| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #12, Spring, 1999
April 16, 1999
Members Present:
Claire Bocchini, Kelley Bolen (observing), Laura Derr, Julieann Grant, Paul Hess, Jan Huber, Sean Kannengieser (observing) Courtney Kelso (presiding), Aaron Martz (observing), Bill Moore, Kasia Solon, Steven Wilbur
Ombuds:
Elizabeth Oehler
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter from the professor of an upper level science class reporting that she had found too many similarities between Student A’s and Student B’s open-book, take-home midterm exams. She suggested that the two students had either collaborated on the midterm or that one of the students had copied from the other.
Evidence Submitted:
Plea:
Students A and B Plead Not in Violation
Testimony:
Student A began her opening statement by expressing how shocked and disappointed she was that this accusation had been made. She stated that she believed the similarities in the exams must be due to the fact that she and Student B have studied and worked homework together in this class. Student B agreed with Student A, and reiterated that she believed that this accusation was a misunderstanding.
Witness #1, an acquaintance of both Students A and B, stated that the two students are always studying and helping each other in multiple classes, and that she believed that the two students could never have cheated – they have worked too hard to get where they are to have done this.
Witness #2, the class professor, explained the class honor code policies, and then continued to briefly explain why she had written the letter of accusation. When asked if it was plausible that the similarities found on the exams could be the result of two students working and studying together, the professor firmly expressed that the midterm exam contained a lot of new material that required original thought, so no, it was not plausible that the two students could have the similarities found on their exams unless cheating had occurred. She then went through the two exams, discussing in more detail why she believed a violation had occurred. When Students A and B offered individual explanations of why they arrived at similar answers, the professor was not convinced that these were plausible explanations.
Witness #3, another professor from the department, served as an expert witness to the Council. She was given both of the exams in question, however she found no striking similarities between them. She was then given the class professor’s detailed notes explaining why she believed a violation had occurred. The witness maintained that she still was not suspicious of the two exams, and that the similarities between the exams could be easily explained by the fact that the two students have worked and studied together in this class, as well as in other classes.
Witnesses #4 and #5 both testified that the two accused have worked closely together not only in this class, but in multiple classes since coming to Rice. Witness #5 also stated that she had walked in when Student B was taking her midterm exam, and that Student B was alone when taking her exam.
The trial continued as the two accused proposed a timeline for when they both took their exams. Students A and B then went on to explain their individual reasoning for why they did what they did on their exams. For their closing statements, Students A and B explained that this ordeal was simply a very unfortunate misunderstanding, and that the similarities between their exams were a direct result of the fact that they had helped each other and worked together for so long.
Deliberation:
The Council opened deliberation by evaluating whether or not the similarities in the exams could be explained by the fact that the two students had worked and studied together in the class. Based on the fact that the expert witness found nothing about which she felt was suspicious, even after she read the class professor’s letter of accusation, and that both of the accused had offered individual, incredibly complete explanations of why they came up with similar answers, the Council felt that it was a very plausible explanation. The Council then went over the two exams in question again, comparing them to exams of other students in the class, but no clear and convincing evidence was found indicating that a violation had occurred.
Straw Poll #2 (Had a violation occurred)
A Violation Had Occurred 0
No Violation Had Occurred 9 + 3 (observing)
Abstentions 0
Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A and B Not In Violation of the Honor System.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 5.5 hours
Respectfully Submitted,
Claire Bocchini
Trial Clerk