| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #4, Fall, 1998
November 12, 1998
Members Present: Kerrie Johnson, Kristin Johnson, Julieann Grant, Erin
McCauley, Claire Bocchini, Kasia Solon, Neilanjan Nandi, Jennifer Ngo, Courtney
Kelso (presiding)
Ombuds:
Elizabeth Oehler
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter from a student, Student B, in an upper level
science class. The letter stated that she had witnessed the accused, Student A,
copy the answers from a solutions packet for the homework in question handed out
at the beginning of the class on to Student A's own homework.
Evidence Submitted:
Written Statement by the Accused
Course Syllabus
Homework in Question
Solutions to the Homework in Question
Other Homeworks of Accused and Corresponding Solutions
Textbook Photocopies
Plea
Student A plead Not In Violation.
Testimony:
The professor had stated the Honor Code policy on homework in the class.
Students in this upper level science class are allowed to work on homework
throughout the class period with the understanding that it must be submitted by
the end of the lecture. The class receives solutions to the homework the
following lecture once all assignments have been turned in. On the particular
day that the alleged violation occurred, the professor had arranged for the
solutions to the homework assignment in question to be handed out at the
beginning of class the day the homework was due since an exam was scheduled
soon. Student B, sitting next to Student A, claimed that they witnessed Student
A copying the solutions on to her homework before submitting the assignment.
The accused emphasized that she had missed one of the two problems that she had
been accused of copying. Therefore, Student A stressed that if she had copied,
she would have had less chance to make an error that would prevent her from
receiving full credit. Also, she said there was little incentive to cheat since
she regularly consulted the professor for help and students were allowed to work
on problems together. Student A felt that perhaps Student B had mistaken one of
the numerous packets handed out that day for the solutions packet to the
homework that was due that day.
Student B was convinced that she had witnessed Student A copying the solutions
during lecture. She proceeded to give details on the material she saw copied.
The second witness, the professor, was asked to review Student A's homework
assignment and its corresponding solutions packet. The professor stated that she
did not see any evidence of copying. The third witness, another student who sat
near the accused, did not witness the violation and also did not see any
evidence of cheating when Student A's homework assignment and its corresponding
solutions packet was presented to her. She did communicate that Student B had
consulted her as to whether an Honor Council violation had occurred given a
hypothetical situation identical to the one she believed to have witnessed.
Deliberation:
The members of the Council agreed that there appeared to be no hard, physical
evidence that a violation had been committed. However, inconsistencies in the
testimony of the accused did arouse the suspicion of several members. Also,
Student B presented her testimony with great conviction and certainty. There was
some debate as to whether the testimony of Student B who submitted the
accusation qualified as grounds that a violation had occurred.
Most members agreed that the evidence submitted did not meet the standard of
being clear and convincing to warrant a verdict of "In Violation."
Straw Poll #1
In Violation 4
Not in Violation 5
Abstentions 0
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A Not In Violation of the Honor System.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 3 hours
Respectfully Submitted,
Neilanjan Nandi
Trial Clerk