An interview with Erica Ollmann
The professor turned in both of them, along with 40 percent of the class, for cheating. In Erica's case, she was accused of cheating by passing her partner's work off as her own. In addition, they were accused by the council, not the professor, of cheating by photocopying the output from an analysis instrument. "How can you possibly plagiarize a machine?" she said.
Erica granted Thresher writer Sei Chong this interview.
What were the attitudes of the council members in this case? Were they all assuming you were guilty?
The prevailing attitude of the council seemed to be not "innocent until proven guilty" but rather, "guilty until proven innocent." I can not say that all the members of the council presumed us guilty from the start, but I do remember being shocked by the consensus attitude as presented by the vice-chair who was acting chairman for this trial, the ombudsman at the time and the majority of the members present at the initial investigation and at the trial. The ombudsman told us that he thought the evidence against us was pretty strong and suggested that we both withdraw from Rice before it went to trial. I have explained the case to you in detail. It was a ludicrous accusation for which we had mountains of evidence in our favor. What would possibly lead the ombudsman, a student whose job it is to act in our favor, as our liaison to the council, to suggest that we withdraw from the school before the trial? In addition, the fact that several members in the trial repeatedly mentioned the chart recorder output (with which the professor had no complaint) as "further evidence of the extent of our guilt," even after the majority of the council had determined that we were innocent of the charges brought against us. If indeed we were supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty," why, after our innocence was determined, did members of the Honor Council continue to attack? Why did they continue to search through statements and experiments with which the professor was pleased for something that might identify us as guilty?
The attitude of the council was clearly antagonistic and accusatory until we had proven ourselves innocent. The statements they made before and during the trial led me to believe they they assumed us guilty of all charges and were just trying to reach a quick consensus of "guilty" and get out of there as early as possible.
One of the more shocking statements came from the Honor Council chairwoman as relayed through the vice-chairman of the council. My partner had some applications due within a few days of our initial investigation. On these applications were boxes for him to indicate whether or not he had ever been found guilty of cheating: He could answer no, yes or trial in progress. Clearly, entering "trial in progress" would be as good as entering "guilty" as far as the admissions officers were concerned. Thus, we wanted the trial to be completed as soon as possible in order that he might not have to check "trial in progress" on the applications. The chair and vice-chair thought it might be too difficult to move the trial date earlier and told my partner to simply check "No" on the applications. The officers of the Honor Council told him to lie. Let me make this very clear: The officers of the Honor Council told him to lie.
You ended up being found innocent because of a scrap of paper you found. Could you elaborate?
We were summoned to appear before the Honor Council about a month after the paper was due. By the sheer virtue of the fact that I'm a slob, I had, underneath a foot-high stack of papers on my desk, a piece of paper on which I had done a curve fit as presented in class and, I think, had shown to some other class members as I explained the method to them. By showing this paper to the council, I was able to demonstrate that I, indeed, did know how to do these calculations. In addition to this paper, the professor had in his possession a carbon copy of the page of my lab notebook on which I had done this calculation since the day I had written it down. I am unsure if these carbon copies were brought to the trial.
The professor was very young and probably did not understand the severity of his accusations nor the fact that honors students would not be so stupid as to directly xerox work in someone else's handwriting and turn it in as their own. The professor exhibited a fairly embarrassing ignorance of Rice students' abilities and integrity. However, my complaint is not with him. He just didn't have a clue. My main complaint is with the Honor Council and the manner in which we were treated and the trial was handled.
Were you there for the straw polls? I was wondering if there is any pressure to vote a certain way since it takes a unanimous vote to convict someone.
We were not there for the straw polls. We were waiting in the Miner Lounge with the ombudsman who repeated that things weren't looking too good for us, and we should probably drop out of Rice while we still could.
I have heard that there is intense peer pressure to vote unanimously. As I have never sat on the Honor Council nor was I allowed to be present for the straw polls, I have no personal experience in this matter. However, the girlfriend of a former council member told me that the Honor Council is rather cliquish: They spend so much time together that the other members often become their major support network and peer group. I was told that if a member voted against the others, that he or she would be shunned from the group as a social unit and would have less input into future trial discussions.
The ombudsman told us after the vote that they had not taken the time to persuade the dissenting members (innocent 9, guilty 2 -- I believe) as the rest of the council thought it to be a waste of time. Since the clear majority found us innocent and we were nearing exams, I think they just wanted to go home.
What changes should be made in the way the Honor Council works, in your opinion, and why?
