Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #4, Fall, 2002
November 21, 2002

Members Present:
Joan Shreffler (presiding), Amy Askin, Joshua Barron, Chris Conrad, Rebecca Daprato, Candice Hance, Keith Henneke, Jason Longoria, Marie Ng

Ombuds:
Anshu Duggal

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a lower level science class, which accused Student A of plagiarizing an extra credit assignment.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A plead In Violation

Testimony:
In her opening statements, Student A read from her written statement. She emphasized that she understood that ignorance could not be used as an excuse for her violation, but explained how she had thought by attaching the research paper that she was summarizing, she would not be violating the Honor Code.

During questioning, Student A emphasized how English was not her first language. She further explained that this was an extra credit assignment that she only did because it was mandatory. She also pointed to the professor's deposition, in which the professor stated that in her opinion, this was a minor violation. When asked about the worth of the assignment, Student A explained how it would be factored into the final grade and had a maximum worth of three to four percent. Student A chose to make no closing statement.

Deliberation:
The consensus on the Council was that this was a violation that warranted great mitigation. Council members agreed that there was no deception intended since the article the accused was summarizing was attached to the assignment. The cooperation of the accused along with the professor's assessment that this was a minor violation further served to mitigate the penalty. Some Council members expressed caution though, saying that the Council should not mitigate down for unintentionality.

Straw Poll #1
In Violation - 9
Not In Violation - 0
Abstentions - 0

The Council then discussed possible penalties. The Consensus Penalty, an F in the course and a 2-semester suspension needed to be considered, but the Council felt great mitigation was in order, and a 0 on the assignment with the requirement to resubmit an acceptable assignment without receiving credit was suggested. Some Council members felt that the penalty should be harsher, and voiced concerns that other members may have been factoring in external effects or allowing for ignorance.

Eventually, the penalty of a 0 on the assignment with the requirement that the accused resubmit an acceptable assignment and a loss of 1/3 of a letter grade on the final grade was proposed. Members in favor of this penalty expressed feelings that the former penalty was not harsh enough, but other members felt that due to severity and cooperation, the penalty of having to resubmit the assignment without credit was enough of a penalty on top of the 0 on the assignment.

Straw Poll #2
F + 2 - 0
0 on assignment + resubmit - 6
0 on assignment + resubmit + 1/3 letter grade reduction of final grade - 3
Abstentions - 0

Straw Polls 1 and 2 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor System and recommends that she receive a zero on the assignment and be required to complete the assignment properly for no credit. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to her record.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 32 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Barron
Clerk

Last modified Tuesday, December 17, 2002 12:21 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu