| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #4, Fall 1999
December 5, 1999
Members Present:
Kelly Bolen, D.J. Brasier, Laura Derr, Jan Huber, Sean Kannengieser,
Aaron Martz, Bill Moore (presiding)
Ombuds:
Jonna Treble
Letter of Accusation:
The council received a letter of accusation from the professors of an
upper level science class accusing Student A and Student B of having
turned in very similar homework assignments with some identical parts.
Evidence Submitted:
-Letter of accusation
-Class Honor Code Policy Statement
-Students' original assignments in question
-Highlighted copies of students' assignments pointing out the sections
in question
-Statement by accused
-Course objectives handout
-Homework assignments from other students in the class
-Checklists for the assignments in question
-Binder with articles and references for students' aid in course
-Course textbook
-Depositions of the 2 professors (conducted via e-mail)
-Additional similarities of the assignments sent by one of the
professors via e-mail
-Rough drafts of Student A's homework in question
-Disk containing the homework assignments
Plea:
Student A plead In Violation
Testimony:
It is necessary to note that the Chair told the Council that Student B
had been dropped from the case after the investigative meeting.
Student A began his testimony by claiming that the council had already
heard his position at the investigative meeting and that any other
information was contained in his statement. The Council then moved on to
establishing a timeline of events for Student A. Student A claimed to
have had a great amount of work during the time that he was working on
the assignment. He had started work on it the weekend before it was due,
and continued to work on it on and off in sections until he handed it
in. At one point Student A was given access to Student B's computer.
Student A and Student B were friends and had worked together before.
Student A had intended to print out his files (from a disk) on Student
B's computer. Accidentally A printed out several of B's files. A
realized his mistake and printed out his own files. He also decided to
copy several files containing parts of Student B's assignment onto his
disk for later reference, claiming not to have known that this was an
Honor Code violation. Later, when Student A was finishing up his
homework assignment (on which he had been given an extension), he
claimed that he accidentally printed out one of Student B's files
instead of his own. In A's haste to hand in the assignment, he did not
check over his work and handed in part of B's work by accident.
The professors in the class had pointed out that there were many more
similarities between the two assignments than the one section that
Student A claimed to have inadvertently printed out and handed in.
Student A claimed that this was due to his using Student B's format for
part of the assignment and because B's approach had been fresh in his
mind when he rewrote sections of his assignment.
In the closing statement, Student A pointed out that he felt that the
professors were wrong in many of their accusations. He claimed to have
only seen two parts (out of 5) of Student B's work. He noted that he
realized in hindsight that he never should have opened Student B's files
or copied them onto his disk. Student A mentioned that he had never read
the Honor Code policy for the class, but understood that the Council did
not accept pleas of ignorance. He further went on to point out that this
had been a stressful academic time for him and that he was not blowing
off the assignment.
Deliberation:
The Council first established that a violation had occurred.
Straw Poll #1
In Violation: 7
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0
Next the Council carefully examined the evidence and tried to determine
what percentage of the class grade the parts of the assignment in
question counted for. The two sections which Student A admitted to
looking at were worth 16.5%. The other areas in question brought the
total past 20%.
The Council discussed the evidence and noted that Student A and Student
B had employed similar styles of writing on the assignments and that
there were several one to one correlations between their work. After
looking at the work of other classmates, the Council agreed that Student
A and Student B had too many similarities on their assignments for a
coincidence to have occurred. There appeared to be similarities in other
parts besides the two that A claimed to have copied onto disk for
reference purposes.
The suggested penalties were an F in the course and a two semester
suspension (the consensus penalty for anything worth more than 20%), an
F in the course and a one semester suspension, and an F in the course.
The mitigating circumstance of "cooperation with the council in terms of
a plea of In Violation" was used to establish the lesser penalty
suggestions. The mitigating factor of "severity of violation" was also
discussed.
Straw Poll #2 (Penalty)
F in the course and 2 semester suspension (consensus penalty): 0
F in the course and one semester suspension: 4
F in the course: 2
Abstentions: 1
There was more discussion about the various sections of the assignment
and whether severity should be used as a mitigating circumstance in this
situation. It was decided that the only mitigating factor should be
"cooperation with the Council in terms of a plea of In Violation."
Straw Poll #3 (Penalty)
F in the course and one semester suspension: 4
F in the Course: 3
Abstentions: 0
More discussion occurred about why members had voted the way they had
and whether this violation merited a suspension.
Straw Poll #4 (Penalty)
F in the course and a one semester suspension: 3
F in the course: 3
Abstentions: 1
The Abstention explained his position and more discussion occurred.
Straw Poll #5 (Penalty)
F and a one semester suspension: 4
F in the course: 3
Abstentions: 0
A final Straw Poll was taken:
Straw Poll #6 (Penalty)
F and a one semester suspension: 4
F in the course: 3
Abstentions: 0
The majority of the Honor Council felt that a suspension was justified
because Student A's plea of In Violation only accounted for the last two
sections of the assignment. He denied a violation in the other sections
where the Honor Council felt that one had occurred.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor
System, and recommends that he receive an F in the Course and a one
semester suspension. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached
to his record.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 3 hours and 30 minutes
Respectfully Submitted,
Kelly Bolen
Trial Clerk