| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case # 1, Fall 1996
October 17, 1996
Members present: Julieann Grant, Dan Grossman, Courtney Kelso, Lauren Kern
(presiding), Jennifer Rich, Noah Shapiro, Ben Tseng, John Dombrowski
(observing), Jan Huber (observing), Karrie Johnson (observing), Packy
Saunders (observing), Francisco Vasquez (observing), Betsy Winakur
(observing)
Ombudsman: Daniel Whiteson with Amy Cooper observing.
Letter Of Accusation
The Honor Council received a letter of self-accusation from a
student (Student A) stating that he had cheated on a closed book exam in a
lower level humanities class.
Evidence Submitted
*statement by Student A
*deposition from the professor
*course syllabus
*copy of exam given
Plea
Student A entered a plea of In Violation.
Testimony
Student A said that he had no intention of cheating when he did not
attend the in class administration of the exam. There were no special
circumstances relevant to his violation.
Penalty Deliberation
The Council recommended a penalty of F in the course for this
violation. Because the exam was worth 35% of the course grade, the
consensus penalty for the violation was an F in the course and a two
semester suspension from the University. This penalty was mitigated based
on the the fact that Student A accused himself in good faith.
The debate focused on how much the penalty should be mitigated due
to the self-accusation. Those in favor of an F in the course stated that
Student A had committed a major violation and that by completing the course
without coming forward about his violation, he had taken credit that he did
not earn. They felt that the mitigating circumstance of self-accusation
could not diminish the penalty to a lesser extent. Those in favor of an F
on the exam thought that Student A should be penalized specifically for
cheating on the exam and should receive credit for the other work he did in
the class. Those in favor of loss of credit in the course felt that this
penalty more appropriately mitigated the consensus penalty because Student
A came forward and admitted his violation even though it was clear that no
one else was aware of the violation. The final straw poll read as follows:
F in the course 5 (+4
observing)
F on the exam 1 (+1 observing)
Loss of credit in the course 1 (+1 observing)
The Council also recommends that a suspension clause be attached to
Student A's record.
Time of hearing and deliberation: 55 minutes.
Respectfully submitted,
Julieann Grant