Effective Date: September 2, 2022

 

Step 1. Reporting of the Accusation

The accusation of the infringement of the Honor Code must be reported to the Office of the Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (GPS) within 30 calendar days of the discovery, but in any event no later than 30 calendar days after the final grades for the course are due with the Registrar. Reporting date is the date the email is sent to GPS: gradhonor@rice.edu. Accusations received after that date will not be investigated unless the Chair (or Co-Chairs) of the Graduate Honor Council (GHC) deems otherwise by extraordinary conditions.

 

Step 2. Determination of Course-Related Honor Code Violation made by Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies

The Dean of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies or their designee determines whether the accusation is related to a course. If GPS determines it is related to a course, it shall be forwarded to the Chair of the GHC, with a copy to Student Judicial Programs (sjp@rice.edu).

 

Step 3. Assignment of accusation by GHC Chair to GHC Member for Fact-finding

Once received, the Chair of the GHC will assign the case to one faculty member of the GHC who will assume the role of the “investigator” for fact-finding. A case may name more than one student; i.e., the allegation alleges that more than one student was in violation of the Honor Code in the incident. The Chair of the GHC may assign more than one faculty member of the GHC to be co-investigator for cases with an extraordinary number of students or with other extraordinary conditions.

After receiving the assignment, the investigator should notify:

1. The student (or students, if more than one) alleged in the complaint, with a copy to SJP.
2. The person (or persons, if more than one) reporting the allegation, with a copy to SJP.

The notification to the student should request a zoom meeting within 14 calendar days of the notification. The notification should also include the GHC’s Procedures for Investigations along with the Consensus Penalty Structure (see Appendix 1). The student will also be afforded the opportunity to consult with an Ombuds (see Appendix 2)

The investigator should lead the fact-finding.

Fact-finding shall include, but not be limited, to the following:

• Following up with the accuser (e.g., a professor making the initial allegation) by email to request additional evidence, such as course syllabus, weight of the assignment, the assignment, random samples of other students’ assignments, etc.
• Interviewing the student(s) alleged in the accusation. Prior to the interview, the student shall be presented with copies of (a) accusation; (b) materials related to it (such as the exam or text); (c) consensus penalty structure.

Interviews should be scheduled for one-hour block and recorded on Zoom or a similar platform.

 

After these fact-finding steps are completed, the investigator makes one of two decisions:

Decision 1: The facts are not sufficient to continue with the case. At that point, the investigator must inform the student that the investigation is terminated. The investigator must inform the Chair of GHC, SJP and the person bringing the allegation that the investigation is terminated.

Decision 2: The facts are sufficient to continue with the case. At that point, the student must be informed that the facts merit the case shall continue with a hearing with a 4-person panel of the GHC. The investigator also must inform the Chair of GHC about this conclusion.

 

The student then is presented with a decision:

• Plead “not in violation” and go to hearing with the panel to decide the case. At this point, the investigator will ask that the student send a written statement, including any pertinent documents, to him or her via email within 7 calendar days of taking that decision.
• Plead “in violation” prior to the hearing. If the student makes this plea, the penalty will follow that which is mandated by the Consensus Penalty Structure. If this occurs, the investigator will request this plea to be made in writing by email from the student. This statement will state that the student waives his or her rights to further investigation, a hearing, and appeal. After that, the investigator will inform by email the Chair of the GHC who will inform (a) SJP; (2) the student; (3) and the person reporting the allegation about the decision, including penalty, on the case. Students with prior violations, or if the investigator judges there to be aggravating factors, are not afforded the right to plea “in violation” and must go to hearing.

 

If the student does not make either plea, the case automatically goes to a hearing.

 

Step 4. Hearing by a 4-person panel of the GHC

If the student decides to go to hearing (Step 3, Decision 2, (a), above), the Chair of the GHC shall appoint a 4-person panel of members of the GHC. 2 of those members shall be faculty members and 2 of those shall be student members of the GHC. The investigator shall not serve on this panel. The Chair will appoint one of the appointed faculty members to be the head of the hearing. Another panel member shall keep notes. Quorum for a hearing is 3 members.

Prior to the hearing, the panel will review all the evidence, including the zoom interview of the accused student.

After the head of the panel opens the hearing by introducing the case, the panel will invite the accused student(s) to give an opening statement of no more than 10 minutes about “my side of the story.” The student does not have to make such a statement if he or she so chooses.

After this opening, the panelists may ask questions of the accused student.

After questions are completed, the panelists may ask questions of other witnesses (e.g., a student not named in the allegation who witnessed the action).

Finally, the accused student may make a closing statement if they so choose. This statement is limited to 5 minutes in length.

Note that if the student does not appear at the hearing and does not give notice of non-appearance at least 48 hours in advance of its scheduled day and time, the hearing will continue without the student’s testimony.

 

At that juncture, the head of the hearing shall dismiss the accused student(s) and any other persons in attendance and begin to deliberate. After deliberations, the panel shall take a vote as to whether: (1) there has been a violation of the Honor Code; (2) that the accused student made the violation; and (3) the penalty. At least three members must vote; abstentions do not count as a “no” vote. All panelists must vote in the affirmative (that is a 4-0 vote or a 3-0 vote of yes “in violation”) for the student to be found “in violation.” The penalty from the Consensus Penalty Structure will be assessed unless the panel deems the violation sufficiently egregious to warrant a higher penalty. In no cases shall the penalty assessed be less than what is stated in the Consensus Penalty Structure. If the student is a repeat offender, the panel must assess a harsher penalty of a minimum of one level or more higher on the Consensus Penalty Structure.

The head of the hearing will report the vote and the penalty by email to the Chair of the GHC. Additionally, the head of the hearing will turn over any notes or evidence to the Chair of the GHC for archiving. In turn, the Chair of the GHC shall inform the student, the SJP, and the person making the allegation of the honor code violation about the panel’s decision.

 

Step 5. Appeal to the Faculty Appeals Panel and the Provost

There are no appeals of the panel’s decisions based on judgment or information that was not shared at the time of a hearing. The only appeals are about procedures. The appellant must demonstrate that there were significant procedural improprieties that materially influenced the outcome of the case.

Appeals must be made in writing and sent by email to the Chair of the GHC within 30 calendar days of the notice to the student that they were in violation. The Chair of the GHC will not consider appeals received after that date.

The Chair of the GHC shall appoint a three-person faculty appeals panel consisting of two faculty members and a representative from SJP to review the appeal. The faculty appeals panel shall inform the Chair of the GHC of their findings from the review. The Chair of the GHC shall report those findings to the student, the SJP, and the person making the allegation.

The student may appeal the decision of the Faculty Appeals Panel to the Provost.

 

Appendix 1

CONSENSUS PENALTY STRUCTURE

Graduate Honor Council

 

Assignment Weight	Standard Penalty	Penalty if Student Pleads “In Violation”
>0-5%	4/3 of letter grade reduction in course (i.e., grade of A becomes B-)	2/3 of letter grade reduction in course (i.e., grade of A becomes B+)
>5-10%	2 letter grade reduction in course (i.e., grade of A becomes C)	1 letter grade reduction in course (i.e., grade of A becomes B)
>10-20%	3 letter grade reduction in course (i.e., grade of A becomes D)	2 letter grade reduction in course (i.e., grade of A becomes C)
>20-40%	F in course	8/3 grade reduction in course (i.e., grade of A becomes D+)
>40-50%	F in course and 1 semester suspension from university	F in course
>50%	F in course and 2 semester suspension from university	F in course

Assignment weight is for the course. Portions of assignments (e.g., one question of a ten-question examination) where an allegation has been made is an allegation for the entire assignment.

 

 

Appendix 2

OMBUDS

In establishing the Graduate Honor Council, the Faculty Senate provides for the role of Ombuds. The role of the Ombuds is to assist the student with questions they may have with the Procedures for Investigations. The Ombuds is not an advocate for the student. He or she is merely a person to whom the student may ask questions of clarification about the process. The Ombuds is bound by the same rules of secrecy as other members of the Graduate Honor Council.

The role of the GHC’s Ombuds differs from that of Rice’s undergraduate Honor Council. For the Graduate Honor Council, the Ombuds will not participate in the interview or the hearing. The Ombuds will not be asked or allowed to submit evidence to the investigation or the hearing. The Ombuds will not file an appeal on behalf of the student.

If requested, the Office of Graduate and Postgraduate Studies will provide the Ombuds: Kate Cross, Associate Dean, katec@rice.edu.