| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #35, Spring, 2002
September 11, 2002
Members Present:
Chris Conrad, Rebecca Daprato, Sally Anne Gutting (clerk), Candice Hance (presiding), Stephen Jones, Jason Longoria, Evan Van Ness, Ravi Patel, Stephen Zak
Ombuds:
Steve Pattyn
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from the professors of a lower-level social science class that accused a student of plagiarism on a writing assignment.
Evidence Submitted:
The accused began with a prepared statement. He stated that he never thought to cheat and did not think he was in violation. He explained that his process of writing papers was to search on the internet for sources, reduce his information to a couple of sources, outline and organize his information into a detailed document that he "cut & pastes" into the final paper. He stated that when citing a source he will use the "root" source. For example, when the author of a published article cites another author's information, the accused will cite the other author. The accused testified about special family circumstances that have affected his life. He closed by stating that he thought he cited the information correctly.
The members of the council asked him more about his writing process, and he stated that that he took about three-and-a-half to four hours to write the paper. When researching and outlining, the accused reads the information from the web site and digests it, then he tries to rephrase it and writes it into his outline. The council pressed him more about his sources and his practice of citing the "root" source of information. In this case, the accused stated that he only had three-and-a-half hours for the paper, and he trusted the web site's author and did not go to the "root" source - only cited it. One place where a web site is cited in the paper and was not on the works cited page was pointed out by the council, and the accused stated that he must have forgotten to include it in the works cited page.
The accused testified that he did not look at the web sites on citation suggested in the writing consultant's handouts because they were down at the time he was writing the paper.
A family member was brought in to testify as a witness about their family situation. He explained the situation further and testified that the spring semester was horrible for both of them because of their situation. He left following his testimony.
The council continued to question the accused and specifically asked if he felt the paper was 100% within the honor code, and the accused stated yes. He did not feel at the time, nor does he feel now guilty. He was just writing the paper the way he knew how. The council then questioned him more about his emotional distress and the accused stated that he felt his family pressures blurred his work.
Deliberation:
The council agreed that a violation occurred.
Straw Poll #1: Did a violation occur?
In Violation: 9
Not in Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0
The council then discussed the mitigating circumstances of full disclosure, severity, and severe emotional distress. With respect to severity, the council discussed the accused's practice of citing the "root" source and his admission that he did not look at the sources he cited. The council also discussed the many places in the writing assignment where he used the text of the web site article word-for-word. It was decided that severity did not apply. In regards to full disclosure, there was concern that while the accused was cooperative in a general sense, he did not plead in violation and did not do anything to aid the council in uncovering the violation, which some members thought should strike this factor from consideration. The council was undecided on this mitigating circumstance, and each member made his own decision as to whether or not to consider it as mitigation. Severe emotional distress was then discussed, with the members divided over the issue. The question of if the accused would have made a different decision if not under this stress was discussed. Several members felt that the accused simply does not know proper citation forms.
Straw Poll #2 Penalty Deliberation
F+2-semester suspension: 4
F+1-semester suspension: 0
F in the Course: 3
Abstentions: 2
Discussion continued as to whether suspension was appropriate in this case and on the appropriateness of full disclosure and severe emotional distress.
Straw Poll #3 Penalty Deliberation
F+2-semester suspension: 5
F+1-semester suspension: 0
F in the Course: 2
Abstentions: 2
Discussion continued as to whether this was a lapse in judgement due to severe emotional distress since the accused still did not see the problems with the paper. The accused's other papers from the class were examined, and the question of if the accused would have made a different decision about citation under different circumstances was again discussed. It was pointed out that the accused had access to a writing consultant, several handouts on citation, and an extensive in-class presentation on writing. The council agreed that he had every opportunity to learn citation over the course of the semester, and that while he obviously underwent emotional distress during the semester that it did not specifically affect his choice to commit the violation (specifically his decision regarding whether or not to cite properly or to write his own original work).
Straw Poll #4 Penalty Deliberation
F+2-semester suspension: 8
F in the Course: 1
Abstentions: 0
Straw polls #1 and #4 were made binding.
Thus, the Honor Council finds the accused In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends to the Assistant Dean of Student Judicial Programs that he receive an F in the course and a two semester suspension
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 2 hours, 20 minutes.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sally Anne Gutting
Trial Clerk