| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #18, Fall, 1998
September 6, 1998
Members Present:
Courtney Kelso (chair), Jan Huber, Kristin Johnson, Jessie Dirks, Claire
Bocchini, Jeff Gavornik, Erin McCauley, Julie Bachir, Kasia Solon, Dee Smith
(observing), Bill Moore (observing), Paul Hess (observing)
Ombuds:
Elizabeth Oehler
Letter of Accusation:
The council received a letter of accusation from a professor of a lower level
science course. The letter stated that Student A and Student B had turned in
similar exams. The professor suspected that Student A had copied Student B's
exam.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of Accusation
Student A's statement
Student B's statement
The course syllabus
The exam
Student A's exam
Student B's exam
The exam sign-out sheet
Two exams of other students in the class
The text book for the course
All the professorŐs lecture notes
The homework solution sets for the course
A copy of some pages of Student A and Student B's exam books, marked by the
professor to show similarities.
Pleas
Student A plead Not In Violation.
Student B plead Not In Violation.
Testimony:
The students stated that there was no opportunity for cheating to have occurred,
and presented a time line as to their activities while the tests were in their
possession. This timeline was verified in part by a witness who was a friend of
the students. The professor in the course testified as to the similarities of
the two tests, specifically sections of the test which lined up step by step,
portions which appeared to be paraphrased, and one section which appeared to
have been copied then erased.
The students said that they worked together, which would explain similarities on
their exams. This testimony was verified by another witness, a friend of the
students.
Deliberation:
The exams were compared and the similarities discussed. Of particular concern
were the erased portion of the exam and the apparent one-to-one correspondence
of answers on some problems. The Council had difficulty believing that there was
no opportunity for cheating to have occurred, although the timeline presented
would have made cheating more difficult. Several members of the Council felt
that the situation was suspicious, but that the evidence did not meet our
standard of "Clear and Convincing."
Straw Pole #4
In Violation 1 (+1 observing)
Not in Violation 8 (+2 observing)
Abstentions 0
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A and Student B Not In Violation of the
Honor System.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 4 hours 15 minutes
Respectfully Submitted,
Erin McCauley
(Honor Council Secretary)