Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #29. Spring, 2002
April 26, 2002

Members Present:
Joshua Barron, Rebecca Daprato, Laura Fitzmorris, Jennifer Hamilton, Jason Longoria, Ravi Patel, Elspeth Simpson, Evan Van Ness, Joan Shreffler (presiding), Amy Askin (observing), Robert Cardnell (observing).

Ombuds:
Travis Youngblood, Robert Emmett (observing).

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor of an undergraduate level science class that accused Student A of plagiarism on an assignment.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A plead Not In Violation.

Opening Statement:
Student A said that there were no written instructions for the assignment. He said the professor gave the instructions for the assignment orally in lecture and that he misunderstood these instructions. He noted that he sited the source that was used for the assignment at the top of the paper and thought that was enough for the professor to know it was not his work. Student A also noted that he has several other assignments due for other classes when this assignment was due. The accused also told the Council that this was an extra credit assignment and that the point value for this assignment that is given in the syllabus (5%) is incorrect. He pointed out that the professor said it would only be worth approximately 2% of the grade.

Discussion:
The accused was asked to give his definition of what it means to summarize and he answered that he had to explain what happened in the article used for the assignment. He was also asked why he did not use quotations in his work and he said that he thought the use of the citation at the top of his assignment was giving the author of the source credit.

The accused stated that he was in class the day the assignment was given and did not fully understand the assignment. He said he was given approximately 2 weeks to complete the assignment and he allowed himself about 2 days to finish the assignment. The accused said that he read the article and attempted to summarize what he has read, but had difficulty understanding the article. He was asked why he never asked the professor for clarification of the instructions for the assignment and he said that another student had asked the professor to clarify the instructions for a previous assignment and that the professor was not very helpful.

The accused was asked if he ever considered not turning in the assignment since it was extra credit and he answered that he did consider not turning it in, but he was enticed by the opportunity to receive 5% points on his grade.

Closing Statement:
The accused again reiterated that he had no written instructions for the assignment and the he gave credit to the authors by placing the citation at the top of his assignment. He stated that he attempted to summarize what was in the article even though he could not fully understand the contents of the article.

Deliberation:
The Council felt that there was no excuse for the plagiarism in this case and that the accused should have used quotations.

Straw Poll #1
In Violation: 9 + 2 (observing)
Not in Violation: 0

The consensus penalty for this violation is an F in the course since the assignment was worth less than 10% of the course grade. Severity was discussed as a mitigating circumstance because some members felt that the violation was not very severe because it was an extra credit assignment. Other members felt that severity did not apply because he seemed to be pleading ignorance to not understanding what constitutes plagiarism and ignorance is not acceptable.

Straw Poll #2
F: 7 + 1 (observing)
2 letter grade reduction: 2 + 1 (observing)
Abstentions: 0

Some members felt that the accused did not deserve and F in the course because this was an extra credit assignment. Other members felt that because this was extra credit he had the option not to turn the assignment in and that made this worthy of an F in the course. Other members noted that just because the accused did not understand the instructions for the assignment that did not give him the right to copy other's work.

Straw Poll #3
F: 8 + 2 (observing)
2 letter grade reduction: 1
Abstentions: 0

Straw Polls 1 and 3 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends that Student A be given an F in the course. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to Student A's records.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 47 minutes.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca C. Daprato,
Trial Clerk

Back to 2001-2002 Case Abstracts.
Back to Rice Honor Council main page.
Last modified Wednesday, May 1, 2002. 9:30 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu