll #2 was made binding.
Thus, the Honor Council finds the accused Not in Violation of the
Honor System.
Time of trial and deliberation: approximately 2 hours.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dan Grossman
Trial Clerk