| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #3, Fall 1999
November 29, 1999
Members Present:
Kelly Bolen, Laura Derr, Jeff Charbeneau, Elizabeth Oehler, Amy Rees,
Aaron Martz, Paul Hess, Kristina Moreno-Earl, Bill Moore (presiding),
Kytai Nguyen (observing)
Ombuds:
Kimberly Peters
Letter of Accusation:
The council received a letter of accusation from a co-professor in a
lower level science class accusing Student A and Student B of either
collaborating on homework assignment or one having plagiarized the
other's work.
Evidence Submitted:
-Letter of Accusation
-Student A's written statement
-Student B's written statement
-Student A's homework assignment
-Student B's homework assignment
-Professor's homework key
-Course syllabus and Honor Code information
-Homeworks from other students in the class
-Past homeworks of Student A
-Past homeworks of Student B
-Class textbook
-Other problems to do given out by professor
-Professor's lecture notes
Plea:
Both Student A and Student B plead Not In Violation
Testimony:
Student A began by claiming that he had never met Student B. He stated
that he had made some obvious mistakes on the homework assignment, but
had handed it in as soon as he had finished with out looking at anyone
else's paper. Student B also claimed that he had never worked with or
met Student A and that it would have been impossible for him to have
collaborated with or plagiarized from A.
The question of the time frame of events was asked and A remembered that
he had done the problem and handed it in right before it was due. B
claimed that he had also done the problem close to the deadline, but had
probably handed it in before A.
A and B attended different sections of the class and claimed that there
was no point at which they could have interacted with one another. Both
claimed that they had not used the additional problems provided by the
instructor as an aid in doing the homework. A and B also stated that the
questions on the homework were unfamiliar to them and they relied mainly
on the book for their answers.
Witness #1, a co-instructor in the course, explained that he found the
two homeworks suspicious because the same small arithmetic errors
occurred in the same sequence on each. He stated that it was not the
individual errors that alerted him to any wrongdoing, but the sum of the
errors taken as a whole. He claimed that he expected some errors from
any student, but both A and B had chosen the same very strange and wrong
way to do their homework questions. He found B's paper more consistent
in its flow of information than A's and said that though the two papers
were visually identical, it appeared more likely that if it was
plagiarism, that A copied off of B.
Witness #2, the other instructor for the course, agreed that there were
a number of strange mistakes that were identical in the two homeworks.
He also stated that the layout of both papers was strikingly similar and
that it was unlikely for two students to make the same sequence of
mistakes. He felt that A's was also less consistent in its answer than
B's.
In the closing statement, Student B reiterated that he was Not In
Violation and claimed that the importance of the class to him was such
that he had no need or desire to cheat. Student A again claimed that he
had never met Student B and though he noted a similarity in the two
homeworks, he believed that it was purely coincidental.
Deliberation:
The council first took a straw poll to determine if a violation had
occurred:
Straw Poll #1
A Violation has occurred: 7 + 1 (observing)
A Violation has not occurred: 1
Abstentions: 1
The work of the other students in the class was examined more closely at
this point.
A second straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #2
A Violation has occurred: 9 + 1 (observing)
A Violation has not occurred: 0
Abstentions: 0
After this, possible scenarios were discussed including A copying off of
B, B copying off of A, and collaboration between the two. The evidence
was analyzed closely again by the council. There was little evidence,
both written and through testimony that indicated collaboration between
the two.
Straw Poll #3 (Student A)
In violation: 6
Not in Violation: 1
Abstentions: 2 +1 (observing)
Straw Poll #4 (Student B)
In Violation: 0
Not in Violation: 7
Abstentions: 2 +1 (observing)
There was more discussion among the members about the timeline of events
and a few of the very similar arithmetic errors between both homeworks.
Many council members felt, however, that there was not enough "clear and
convincing" evidence for a vote of In Violation- others disagreed. Final
Straw Polls were taken:
Straw Poll #5 (Student A)
In Violation: 6
Not in Violation: 3 + 1 (observing)
Abstentions: 0
Straw Poll #6 (Student B)
In Violation: 0
Not in Violation: 9 +1 (observing)
Abstentions: 0
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A and Student B Not In Violation
of the Honor System.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 4 hours 10 minutes
Respectfully Submitted,
Kelly Bolen
(Trial Clerk)