Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #15. Fall, 2001
January 29, 2002

Members Present:
Kevin Arceneaux, DJ Brasier, Ayse Celikkol, Chris Conrad, Sally Anne Gutting, Jason Longoria, Aaron Martz (presiding).

Ombuds:
Anna Ahrens, Joan Shreffler (Observing).

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a formal letter of accusation form a professor of an upper level social science class that accused a student of plagiarism on his final paper. The professor had sent the class' papers to a consulting firm that used a computer program to search for evidence of plagiarism, and the accused's paper had a number sentences and paragraphs that were identical to that in published work without being placed in quotation marks.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
The accused plead In Violation.

Testimony:
The accused admitted to inadvertently writing direct quotes from sources in his paper without placing them within quotes. He, however, did try to cite those sources with footnotes, but in retrospect did not do a good enough job paraphrasing. He realizes that this is a form of plagiarism. He opined that stress brought on by a personal problem around the time the paper was written contributed to him being distracted. The accused believed that while he was in violation and this was a clear case of plagiarism, he did not do so on purpose.

Deliberation:
The Council agreed that a violation did in fact occur. Even though the accused tried to cite everything, writing verbatim from a source without quotation marks constitutes plagiarism. Ideas taken from sources that are not placed in quotes must be paraphrased and cited.

Straw Poll #1
In Violation: 7
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

The Council considered cooperation and severity as mitigating circumstances. Severe emotional distress was discussed but deemed to be unwarranted in this case. Since the paper constituted 40 percent of the course grade, the consensus penalty was an F and two-semester suspension. Everyone agreed that the cooperativeness of the accused and the fact he made an honest attempt to cite the plagiarized sources should mitigate the penalty a great deal. However, there was disagreement about how much the penalty should be mitigated. An impasse was reached, with a majority voting for an F in the course with no suspension.

Straw Poll #3
F in the course: 5
Loss of credit in the course: 2
Two letter grade reduction: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw polls 1 and 3 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds the accused In Violation of the Honor System and recommends that he receive an F in the course, and that a suspension clause be attached to his record.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour and 10 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Kevin Arceneaux,
Trial Clerk

Back to 2001-2002 Case Abstracts.
Back to Rice Honor Council main page.
Last modified Monday, February 4, 2002. 10:00 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu