| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #9, Fall 1999
February 8, 2000
Members Present:
Kelly Bolen, Jeff Charbeneau, Paul Hess, Jan Huber, Jenn Larson, Bill
Moore (presiding), Kristy Moreno-Earl
Ombuds:
Jonna Treble
Letter of Accusation:
The Council received a letter of accusation from the professor of an
upper level humanities class accusing Student A of using her class notes
as an aid for a take-home exam, which was against the professor's policy
for tests.
Evidence Submitted:
-course syllabus
-letter of accusation
-statement of the accused
-e-mail deposition from professor
-exam questions
-Student A's exam
-an exercise done in the class on which Student A had taken notes
Plea:
Student A plead In Violation
Testimony:
The accused began with a brief opening statement stating that she felt
that she had violated the honor code in this instance. Student A claimed
that she knew dictionaries could be used as aids on the exam in question
and just assumed that her notes were a type of "quasi-dictionary"
since
they contained some definitions. The accused cut and pasted a section of
her notes into the test, accidentally leaving in an extra phrase. She
claimed that though the professor had not stated that the class was not
to use notes on the exam, this policy was understood in the class and
Student A had acted without thinking and accepted that she had violated
the Honor Code at the present time.
Deliberation:
Before the Council voted on whether or not a violation had occurred,
there was discussion pertaining to the accused's understanding of her
actions. One Council member felt that the accused may not have believed
what she had done was a violation at the time of the incident. It was
resolved that the fact that cutting and pasting had occurred with an
additional and unnecessary portion included indicated that a violation
had occurred.
Straw Poll #1
In Violation: 7
Not In Violation:0
Abstentions: 0
Next the Council looked at mitigating factors and the options of
severity, cooperation with the Council in the form of a plea of In
Violation, and intentionality. It was decided that severity would be
taken into account because the exam was worth only 10% of the student's
grade and she claimed to have only used her notes on one of the three
sections of the test. The Council also agreed that Cooperation with the
Council in the form of a plea of In Violation was also applicable here.
There was some debate as to whether intentionality should be considered,
but it was decided that the fact that the accused had cut and pasted a
large section of her notes indicated more than simply using her
definitions as those in a dictionary.
Straw Poll #2 (Penalty)
F in the course and a 1 semester suspension (consensus): 0
F on the assignment: 5
Loss of credit on one section of the assignment: 1
Abstentions: 1
Discussion continued about whether unintentionality was applicable in
this instance and it was resolved, as described earlier, that it was
not.
Straw Poll #3
F on the assignment: 6
Loss of credit on one section of the assignment: 1
Abstentions: 0
Straw Polls #1 and #3 were made binding.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor
System, and recommends that she receive and F on the assignment.
Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to her record.
Time of trial and deliberation: 55 minutes
Respectfully Submitted,
Kelly Bolen
Trial Clerk