| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #3, Fall, 1998
November 23, 1998/December 1, 1998
Members Present:
Julie Bachir, Claire Bocchini, Stephanie Burdine (observing), Laura Derr
(observing), Lisa Hsieh, Jan Huber, Kristin Johnson, Courtney Kelso (presiding),
Amy Krivohlavek (observing), Erin McCauley, Kim Peters, Deanna Smith
Ombuds:
Mark Covey, Austin Ku (observing)
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter from Student A, a student grader, accusing
Student B of obtaining unauthorized aid on his assignment in an upper level
science class. Student A claimed that Student B had used another students
(Student C's) assignment without permission in order to complete his own
assignment.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of accusation made by Student A
Student B's written statement gathered at the investigative meeting
Class syllabus
Class Professors' depositions
E-mail correspondence between Student A and Student B
Copy of Student B's original assignment
Copy of Student C's assignment
Copy of Student B's final assignment
Additional depositions from the class professors
Class textbook
Plea:
Student B plead Not in Violation
Testimony (Nov. 23, 1998):
Student B testified that what he had done was not an honor code violation
according to the depositions from the class professors and the class honor code
as defined during lecture. He stated that he had turned in his own work, and
that although he had used Student C's work, he had not done so in violation of
the honor policies of the class. The first witness, Student A (the student
grader), described the assignment and class honor policy as he interpreted it.
He then restated his suspicions pertaining to Student B's work and questioned
Student B's intentions of using Student C's work in the first place.
The second witness, another student in Student B's class, testified that Student
B's explanation regarding his intentions of and reasoning behind his use of
Student C's work was plausible. He also stated, however, that the class honor
code is not just defined by the class professors, but also by the student
graders (such as Student A).
After additional questioning, the accused made his closing statement, asking the
council to reread the professor's deposition, for he believed that according to
the professors, he had not committed any honor code violation.
Deliberation (Nov. 23, 1998):
In order to determine if an honor code violation had occurred, the council tried
to define exactly what the honor code in the class was. The confusion was
centered around the fact that Student A's interpretation of the honor code was
very similar to the written honor code stated in the class syllabus; however, it
was very different from the honor code described by the professors' depositions,
which seemed to agree with Student B's interpretation of the code. In order to
make a fair decision regarding the nature of Student B's actions, the council
decided to suspend the trial in order to hear from the professors as witnesses
regarding the honor code in their class. The council discussed the relevant
sections of the blue book, which allowed this sort of procedural modification to
take place. The first page of the blue book states that the chair has the power
to, "modify the procedures in a particular case in order to reach a timely
and just decision," and section III of our procedure states that, "the
hearing or trial shall be conducted in such a way that the fact of the case may
be ascertained and a just decision reached." It was felt by the council
that in order to obtain a "just decision" for this case, the trial
would have to be suspended and reopened at a later date.
Testimony (Dec. 1, 1998):
The trial was reopened and both professors were able to give their testimonies
as witnesses in front of the council. They both agreed that Student B's
explanations of his actions were suspicious but not at all implausible. The
testimony was now focussed on defining the honor code for the class. According
to the professors, a general honor code was defined by the syllabus and in
class, but student graders did have the right to define more specific honor code
instructions of their own. Overall, however, the professors conveyed that
although they felt that Student B's actions were unethical, no violation had
occurred.
Deliberation (Dec. 1, 1998):
The deliberation began with a justification of the fact that the professors had
testified without Student B (the accused) being present. This was done in order
to protect Student B's confidentiality; it had been his choice not to be present
during this part of the trial. Again, the council discussed the relevant
sections of the blue book (quoted above), which allowed this sort of procedural
modification to take place. The council felt that this was the best solution in
order to ensure that the accused received a fair trial. It was also noted that
two of the observing council members, Stephanie Burdine and Amy Krivohlavek, had
not been able to make it to the reconvening of this trial, but since they were
not voting members for this trial, this was not a problem.
The deliberation then focussed on answering two major questions: 1) did Student
B intend to use Student C's work in a manner that violated the honor code of his
class, and 2) even if he did not intend to commit a violation, had he done so
according to the honor code of his class. The council felt that there was not
enough clear and convincing evidence to determine what the intentions of the
accused were, so the answer to question one was no, Student B had not intended
to use Student C's work in violation of the honor code. The focus of the
deliberation now became centered on the role of the student grader in defining
the honor code of the class, for it was clear that although Student B had not
committed a violation of the honor code as defined by the professors, the
student grader still felt that a violation had occurred. The council decided
that in general, student graders do have the authority to define the honor code
for the class, however in this situation, the council felt that that Student A
had not made his interpretation of the honor code clear to the other students.
Therefore, Student B acted within the guidelines of the general honor code for
the class.
Straw Poll #4 (Student B)
In Violation 1
Not In Violation 8 (+ 1 observing)
Abstentions 0
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student B Not In Violation of the Honor System.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 5 hours
Respectfully Submitted,
Claire Bocchini
(Trial Clerk)