| Honor Council Rice
University |
|
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #19. Fall, 2001
February 18, 2002
Members Present:
Kevin Arceneaux, Candice Hance, D.J. Brasier, Muneeza Aumir, Laura Fitzmorris, Ravi Patel, Jay Bodas, Josh Barron, Aaron Martz (presiding).
Ombuds:
Joan Shreffler.
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a formal letter of accusation from a professor of an upper level science class that accused Students A, B, C and D of plagiarism in the final report for their class project.
Evidence Submitted:
- Letter of Accusation
- Report for the final project
- Previous report from which certain segments had been copied
- Student A's Written Statement
- Student B's Written Statement
- Student C's Written Statement
- Student D's Written Statement
- Communication between professor and Student A
- Communication between professor and Student B
- Reports from another class taken by Student A
Plea:
Student A plead In Violation. Students B,C and D plead Not In Violation.
Testimony:
Student A stated that he had written the report and was responsible for copying from previous work without citing it properly. He stated that at the time he was not familiar with proper rules of citation and had been under the impression that citing his source once was adequate. Student A, who is an international student, further stated that he felt that he had met the standards of citation that were expected in his home country.
Students B, C and D stated that they had worked on different parts of the project and had not been involved in writing the final report. Student B had received prior permission from the professor to leave early and was abroad when the report was submitted.
The accused also pointed out that although the writing was copied in certain places the background calculations were there own, a view endorsed by their professor.
Deliberation:
The Council took a number of straw polls at the start of deliberation.
Straw Poll #1
Violation Occurred: 9
No Violation Occurred: 0
Abstentions: 0
Straw Poll #2
Student A In Violation: 9
Student A Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0
Straw Poll #3
Student C In Violation: 9
Student C Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0
Straw Poll #4
Student D In Violation: 9
Student D Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0
Straw Poll #5
Student B In Violation: 9
Student B Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0
Council Members felt that although Students C and D had not been involved in writing the report they were still responsible for all work submitted under their name. Since Student B had gone abroad before the end of the semester and had obtained permission for leaving early Council members debated whether he could be held responsible. However, a review of the evidence showed that Student B was still present when the report was completed.
Straw Poll #6
Student B In Violation: 9
Student B Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0
The Council then turned to penalties. The Council felt that all students had cooperated fully. Severity was also taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance. Council members felt that Student A had a greater responsibility for the violation while students B, C and D were considered together for a lesser penalty.
Straw Poll # 7: Student A's Penalty
F in course and 2 semester suspension: 0
Loss of letter grade in course: 1
Loss of letter grade in assignment: 5
Loss of 2 letter grades in assignment: 3
Letter of reprimand: 0
Straw Poll # 8: Students B,C and D's Penalty
F in course and 2 semester suspension: 0
Loss of letter grade in assignment: 4
Letter of Reprimand: 5
Some members of the Council felt that all students were equally responsible since the paper was submitted under all their names and they should therefore all receive the same penalty. Other members felt that Student A should receive a harsher penalty.
Straw Poll # 9: Student A's Penalty
Loss of letter grade in course: 0
Loss of letter grade in assignment: 2
Loss of 2 letter grades in assignment: 7
Straw Poll # 10: Students B, C and D's Penalty
Loss of 2/3 letter grade in assignment: 0
Loss of 1 letter grades in assignment: 6
Letter of Reprimand: 3
Straw polls 1, 2,3,4, 6, 9 and 10 were made binding.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A, B, C and D In Violation of the Honor System and recommends that Student A receive a 2 letter grade reduction in the assignment and Students B, C and D receive a one letter grade reduction in the assignment. A suspension clause should also be attached to their records.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour and 45 minutes.
Respectfully Submitted,
Muneeza Aumir,
Trial Clerk
Back to 2001-2002 Case Abstracts.
Back to Rice Honor Council main page.
Last modified Monday, March 11, 2002. 12:00 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu