| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #12, Spring 1997
April 5, 1997
Members Present: Cynthia Carr, John Doll, Dennis Geels, Lauren Kern
(presiding), Erin Kellam, Snehal Patel, Noah Shapiro, Betsy Winakur,
Stephen Friedfeld.
Ombudsman: Emily Johnson, Loan Lam (observing), Mark Covey (observing).
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 accused
students had turned in
assignments that were suspiciously similar.
Evidence Submitted:
_ Assignment in question
- Solution to the assignment
- Responses submitted by Students A, B, C, and D
- Responses submitted by other students in the course
_ Course syllabus
- Statements from investigative meeting
_ Part of the assignment done by Student A
_ Abstract of Case #3, Fall 1996
Plea
Students A & B entered pleas of Not In Violation. Students C & D entered
pleas of In Violation.
Testimony
The accused students explained that the assignment in question was a
group assignment that could have up to three members per group. They
testified that it was generally understood that the assignments could be
divided up between group members. The students testified that the night
before the assignment was
due, Students A & C decided to split up the work of the assignment. They
agreed to meet early the next afternoon to merge the two
parts of the assignment. Students A & C each decided independently to
pick up another partner
to help them out on their part of the assignment. This information was
not relayed until the next day, at which point Student C approached
Student A and asked if her partner, Student D, could be placed in the
three-person group. Student A
told Student C that Student D could not be in the group since she had
already included her partner, Student B, in the group. Student C gave
Student A his part of the assignment, but did not tell Student A that
Student D had worked on the assignment with her. Student C told Student D
that she was out of the group. Student D testified that she then
completed the assignment and turned it in, including the work that she
had done with Student C.
Deliberation
Students A & B were found Not in Violation by the Council since they had
not been aware of the actions of Student C & D. Though a case was made
about the fact that all the members of the group were responsible for making
sure that the work that they turned in under their names be valid and
under the full spirit of the Honor Code, a majority of the Council felt
that Students A & B had gone to reasonable lengths to be responsible for
the paper by telling Student C that they were working together and that
Student D should not be admitted into the group. Students C & D, however,
were both
cognizant of the fact that the work that they had turned in had been
partly done by a person not explicitly acknowledged as an author of the work.
Because the assignment was worth 4% of the grade, consensus was an F in
the course. This penalty was mitigated for Student C to a loss of credit
in the course due to her
cooperation with the Council. Student D, however, had been convicted of
an Honor Code offense in
a prior case. The mitigation of unintentionality was discussed with
regard to student D. Most members dismissed this mitigation due to the
circumstance of the previous violation. Ultimately, the penalty for
Student D was mitigated to a loss of credit in the course due to her
cooperation
with the Council. The final straw poll results were as follows:
Students A&B
In Violation 4
Not In Violation 5
Student C
F in course 0
Loss of credit in course 6
Triple loss of credit on assignment 2
Loss of credit on assignment 1
Student D
F in course 3
Loss of credit in course 4
F on assignment 2
The council also recommended that suspension clauses be attached to
Student C & D's transcripts, with Student D's indicating that he has been
convicted of two Honor Code violations
Time of trial and deliberation: 4 hours
Respectfully submitted,
Snehal Patel