| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #8, Spring 1998
April 1, 1998
Members Present:
Julieann Grant (presiding), Cindy Carr, Weera Chainakul, Jan Huber, Kristin
Johnson, Amy Rees, Kasia Solon, Frankie Vasquez-Harris, Betsy Winakur, Julie
Bachir (observing), Bill Moore (observing), Kimberly Peters (observing).
Ombuds:
Elizabeth Oehler
Letter of Accusation:
The council received a letter of accusation from a student in a lower-level
science class. The letter stated that the student believed students A and B had
used homework solutions to complete their homework assignments.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of Accusation
Course Syllabus - copy handed out in class
Course Syllabus - copy printed off the class Web page
Copy of the assignment and the solutions handed out in class
Student A's original assignment and tutorial notes
Student B's original assignment
Copy of note exchanged between witness 2 and witness 3
Written statements of Students A and B
Pleas:
Student A entered a plea of NOT IN VIOLATION.
Student B entered a plea of NOT IN VIOLATION.
Testimony:
Student A testified that she attended a tutorial session and worked with another
student on her homework set. She pointed out that students are allowed to work
on homework with the aid of other students and past years' homework sets. She
testified further that she had picked up the solutions to the homework set
before turning in her own homework because she walked into class late and did
not want to interrupt the lecturer. She did not, however, use the solutions to
correct her own work.
Student B testified that she had not completed the homework before the lecture,
and was planning on working on it in class. She testified that she picked up a
set of solutions to the homework and used it as a guide to help her solve the
homework problems. She testified that, while she had used the solutions to help
her, the solutions she submitted were her own. Witness 1, the professor for the
course, explained that, while it was not her intention that the solutions be
used as a guide for the homework, she had never stated that they were not
permitted. She confirmed the fact that she encourages students to use outside
sources as guides while solving homework sets.
Witness 2 testified that she had seen student A with the solution set and
homework on her lap, and that she had seen student A looking back and forth
between the two sets, and changing some of her answers. Witness 3 testified that
she had seen Student B looking back and forth between her answers and the
solution set, and also had observed student B writing answers on her homework
set.
Witness 4 testified that she had worked with Student A on the homework set in
question. Witness 4 confirmed student A's statements that student A had gone to
the tutorial and completed a large portion of her homework set before coming to
class. Witness 4 also said that she had helped student A with her assignment
while they were sitting in class, as is permitted.
Deliberation:
The Council began by noting that the professor had not explicitly prohibited use
of the solution set as a guide to solving homework sets, although some members
of the council felt that this should have been understood implicitly by students
A and B. The policy for homework stated in the sylabus was unclear. Further, the
professor's testimony led the council to believe that there was no clear
homework policy in the class, especially with respect to the use of homework
solution sets, and so in this context some members of the council felt that it
was not possible to determine the policy for this class.
It was also noted that, in the case of Student A, there was no evidence other
than one witness's testimony that she had in fact used the solution set to guide
her. While Student B had testified that she had used the solutions as a guide,
the council was divided in its opinions of whether or not using a solution set
to "guide" responses was the same thing as copying a solution set due
to the unclear nature of the Honor Code policy in this class.
The Council continued to debate whether or not student B should have implicitly
understood the professor's intentions that the homework set solutions not be
used while completing the homework. The council also discussed whether or not
student B used the solution set solely as a guide, as she would have used a
previous year's homework set, a practice that is allowed under the honor code
policy in this class. The Council ultimately agreed that Student A was Not In
Violation, but remained divided on whether Student B's actions violated the
class honor code policy due to the ambiguity of the policy with respect to
homework sets.
Straw Poll #3 -- Student B
In Violation: 4 ( + 2 observing)
Not in violation: 5 ( +1 observing)
Abstentions: 0
Straw Poll #4 -- Student A
In violation: 0
Not in Violation: 9 ( +3 observing)
Abstentions: 0
Straw polls number 3 and 4 were made binding by a motion from the council.
Thus the Honor Council finds Students A and B NOT IN VIOLATION of the Honor
Code.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 3 hours, 15 minutes.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Rees
Trial Clerk