COLUMN: Council clarifies investigation process

---

by Jay Fundling

---

FOR MY first three years at Rice, I lived under a system I knew very little about. I knew not to cheat, but what went on behind closed doors was a big mystery.

I'll do what I can to get rid of that confusion.

For the rest of this semester, I'm going to try to tell you everything I've learned about the inside of the Honor Council over the past nine months.

For the next two weeks, I want to go step-by-step over what happens when someone is accused of an Honor Code violation.

Near the end of last year the Thresher did a good story on this subject, but I want to make sure everyone remembers what was said.

The process would start with a letter of accusation being written to Carolyn Gill, the chair of the council.

This letter would say the name of the accused, the class involved and as much detail about the situation as possible. Evidence may also be included.

For example, if the accuser is a professor, a copy of the test or paper in question often accompanies the letter.

For the accused, let's say that's me, it would start with a phone call from Carolyn telling me I had been accused of an Honor Code violation and that I would have to attend an investigative meeting in the next couple of days.

Right then I would want to know everything. What did I do? Who accused me? What class is it in?

Unfortunately, at that time Carolyn wouldn't be able to answer anything.

The accusation is revealed, along with any received evidence, all at once in an official meeting.

At that time I would be assigned my ombuds.

The ombuds are not there to defend me or give me strategic advice on my case, just to make sure procedures are followed and I know them. I would be able to call him and find out about the process, but he does not know what I am accused of either.

At the meeting the next day, I would see four Honor Council members. One of them is the investigator for my case.

If I go on to trial, the investigator will collect evidence and take depositions for both myself and the council.

The investigator will not be allowed to sit on the trial.

The other three, including Carolyn, are the investigative committee. They serve as a grand jury to determine if the case should go to trial. Carolyn begins the meeting by reading the letter of accusation, with the accuser's name deleted.

I can then either say nothing or tell my side of the story. The council members then ask any questions they feel are relevant, which I may or may not answer.

Then, everyone but myself and my ombuds leave the room, and I can write a statement. If I choose not to write anything, the case goes directly to trial.

If I do write a statement, it is the only part of the investigation that will be used as evidence if my case goes to trial.

No council members can discuss in a trial anything that was said at the investigation. I then leave, and the council members make their decision.

If the situation is clearly a misunderstanding, the whole process ends there. If there is one witness or piece of evidence to confirm my story, we may all meet a few days later and (hopefully) the case ends.

About one-fourth to one-third of cases end at this stage.

However, there are several reasons the trial process could continue.

Sometimes there is strong evidence that a violation did occur.

Other times an issue is too big and raises too many questions to be answered in such a brief meeting.

The investigative committee is not saying anything happened; they are merely saying the case is big enough to be examined by nine members in a formal trial.

Between the investigation and the trial, I would work with the ombuds and investigator to collect evidence and think of possible witnesses. I would also work on writing an opening statement for the trial.

Before the trial I would also be able to look over the evidence the council collects and see which witnesses will be called.

Council members are told my name under strict confidentiality, and if they are biased for or against me, they are supposed to excuse themselves from the trial.

Carolyn and I then decide on a date for the trial, usually within 10 days of the investigation.

I am also allowed to view the list of the nine council members scheduled for my trial.

If I have personal problems with any of them, I can request they not be on my trial, but the end result is a compromise between myself and Carolyn in order to get a timely and fair trial.

I don't want to make this column too long, so I'll wait until next week to give a full description of what happens at a trial.

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the February 2, 1996 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, USA.