| Honor Council Rice
University |
|
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #8. Fall, 2001
January 24, 2002
Members Present:
Kevin Arceneaux, DJ Brasier, Randy Meisser, Alejandra Shaw, Ricardo Vargas, Stephen Zak, Laura Derr (presiding).
Ombuds:
Joan Shreffler, Sharon Singer (observing).
Letter of Accusation:
There was no formal letter of accusation. A professor in a lower level humanities class forwarded two papers suspected of plagiarism that were written by the accused.
Evidence Submitted:
- Accused's written statement
- Paper A written by the accused
- Website essay on Paper A's topic
- Professor's explanation for accused's grade on Paper A
- Paper B written by the accused
- Website essay on Paper B's topic
- Course syllabus
- Deposition of a relative of the accused
- Deposition of a close friend of the accused
- Relevant newspaper article
- Addendum to accused's written statement
- Deposition regarding a physical injury sustained by the accused
Plea:
The accused plead In Violation.
Testimony:
The accused admitted to copying extensively from website essays, without citation, and turning it in as her own work. The accused noted that while this behavior was inexcusable, a number of factors weakened her judgment. Before the papers were due, she sustained an injury that kept her from outdoor activities and she also learned that a close friend of hers had died. The confluence of these events made it difficult for her to concentrate on these papers and diminished her "creative capacity." Hoping that this feeling would pass, she delayed writing both papers until there was little time left. She panicked and copied the papers.
Deliberation:
The Council unanimously held that a violation did occur and that the accused should be found In Violation.
Straw Poll #1
Student In Violation: 7
Student Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0
The Council considered two mitigating circumstances: cooperation and severe emotional distress. After a brief discussion, the Council reached a consensus that cooperation should apply to both Paper A and Paper B given the accused's willingness to frankly and completely disclose the facts of the case. While all members agreed that severe emotional distress applied with respect to the first paper, there was less agreement that it should apply to the second as well. Some felt that the lapse of time between the first and second papers was enough for the accused to either regain her composure or at the very least be expected to make arrangements to deal with her problem (e.g., ask the professor for an extension). Others felt that the time period was not very long and that it would not be unreasonable for the accused to still be under severe emotional distress when she turned in Paper B.
After a full discussion, straw polls were taken regarding the penalty. Since both papers together accounted for 50 percent of the student's grade, the consensus penalty was an F and two-semester suspension. Most members believed that because of the mitigating factors (cooperation and severe emotional distress), no suspension was warranted.
Straw Poll #3
F and 1-semester suspension: 1
F in course: 6
Loss of credit in course: 0
Abstentions: 0
Straw polls 1 and 3 were made binding.
Thus, the Honor Council finds the student In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends that she be given an F in the course and a suspension clause should be attached to her record.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour and 15 minutes.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kevin Arceneaux,
Trial Clerk
Back to 2001-2002 Case Abstracts.
Back to Rice Honor Council main page.
Last modified Tuesday, January 29, 2002. 1:00 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu