COLUMN: Honor Council deliberations assess severity of violations

---

by Jay Fundling

---

THE DELIBERATION process is the most important and least public part of the trial process.

Deliberations at every trial are different. What I want to do is try to show what we do at a typical trial.

The first subject of discussion is whether a violation occurred or not. The council decides this by looking at the evidence that directly relates to the suspected violation.

Council members vote "in violation" only if they determine the evidence against the accused to be "clear and convincing."

The way the honor code applies to this particular class is very important. The professor and the class syllabus are essential in this regard. It is the professor, not the labbie or the grader, who determines what is or is not acceptable in his class.

Often the accused presents evidence which is not relevant to the case, and I would like to give examples of what we do not consider during deliberations.

We do not consider, for example, the grade the accused had in the class. We have seen people cheat to bring an A- to an A; we have seen people cheat and have their grade remain an F.

The Honor Council never hears character witnesses for or against the accused.

Similarly, the council does not consider a person's previous record. If someone has earned straight A's for their time at Rice, it says nothing about whether a violation occurred.

This is done in the interest of fairness and does not hurt the accused's case.

The council refuses to hear character witnesses against the accused and gives no merit to suspicions outside of this case.

For a verdict of "in violation" to be given, the council must be unanimous. If even one council member does not find the evidence "clear and convincing," the accused is found "not in violation."

If the council rules "in violation," the deliberation continues to determine the penalty.

The council has a set of public consensus penalties. These are the maximum penalties available for each type of violation.

For a repeat or heinous violation, the consensus penalty is an F in the course and indefinite suspension from the university. A heinous violation is one exceeding the bounds of what is normally considered cheating, for example, heading a cheating conspiracy or breaking into an office to steal a test.

The council has not convicted someone of a heinous violation in recent memory.

If the violation was on an assignment worth 15 percent or more of a course grade, the consensus penalty is an F in the course and a two-semester suspension.

If the violation was on a non-collaborative assignment (e.g. quiz) worth less than 15 percent of the total course grade, the consensus penalty is an F in the course and a one semester suspension.

If the violation was on a collaborative assignment (e.g. homework) worth less than 15 percent of the course grade, the consensus penalty is an F in the course.

The council will deliver the consensus penalty if the case had no valid mitigating circumstances.

The council is willing to listen to any relevant mitigating circumstances the accused cares to put forth, but we have decided on a few examples of what we will consider as well as some we will not.

A self-accusation made in good faith is grounds for leniency by the council. "Made in good faith" means you turned yourself in out of respect for the honor system; it does not mean your professor was about to accuse you so you turned yourself in first.

Severe emotional distress which directly leads to the violation is also considered by the council. The key here is that it directly leads to the violation.

Unintentionality has been a hotly debated topic by the Honor Council. The student has the responsibility to know what is expected under the honor code, as well as to make sure his work conforms to that code.

However, if the student made an effort to follow the code, the council may take it into consideration in assessing penalties.

The council realizes that some assignments and courses do not fit into our consensus penalty structure. In these cases, we consider the severity of the violation and determine an analogous penalty.

The council does not consider academic stress as a mitigating circumstance (everyone at Rice is under academic stress).

We also do not consider remorse, ignorance of the system or freshman status.

The consensus penalties and mitigating circumstances are set and publicized by the council at the beginning of each academic year. The above policies may be different next year, so be sure to read the Thresher article on the subject.

The mitigating circumstances are debated until a penalty is decided upon by a simple majority.

Once the penalty has been decided, the council officially states that it is recommending the penalty to the dean of students.

In addition, a suspension clause is usually attached to the student's record. This is used only to convey to future councils that a person has been previously convicted. The suspension clause is seen only by the Honor Council.

I've tried to convey to you as much as I could about this process in as brief a format possible. If you have any questions, you can either ask a council member in person or send it to me, and I will try to address it in future columns.

As a final note, the snazzy Honor Council homepage is up and contains the entire Blue Book plus case abstracts from the past four years. The address is http://riceinfo. rice.edu/projects/honor .

Jay Fundling is an Honor Council senior representative and a Wiess College senior.

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the February 16, 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.