Neither the Honor Council members nor the professor seemed to understand the gravity of the situation and the profound impact their actions would have upon our careers at Rice and our aspirations beyond. If I were forced to withdraw from Rice inexplicably or received an F in the junior year lab in my major, what graduate school admissions officer wouldn't be suspicious? Our names would have gotten around the department grapevine, and we might have lost our research positions, or certainly, our favorable standing with our research advisors. In addition, in my field, research papers are subject to peer review, a process that unfortunately involves a degree of personal bias. The stigma of having been brought up before the Honor Council on an experimental write-up is potentially very damaging. Thank goodness that the majority of the council members ultimately declared us innocent and dropped all charges. I am currently a Ph.D. student in biophysics at one of the finest research institutions in this country. This would not have been possible if the council had found me guilty.
Given that the some members of the Honor Council failed to consider the evidence presented, and our ombudsman caused more harm than help, I feared that a mistrial and a "guilty" verdict would be a very real situation. If members of the Honor Council continue to act unprofessionally, or even if the council gains such a reputation from previous incidents, it is quite likely that accused students may bring lawsuits against the university. The degree of professional damage caused by their verdicts certainly warrants such actions.
Clearly, Rice has better ways of spending their money than defending themselves in court. I would like to see them spend that money on the facilities and education that the students need and not funnel it all to their lawyers. By allowing professors to make such claims and by having an Honor Council as I have described, Rice runs the risk of this very same situation.
The faculty must be better educated about the Honor System, methods of reporting accusations and the severity of those accusations. The Honor Council needs to refrain from serving as a peer group and abstain from using peer coercion in order to achieve consensus.
The council woke me up at one o'clock in the morning on Thursday and told me to appear before them on Friday afternoon. They refused to tell me of what I was being accused or even which course they were investigating. I happened to run into my lab partner looking panicky that night. We deduced what we were being accused of and got our lab notebooks signed, dated and witnessed that no changes had been made from the time of the phone calls until the time of the Friday afternoon investigation. Because we arrived at the investigation with evidence presented in our favor, the council members present assumed we had something to hide. By preparing our defense, we were, in their eyes, implicating ourselves.
Every student must have the right to understand what charges have been made against them. When presented with a situation as stressful and frightening as investigation by the Honor Council, students may not be able to clearly remember details or fully understand every aspect of the charges at hand. A student cannot be considered more guilty for the crime of defending himself in his innocence. Every student must have the right to due process.
Our trial and investigation were an utter farce that lasted several days. The stress of the situation and the fact that we were told several times that our smartest move would be to withdraw from Rice obviously prevented us from getting much work done in the meantime. I'm quite sure it affected my partner's ability to portray himself as a shiny, happy student in his applications he had to write during the trial. I, for one, was physically ill most of the time. As a result, I couldn't go home and see my family at Thanksgiving; I had to stay at school and catch up on the work I had missed due to the trial. Investigation by the Honor Council must be handled and treated as seriously by the council members as by the students affected. The faculty needs to understand the severity of these accusations and not make them lightly. The students on the council need to understand the effect their decisions have upon the academic and professional careers of the accused students.
We were accused shortly after the scandal involving a great number of athletes made the national news and caused a campus uproar. Council members told me there had been a sharp increase in the number of accusations made after the athletes' scandal and that they believed the campus erupted a witchhunt for which we narrowly escaped being made an example. I repeat: Students and faculty must understand the gravity of these accusations and not make them lightly.
One of the students in a subsequent case (it was the student A/student B controversy over a math sci. or computer class homework that erupted around 1992 -- remember the "Free Student A flyers"?) was wrongly accused and wrongly convicted according to several sources that understood the case. I was told that the council members did not understand the insecure nature of Owlnet and thus did not make an informed decision. The accused student was forced to withdraw from Rice for a semester, a punishment that cost face, time and a great deal of tuition money to his/her family. The family's financial situation was not such that they could have hired a lawyer to fight the decision. I believe that if the family were in better financial shape, they most certainly would have presented Rice University with a lawsuit. Unless the faculty and students can produce an Honor Council that tries cases fairly, presuming all innocent until proven guilty, and carefully weighs and considers all evidence and throws out non-evidence, I am quite sure that Rice University will be presented with a lawsuit.
We need a council of honor and justice, not The Star Chamber.
This item appeared in the Features section of the April 21, 1995 issue.
Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights
Reserved.
This document may be distributed
electronically, provided that it is distributed in its
entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted
without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.
The Thresher Online Project -- ethresh@listserv.rice.edu