| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #2, Fall 1996
October 21, 1996
Members present:
Heather Castellano, John Doll, George Hatoun, Erin Kellam, Lauren Kern,
Noah Shapiro, Kasia Solon (observing), Robinson Vu (observing), Betsy Winakur
Ombudsman: Daniel Whiteson
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of self-accusation from a
student (Student A) stating that she had cheated by looking at her course
notes on the closed-book part of an examination in a lower-level sciences
class.
Evidence Submitted:
% Letter of self-accusation
% Statement by Student A
% Deposition from the professor
% Course syllabus
% Exam
% Student AUs course notes
Plea:
Student A entered a plea of In Violation.
Testimony:
Student A said that she committed the violation by looking up
information relevant to an exam question during the closed-book portion
of the exam. She did not remember the specifics of the violation since it
occurred in the Fall of 1995. There were no other special circumstances
relevant to her violation.
Penalty Deliberation:
The Council recommended a penalty of an F in the course. While the
consensus penalty for the violation was an F in the
course and a two semester suspension from the university, the Council
felt that the penalty should be mitigated substantially because of the
fact that Student A accused herself in good faith.
Because Student A cheated on one part of a two-part exam worth a
total of 15% of her grade, the debate centered around whether the
mitigating circumstance of severity of violation should be applied to further
lower the penalty. However, some Council members
felt that the severity of
violation mitigating circumstance was not applicable because Student A
cheated on a large piece of the assignment.
Council members proposed an F in the course, loss of credit for
the course, and an F on the exam as possible penalties for the violation.
Several members thought the fact that the two
components of the exam were separately pledged was relevant because
Student A had two opportunities to violate the code, but only violated it
one time. Council members who favored an F in the course argued
either that severity of violation should not be applied in this case or that
the violation was still severe enough to warrant the higher penalty.
The final straw poll read as follows:
F in the course 4
Loss of credit for the course 3 (+2 observing)
The Council also recommended that a suspension clause be attached
to Student AUs record.
Time for hearing and deliberation: One hour, 40 minutes.
Respectfully submitted,
George E. Hatoun