| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #13, Spring 1998
April 17th, 1998
Members Present:
John Doll (presiding), Cindy Carr, Jeff Chareneau, Floyd Walker, Jeff Gavornik,
Kasia Solon, Courtney Kelso, and Claire Bochini (observing)
Ombuds:
Loan Lam and Jonna Treble (observing)
Letter of Accusation:
The council received a letter of accusation from a professor in an upper level
science course stating that she suspected that two students in her class had
turned in assignments with such similar wording that she suspected a violation
had occurred.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of accusation
Course syllabus
Student A's statement
Student B's statement
Assignment
Student A's Assignment
Student A's scratch work
Student B's Assignment
Two depositions
Plea:
Student A plead In Violation
Testimony:
In her opening statement, Student A explained that it was she who had looked at
Student B's assignment, and that Student B was innocent of any allegations.
Student A explained that while she was in violation of the Code, she was not
aware of it at the time. The professor of the class had outlined in the syllabus
that no collaboration was allowed with respect to the assignment, yet general
principles relevant to the class could be discussed between class members.
Student A testified that she looked at Student B's paper in order to glean from
it the general principles about which the professor had allowed discussion. She
then wrote her assignment and was not surprised to fine that the wording was the
same between the two assignments, as she had just looked it over before she
wrote it.
The professor testified to the fact that no collaboration was permitted, and
that the similarities in the studentsŐ papers were too identical to have arisen
from a discussion of the general principles. Student A then showed the professor
her notes for the assignment, and after reviewing them, the professor stated
that the answers Student A had found were represented in her notes, and that she
had arrived at her conclusions on her own. The Council heard from Student B as a
witness who testifies that she had not given Student A permission to look at her
assignment.
In her closing argument, Student A stated that though she had committed a
violation, the violation was not a major one, as all of the original thinking
was hers, and she had reached the conclusions and the bulk of the assignment on
her own.
Deliberation:
The council felt that a violation had occurred, and that possible mitigating
circumstances needed to be examined. Members proposed unintentionality, severity
of violation, and cooperation with the council in the form of a plea of in
violation as mitigating circumstances. The council agreed to factor in
cooperation with the council and severity of violation. Members felt that the
violation was less severe because it dealt with only 20-25% of the assignment;
the rest was Student A's original work. However, because of the negligent manner
in which the student committed the violation (Student A had not consulted the
course syllabus nor asked the professor if her collaboration was acceptable),
most council members were not able to accept the unintentionality mitigating
circumstance. The assignment was worth 10% of the course grade, and so fell
under the consensus penalty of an F in the course and a one semester suspension.
Lower penalties such as loss of credit in the course and an F o the assignment
were proposed. Council members felt that they should mitigate down two tiers for
severity and cooperation.
Straw Pole #3
Loss of Credit in the Course 6 members (+1 observing)
F on the assignment 1 member
Abstentions 0
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A in Violation of the Honor System, and
recommends that she receive loss of credit in the course.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 2 hours
Respectfully Submitted,
Courtney Kelso
(trial clerk)