| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #2, Fall 1995
Abstract of the Honor Council
November 13, 1995
Members Present: Alex Cestero, Jon Doll, Jay Fundling, Carolyn Gill (presiding),
Dan Grossman, Snehal Patel, Jennifer Rich, Floyd Walker, Christine Yeh.
Ombuds: Emily Johnson with Grace Li (observing) and Ben Tseng (observing).
Letter of Accusation
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor accusing a
student of turning in a modified test for a regrade in an upper-level science
course. The accuser indicated that the answers of the regrade-submitted test
were indeed modified.
Evidence Submitted
Letter of accusation
Written statement of the accused from the investigation
A copy of the accused's test as turned into the professor
A copy of the test after alteration
Plea
The accused entered a plea of Not In Violation.
Opening Statement
The accused felt that the accusation was the result of a misunderstanding, and
that she had thought that it was sufficiently clear to the professor that when
she handed in the test it was with the understanding that certain parts of the
test had been altered. The alteration came about due to that accused's
attendance at a review session after the test, where the test was discussed and
the correct answers reached. The reason that the accused went to the professor
was on the recommendation of a tutor who felt that the accused lost too many
points on a specific question. The accused said that when she did go in to talk
to the professor she was nervous and she said that she had graded the test
correctly. When asked to explain why the accused lost points on specific
questions, the professor could not explain. The accused stated that at this
point the professor told the accused to leave her test with the professor.
Questioning
The accused stated that she always went to tutorials. She also stated that she
had left the test with the professor so that the professor could make correction
so that the accused might study for future tests from the corrections. The
accused stated that she spent most of the time in the professor's office
discussing one specific sequence of answers. A council member pointed out that
one of the answers that the professor had marked wrong seemed correct and the
accused said that she had noticed the very same problem and had asked the
professor to explain why she had been marked wrong. The accused continued to say
that when she had asked the professor why the answer was marked wrong, she got
no response. When asked what the regrade policy of the class was, the accused
answered that the she was not really sure since the original professor of the
class had to take a leave of absence due to a sickness and the current professor
was filling in for the rest of the semester. When questioned, the accused made
some easy explanations as to why she answered some questions incorrectly.
Witness 1 -- Professor
The professor explained that she was suspicious about the test on the initial
grading since the work on the test did not seem to correspond to the answers
given. When the student came and talked to her about a regrade, the professor
said that she noticed that one specific answer had been altered. At this point
she asked the student to leave the test with her, and later that night the
professor went home and compared the test to a copy of the test made at the time
of the initial grading. At this point the professor noticed that there had been
changes made to the test as it was handed in to her. The professor stated that
she was never told by the accused that there were changes made to the test. She
went on to say that the reason that she was suspicious about the test was
because of the fact that she was meticulous about grading and she graded all of
the same questions on the tests at the same time. On being asked about the
copied original test, the professor answered that she copied the tests of all of
the low scoring students because she had a similar situation last year in which
she believed that someone had altered a test and turned it in for a regrade, but
she could not prove anything because she had failed to make copies of the test
before handing them back out. She said that she specifically copied the low
scoring student's tests because there might be an inclination to cheat among
these students. The professor also stated that she was surprised that the
accused was changing her story since she had told the professor that she did not
change anything when confronted. At this point the accused broke in and said
that she had responded to the professor's inquiry with the statement that she
had went to tutorial. The professor answered back, saying that she did not
remember the accused saying that. Getting back to the actual test, the student
presents a question off of a copy of a test of another student who received full
credit on an answer that the accused lost points on. When asking the professor
about this, the professor answers back that the only possible explanation was
that the student that had received full credit had put his work earlier on the
page.
Final Questioning
The accused reiterated that the altered part of the test was done at tutorial
and was not meant to be regraded by the professor. The accused had also stated
that by explaining that she had went to tutorial, she sufficiently clarified
that the professor was to simply correct any wrong parts of the test, not
actually regrade it. She also stated that the professor asked that the test be
left with her right before the accused was about to get up and leave.
Closing Statement #2
The accused said that she did not break the honor code. She said that if she had
had more time she would have circled the parts that she had modified on the
test. She said that the cause of the problem in this situation was
miscommunication between the professor and she.
Deliberation
On opening thoughts, it was believed that a verdict of not in violation should
be returned. The reason for this is because p rincipally, the professor asked
for the accused to leave the test. Because it was an action demanded by the
professor, some council members felt that one could not consider the situation a
formal regrade. Upon further discussion the council generally felt that the
professor seemed very guarded and suspicious and that instead of trying to
understand the situation as presented to her by the student, she jumped to
conclusions and assumed cheating. Most all members agreed that there was some
definite miscommunication between the professor and the student, if the
testimony was any indication. It seemed that professor never considered that the
student had just come into her office to simply understand what she had done
wrong on the test. In fact it was not until this night that the professor even
understood the rational for why the accused missed the questions on the test.
The fact that she had not understood the accused earlier seems to indicate that
there was some definite miscommunications occurring. Despite these reasons to
acquit, there were some reservations expressed by certain members of the
council. The chief reservation brought up was the testimony of the professor
stating that the student replied that she had not cheated when the professor
confronted her after turning in the case to the Honor Council. Of course, now
the accused stated that she never said such a thing. Moreover, the explanation
for the modifications on a specific answer seemed suspicious based on the
professor's testimony that stated that the accused had asked her why she lost so
many points on the question, a sort of border line request for a regrade. At
this point the first straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #1
In Violation 0
Not In Violation 6
Abstentions 3
More debate ensued following the straw poll in which many of the reservations
that were expressed earlier were assuaged. More discussion occurred on the fact
that the professor requested that the test be left with her, a situation far
different from a regrade in which a student volunteers the test to be rechecked.
This point seemed to make a lot of sense since soon after a second straw poll
was called.
Straw Poll #2
In Violation 0
Not In Violation 9
Abstentions 0
Based on this Straw Poll, which was made binding, the Honor Council found the
accused not in violation of the Honor Code.
Time of trial and deliberation: 3 hours
Respectfully submitted,
Snehal Patel
Trial Clerk