Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #34, Spring, 2002
September 8, 2002

Members Present:
Anna Ahrens, Amy Askin, Joshua Barron, Chris Edwards (clerk), Keith Henneke (chair), Jason Longoria, Marie Ng, Geneva Rhee, Evan Van Ness.

Ombuds:
Steve Pattyn

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor of an lower-level social science class that accused a student of plagiarism on a paper. The professor claimed that the student copied all but the first and last paragraphs of an essay directly from several sources from the Internet without quoting or citing properly.

Evidence Submitted:


Plea:
The accused entered a plea of Not In Violation.
Testimony:
The accused made no opening statement. When questioned, the student admitted that she had used the web sources in question. She also claimed that she had included a works cited page with the assignment and believed that to be sufficient documentation to meet the requirements of the instructor. The works cited page was allegedly attached to the rest of the paper with a paper clip. The accused was unable to produce either a hard or soft copy of the works cited page. The accused also claimed that she worked on the paper for approximately 15-20 hours over the course of five days and that the paper in its entirety was not in evidence. She claimed that the paper was approximately 4000 words long. When it was discovered that the paper was written on multiple computers (her own computer and one in the library) and that the paper had been shuttled via e-mail, an attempt was made to find a draft of the paper in the e-mail cache. The search yielded no conclusive evidence.

Deliberation:
The Council agreed from the beginning of deliberation that the accused did commit a violation.

Straw Poll #1: Did a violation occur?
In Violation: 9
Not in Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #2: Penalty Deliberation
F+2-semester suspension: 8
F+1-semester suspension: 1
Abstentions: 0

Discussion continued and revolved around what was perceived to be genuine confusion on the part of the accused about the proper form of citation as laid out by the instructor.

Straw Poll #3: Penalty Deliberation
F+2-semester suspension: 7
F+1-semester suspension: 1
Abstentions: 1

The abstaining member wanted additional time to try to build an argument for herself that a lower penalty than consensus was warranted, but ultimately could not do so.

Straw Poll #4: Penalty Deliberation
F+2-semester suspension: 8
F+1-semester suspension: 1
Abstentions: 0

Motion to make straw polls 1 and 4 binding
In favor: 9
Opposed: 0
Abstentions: 0

The Council wishes to encourage the accused, as well as the entire Rice community, to exercise proper due diligence and learn proper citation practices and to not hesitate to clear up any ambiguities in coursework with their respective instructor(s).

Thus, the Honor Council finds the accused In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends that he be given an F in the course plus a two-semester suspension. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to her record.


Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour, 15 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,
Chris Edwards Clerk

Last modified Wednesday, August 29, 2001 03:10 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu