| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #16, Spring 1997
October 3rd, 1997
Members Present:
John Doll (presiding), Cyndy Carr, Steve Friedfeld, Rod Ganske, Frankie Vasques-Harris,
Lisa Hsieh (observing), Robinson Vu, Erin McCauley, Weera Chainakul (observing),
Jessie Dirks (observing), Kristin Johnson (observing), Jeff Charbeneau
(observing), Courtney Kelso, Jan Huber
Obmuds: Mark Covey, Loan Lam (observing)
Letter of Accusation:
The council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a lower level
science course. The letter stated that the accused had turned in similar work
for an assignment. The honor code for the class called for data to be shared,
but for analysis to be performed independently.
Evidence Submitted:
Student AÕs Lab Report
Student BÕs Lab Report
Letter of Accusation
Course Syllabus
The grading policy for the course
Student AÕs statement
Student BÕs statement
Pleas
Student A plead Not In Violation.
Student B plead Not In Violation.
Testimony
The students had been partners in gathering the data for the assignment. They
testified as to how that data had been obtained and recorded. They described
their procedure for working on the assignment, and showed that the collaboration
had only been on one small piece of it. The students received different grades
on the assignment. The students had been confused by the honor code policy in
the course because in courses of a similar nature they had been encouraged to
work with their partners in analyzing information.
Two professors of other courses testified that Òraw dataÓ could be seen to
include graphs. Because the copying of raw data is allowed in the course in
question, copying graphs would be acceptable. One professor felt that asking
students to produce their own graphs was an unreasonable standard, and that the
analysis of the graphs was what was important in assignments of this nature.
Graphs of the same data would have been basically identical.
The students criticized the professor for not reiterating the Honor Code when
the nature of the assignments changed. The policies were stated in the course
syllabus but had not been emphasized after the first day of lecture. The
students had not asked the professor for clarification on the policies for the
course. The students stated that they had not even considered that they might be
committing an Honor Code violation when they were working on their graph.
The accused criticized the Honor Council for not notifying them of the violation
earlier. The accusation was received in the previous semester and an
investigating meeting was not held until the start of the academic year. The
students felt that they were not able to adequately defend themselves because
they had forgotten the details of the events and destroyed some of the material
from the course in the mean time.
The ombuds also criticized the council for having members at the trial who had
also served on the investigation. The chair reminded the Council that there are
no rules that forbid members of the investigating committee from also serving on
the trial. Only the actual investigator is restricted from serving on the trial
by the Constitution of the Honor System.
Deliberation:
The Council felt that the students responsibilities regarding the Honor Code had
been clearly stated in the course syllabus. The professor had mentioned them in
lecture the first day. If there are questions regarding the code it is the
students responsibility to ask the professor for clarification. Because the
Honor Code policies are set by individual professors for their courses, the
testimony of the other professors was not relevant.
Student A and Student B were considered together in all straw poles, because the
council felt that if a violation had occurred they shared responsibility
equally.
Straw Pole #1
In Violation 9 (+4 observing)
Not in Violation 0
The consensus penalty for this violation is an F in the course and a one
semester suspension. The Council considered mitigation on lack of intentionality
and on severity of violation.
Many members initially felt that the violation had been unintentional. However,
because the policies of the course were clearly stated in the syllabus, all
members present decided that this was a case of gross negligence, and that lack
of intentionality no longer applied.
The Council noted that the graph was only a small portion of the assignment, and
that the rest of the assignment had been conducted according to the Honor Code
policy for the course. The members felt that this was adequate grounds to
mitigate on the severity of the violation. There was disagreement among the
members as to how much this could be used as a mitigating circumstance. Some
members thought that this assignment could be seen as representing only a small
fraction of the course grade, and should receive the consensus penalty for an
assignment worth less than 5% of a course grade, an F in the course. Other
members thought that because the error committed was such a small one, the
penalty should be lower.
Straw Pole #6
F and a 1 semester suspension 0
F in the course 5 (+3 observing)
Loss of credit in the course 1 (+1 observing)
Double loss of credit on the assignment 0
Loss of credit on the assignment 3
The council discussed the accused complaints. The letter of accusation was
received before the summer break, and the investigation meeting was not not held
until September. While this is a large gap of time, it is not a large number of
school days. There was unanimous agreement among the members present that the
lapses in memory and evidence destroyed between semesters would not have changed
any of their decisions in this case.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A and Student B In Violation of the Honor
System and recommends that they receive an F in the course and that a suspension
clause be attached to their records.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 4 hours
Respectfully Submitted,
Erin McCauley
(Trial Clerk)