Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #28. Spring, 2002
April 28, 2002

Members Present:
Joan Shreffler (presiding), Andrew Lee, Sally Anne Gutting, Andrea Melton, Jason Longoria, Ravi Patel, Stephen Zak.

Ombuds:
Kate Gurba, Anshu Duggal (observing).

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a lower-level humanities class. The letter stated that Students A and B had turned in identical papers that appeared to be plagiarized from the same source.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Students A and B plead In Violation.

Testimony:
In their opening statements, both Students A and B expressed their regret for turning in papers that were plagiarized from a web site without citation of the source. They stated that there was no excuse for doing so, and knew what they did was wrong and not in accordance with the Honor Code for the class, but that time pressures forced them to do so in order to turn in the paper on time.

The council questioned the accused as to the circumstances under which the papers were written. Student B said that he read the book required and also some additional sources, but that he ran out of ideas and happened upon the web site that contained the plagiarized paper. He used the web site to write the majority of the paper, rewording some of the sentences as needed. Student A stated that he was pressed for time and wanted to do a good job, so he looked up some references on the topic and decided to use the web site paper as his own with little modification. The council also asked whether the topic for the paper was assigned or open, in order to ascertain if there was any collusion between the two accused. However, both accused stated that the topic was open, and that they were in different sections of the course and could not have collaborated on the paper in any way.

In closing, both students reasserted that they had no excuse for their action and were sorry for making the mistake and plagiarizing from the web site.

Deliberation:
The council debated whether a violation occurred, and concluded that there was indeed an egregious violation of the Honor Code in this case. Straw polls were taken to determine whether both students violated the Honor Code.

Straw Poll #1 (Student A In Violation)
In Violation: 7
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #2 (Student B In Violation)
In Violation: 7
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

Thus Students A and B were found In Violation of the Honor Code. The council then debated penalties for the violation. Since the paper was worth 20% of the course grade, the consensus penalty for the violation is an F in the course and a two-semester suspension. The council questioned the application of mitigating circumstances. Severity was ruled out as a mitigating circumstance, since the majority of the submitted papers were plagiarized. Cooperation was also discussed as a potential mitigating factor. Some council members felt that cooperation did not apply fully here, even with a plea of In Violation, as the accused had little choice but to cooperate when the web site paper was submitted as evidence. Others felt that the degree to which the accused had cooperated with the council was sufficient to warrant mitigation due to cooperation. An F in the course with a one-semester suspension was also suggested as an alternate penalty. Straw polls were taken to assess the penalty for the violation.

Straw Poll #3 (Penalty for Student A)
F in course and 2 semester suspension: 2
F in course and 1 semester suspension: 5
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #4 (Penalty for Student B)
F in course and 2 semester suspension: 0
F in course and 1 semester suspension: 7
Abstentions: 0

Additional discussion was held since two members voted for different penalties for the two accused. Those members felt that Student B had enough original thought in his paper to warrant some mitigation based on severity, although a suspension was still warranted in this case.

Straw polls 1, 2, 3, and 4 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A and B In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends to the Dean of Student Judicial Programs that they receive an F in the course and a one semester suspension. A suspension clause is also attached to their records.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 40 minutes

Respectfully submitted,

Andrew Lee,
Trial Clerk

Back to 2001-2002 Case Abstracts.
Back to Rice Honor Council main page.
Last modified Wednesday, May 1, 2002. 9:20 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu