Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #5. Fall, 2001
November 12, 2001

Members Present:
Aaron Martz (Presiding), Kevin Arceneaux, Joshua Barron, Andrew Lee, Keith Henneke, Candice Hance, Sally Anne Schmidt-Gutting, Rebecca Daprato, Ravi Patel.

Ombuds:
Joan Shreffler, Steve Pattyn (observing).

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a lower level humanities course accusing students A, B and C of plagiarism.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A plead In Violation. Student B plead In Violation. Student C plead In Violation.

Sally Anne Schmidt-Gutting and Rebecca Daprato were excused because only 7 members are needed for a penalty hearing.

Opening Statements:
Student A referred back to his written statement and added that the behaviors exhibited were not his normal pattern of behavior.

Student B also asserted that his actions were not part of a normal pattern of behavior and wished to express that his actions were not just a simple case of laziness.

Student C asserted that he had missed a lot of class, rushed through the assignment, having begun the assignment on a different topic, and turned to other sources for aid. He asserted that he must have neglected to cite these sources.

Discussion:
When asked to specify the places where Student C had incorporated other sources into his assignment, he referred the council to the 3rd party assignment in evidence. When asked to discuss their violations, Students A and B both claimed to have used the assignment of another student without his knowledge. When asked about other stresses mentioned in his original written statement, Student B referred the council to the second written statement.

Closing Statements:
Student A apologized for his actions and stated he was prepared to accept the penalty required. Student B also expressed regret for his actions and expressed his willingness to accept punishment, but also stated that he was under other stresses and stated that he made a bad decision with good intentions. Student C stated that he had never read the topic before, and so consulted other sources. He stated that evidently he ended up with much of the source document in his assignment.

Deliberation:
The council reviewed the additional written statement of student B. Straw polls were taken to determine whether a violation occurred.

Straw Poll #1 Whether Student A committed a Violation
In Violation: 7
Not in violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #2 Whether Student B committed a Violation
In Violation: 7
Not in violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #3 Whether Student C committed a Violation
In Violation: 7
Not in violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

Thus the Honor Council finds that both Student A, Student B, and Student C committed violations of the Honor Code.

Penalty Phase:
Student C - The consensus penalty is an F and 2 semesters suspension. Mitigating circumstances were discussed. None were found to apply. A straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #5 Penalty For Student C
F + 2 semester suspension: 7
Abstention: 0

Student A - The consensus penalty is an F and 2 semesters suspension. Mitigating circumstances were discussed. The extensive amount of cooperation by this accused was noted. A straw poll was held.

Straw Poll #7 Penalty For Student A
F + 2 semester suspension: 0
F + 1 semester suspension: 0
F in the course: 7
Loss of credit in the course: 0
Abstentions: 0

Student B - The consensus penalty is an F and 2 semesters suspension. Mitigating circumstances were discussed. The accused's level of cooperation was found to be extensive. In addition the accused was determined to be under severe emotional distress at the time of the violation. The council also discussed the pros and cons of suspending the accused. A straw poll was held.

Straw Poll #9 Penalty For Student B
Loss of credit in the course and 1 semester suspension: 0
Loss of credit in the course: 7
Loss of credit on the assignment: 0
Abstentions: 0

Student C - The penalty for this student was reassessed: the penalty for this accused with respect to whether his violation could be considered heinous. A violation may be considered "heinous" whenever it is considerably damaging to the academic atmosphere of Rice University or directly harmful to an individual. The council debated whether the violation was considerably damaging to the academic atmosphere of the University. Some council members argued that since there was a portion of the assignment that was not included in the third party source work in evidence, that it would be difficult to ascertain whether the violation was heinous or whether the accused had included some original work in the assignment. A straw poll was conducted.

Straw Poll #11 Is the violation committed by Student C heinous?
Heinous: 4
Not Heinous: 3
Abstentions: 0

Since the council did not unanimously declare the violation heinous, the penalty remained as above.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A, B and C In Violation of the Honor Code, and they be given and F in the course, loss of credit in the course, and an F in the course and a 2 semester suspension, respectively. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to their records.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour and 45 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Ravi V. Patel,
Trial Clerk

Back to 2001-2002 Case Abstracts.
Back to Rice Honor Council main page.
Last modified Thursday, November 15, 2001. 9:15 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu