| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #2, Fall 1999
November, 12, 1999
Members Present:
Clare Bocchini, Kelly Bolen, Jeff Charbeneau, Sean Kanengeiser, Bill Moore
(presiding), Kristina Moreno, Elizabeth Oehler, Amy Rees, Lisa Shieh
Ombuds:
Shannon Fink, Loan Lam (observing)
Letter of Accusation:
The council received a letter from two professors of a lower-level science class
accusing students A and B of using the homework solution of students C and D in
order to complete their homework assignment.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of Accusation
Solutions of students A and B
Solutions of students C and D
Copy of the assignment printed from the web page
Copy of the information sheet that states the class honor code policy
Copy of the class homework guidelines
Written statements of students A, B, C, and D
Pleas:
Student A plead Not in Violation
Student B plead Not in Violation
Student C plead Not in Violation
Student D plead Not in Violation
Testimony:
Student C began by stating that she was not aware that student D might have
given their joint homework solution to any other members of the class. Student A
stated that she worked on the homework with Student D, because working together
was encouraged by the course instructors. When she was unable to complete one
problem, she got an email from student D containing student C and D's solution
to that problem. Student A then sent her solutions, including Student D's
solution to one problem, to Student B. Student B used the solution for the one
problem in question with a note above it giving credit to Student A. Students C
and D turned in one homework solution set as instructed by the professors;
students A and B each turned in their own homework set. Students A and D
stressed the point that Student C did not know that her solution had been passed
on to other students outside her homework group. Student D stated that she gave
her solution to Student A with the understanding that Student A would use the
solution as a guide, and not copy it word-for-word.
Witness #1, one professor for the class, explained that students in her class
are encouraged to work together while trying to understand class concepts and
assignments. However, she explained that each homework group was to produce
their own set of homework solutions independently. She acknowledged that the
difference between helping another student or talking with them and exchanging
homework answers had never explicitly been defined in class. She felt that the
syllabus made it clear that students could only complete assignments with one
other student's help; both student's names were then to be on the homework.
Witness #2, a randomly chosen student from the class, stated that the professors
of the class encouraged collaboration on homework in the form of help or
discussion, or look at their solutions while they were working on them. However,
she felt that, while it had never been explicitly stated in class, it would be
outside of the spirit of the honor code to actually copy someone else's homework
solution.
Witness #3, the second professor for the class, stated that the line in her
class between discussing homework with more than one partner and producing
solutions with more than one partner may have been ambiguous. She stated that it
was not allowed for students to actually share completed solutions outside of
their designated homework groups. Also, she felt that it was clear from the
class syllabus that, when turning in a homework, students should only have
shared solutions with one other person.
In closing, all of the students explained that the honor code policy in the
class in question did not make it clear how much collaboration was allowed in
the class. Student B noted that in their witness testimony, the two professors
contradicted themselves in terms of what would or would not be considered a
violation in the class. Student A stated that, while she had used another
student's solution without putting their name on her homework, this was an
unintentional omission. Student C re-iterated student A's and student D's claim
that she had known nothing about the potential violation.
Deliberation:
The council began by noting that the professors' syllabus and policies could be
confusing or unclear in some cases. The council felt that, in this class, the
line between being encouraged to discuss homeworks and even examine other
students' homeworks and actually completing homework solutions had not been
clearly defined. After establishing this, the council decided to consider the
students one at a time.
Based on all four students' statements that student C knew nothing about what
had occurred, the council took the straw poll to see if she had committed a
violation.
Straw Poll 1 (Was student C in violation?)
In Violation: 0
Not in Violation: 9
Abstentions: 0
Based on the evidence that Student D had intended her work to be used as a guide, which she thought was allowed in the class, rather than as a part of Student A's homework, the council decided to take a straw poll to see if Student D had committed a violation.
Straw Poll 2 (Was Student D in violation?)
In Violation: 0
Not in Violation: 9
Abstentions: 0
When discussing Student B's case, the council noted that Student B did not know that the solution that her homework partner (Student A) had given her was in fact the work of another student. The email that Student B received from Student A containing Student A's work stated only that Student A had worked with Student D, and so it was not clear that Student B knew that she was using someone else's work. Student B had noted in her work that she had used some of Student A's solutions, which was allowed under the class's honor code policy because students A and B were in a homework group together.
Straw Poll 5 (Was Student B in violation?)
In Violation: 0
Not In Violation: 9
Abstentions: 0
The council felt that it was clear that Student A submitted work that she did not do; further, she submitted this work under her name alone without giving credit to either Student B or Student D. While there may have been some ambiguity in the class as to whether or not she could receive actual solutions from more than one student, the council felt that it was clear that, where she did receive solutions from other students, those students should be given credit on the homework she handed in. Student A did not mention the solutions she received from either Student B or Student D.
Straw Poll 6 (Was Student A in violation?)
In Violation: 9
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0
Since the assignment was worth 1% of the course grade, the consensus penalty for the violation was an F in the class. At this point, the council examined possible mitigating circumstances. Student A's cooperation with the council in the form of full disclosure of evidence was agreed upon as a mitigated circumstance. Unintentionality was ruled out as a mitigating circumstance because it was felt that all students at Rice should understand the importance of citing another person's work. Severity was not considered as a mitigating circumstance because the council was already considering the fact, as stated by the professors, that the homework problem stood alone, and not as part of an assignment worth a given amount of points. A penalty of loss of credit in the course and a letter of reprimand was recommended as the next lowest penalty that the council could give. A penalty of loss of credit on the problem with a letter of reprimand was suggested as another possible penalty.
Straw Poll 7 (Penalty)
F in the Course: 0
Loss of credit in Course, letter of reprimand: 0
Loss of credit on problem, letter of reprimand: 9
Thus, the Honor Council finds Students B, C, and D NOT IN VIOLATION of the Honor System.
The Honor Council finds Student A IN VIOLATION of the Honor System, and recommends that the student receive a penalty of loss of credit on the problem and a letter of reprimand. The council also recommends that a suspension clause be attached to Student A's record.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 3 hours
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Rees
(Trial Clerk)