| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case # 3 , Fail 1996
November 24, 1996
Members present: Courtney KelsoStudent C, Robinson Vu, George
Hatoun, Betsy Winakur, Noah
Shapiro, Dan Grossman, Heather Castellano, Erin Kellam, Lauren Kern
(presiding),
Dennis Geels (observing), Frankie Vasquez- Harris
(observing), Jeff Gavornik
(observing), Ryan Melgiri (observing).
Ombudsman: Emily Johnson
Letter of Accusation
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from the professor of a
graduate level humanities Class. The letter explained that the professor
had noticed that the accused students had turned in an assignment almost
identical to one turned in the previous year.
Evidence Submitted
the assignment in question
the assignment from the previous year
course syllabus
current course textbook
previous year's textbook
the students' class notes
Plea
The accused Students A & B entered a plea of In Violation. Accused
Student C entered a plea of Not In Violation.
Testimony
The accused students explained that this was a group assignment for which
ail three were responsible. It was generally agreed that if one student
couldn't work on one assignment, he would pick up the slack on a later
assignment. Student C did not work on this assignment, so he felt that he
was not in violation. Students A & B explained that they used a previous
textbook for reference in the class with the professors permission. The
person from whom they borrowed the textbook had written notes inside it
that directly pertained to the assignment in question. Students A & B
pleaded in violation because they had not specifically asked the
professor if they could use those notes in their assignment. The
professor testified that he would not have allowed the students to use
the notes if he had been asked. The professor was also disappointed in
the fact that the students lifted the notes and other definitions in the
book verbatim without citation. When it became clear that the notes in
the book were notes directly related to the completion of a particular
assignment, Students A & B testified that they believed them to be the
previous years class notes, and thus usable.
Deliberation
Ail three students were found In Violation. The Council recommended
penalties of an F (zero credit) on the assignment. There was unanimous
agreement that student C, too, was In Violation of the Honor Code because
he was responsible for the validity of the work turned in under his name
and for his credit.
Because the assignment was worth 7% of the total grade, the consensus
penalty was an F in the course and a one semester suspension. This
penalty was mitigated for Students A & B based on their cooperation with
the Council. Debate centered around the question of whether their
violation was indeed intentional and warranted further mitigation. Some
members supported further mitigation based on the students' claim that
they did not know the notes had been previously turned in as the
completion of the
assignment. Others supported the penalty of F in the course because the
students did not simply use the notes but copied much of them word for word.
As for Student C, the Council discussed the idea that his
violation was less severe than that of Students A & B. The final straw
polls were as follows:
Students A & B
F in course 3
Triple loss of credit on assignment 1 (+1 observing)
F on assignment 5 (+3 observing)
Abstentions 0
Student C
F on assignment 9 (+3 observing)
Re-averaging without assignment 0
Abstentions 0 (+1 observing)
The council also recommended that a suspension
clause be attached to ail of the students' transcripts.
Time of trial and deliberation: 4.5 hours.
Respectfully submitted,
Courtney Kelso
Trial Clerk