| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #9, Fall, 1999
February 10, 1999
Members Present:
Claire Bocchini, Laura Derr, Stephen Friedfeld, Julieann Grant (presiding), Jan
Huber, Kristen Johnson, Neil Nandi, Deanna Smith, Kasia Solon
Ombuds:
Ajay Krishnan
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter from the professor of a lower level science
class accusing Student A of using Student B's exam to help him complete his
exam.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of accusation
Student A's written statement
Course syllabus
Student A's exam
Student B's exam
Exam answer key
Test sign-out sheet
Depositions from Students B, C, and D
Deposition from Person #1
Medical information
Change of exam-time form
Correspondence between members of the class
Plea:
Student A Plead Not in Violation
Testimony:
Student A began his testimony by stating that he felt that he had been accused
as a result of circumstantial evidence created by a very poorly administered
exam. He then testified that he had no chance to commit the violation of which
he was accused due to a medical emergency that rendered him incapable of
committing the violation. Finally, the accused stated that he had finished his
exam prior to when Student B claimed he turned in his exam. Witness #1, who was
in charge of handing out and collecting the exams, stated that he had noticed
nothing out of the ordinary pertaining to the accused. He explained, however,
that he had no record of which student turned in his exam when.
Witness #2, the professor, went over Student A's and Student B's exams and
pointed out striking similarities between them, including several identical
mistakes on both exams that were unusual because no other students in the class
made similar mistakes. The professor agreed that the exam was not administered
under ideal conditions.
Witness #3, a friend of Student A, testified that Student A was in no physical
condition to be able to commit a violation. Witness #4, a friend of Student A,
also testified that the accused was in no condition to commit a violation. He
also verified that he had witnessed the accused taking his exam and that the
accused had not received any unauthorized aid. The accused concluded the
testimony by providing several reasons why he could not have committed a
violation: 1) He had finished taking his exam before Student B had even turned
in his exam. 2) He was physically incapable of committing of a violation by
taking Student B's exam after it had been turned in. 3) He did not need to cheat
in order to pass the class. 4) In his opinion, the evidence brought against him
was completely circumstantial and a result of the poor exam administration.
Deliberation:
The Council opened the deliberation by evaluating whether the accused physically
could have committed a violation. Based on the witness testimony and Student A's
medical information, the Council surmised that it was unlikely that Student A
committed a violation. The Council was disturbed, however, by the striking
similarities between Student A's and Student B's exams, and the fact that
Student B's exam was missing for the last part of the exam period. Yet, the
evidence that Student A had committed a violation was not clear and convincing.
Straw Poll #2 (Student A)
In Violation 0
Not in Violation 9
Abstentions 0
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A Not In Violation of the Honor System.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 4.5 hours
Respectfully Submitted,
Claire Bocchini
Trial Clerk