Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #10, Spring 2003
April 6, 2003

Members Present:
Candice Hance (presiding), Joshua Barron, R. Alexander Garcia, Keith Henneke, Stephen Jones, Jason Longoria, Matt Overbeck (non-binding vote), Ravi Patel, Joan Shreffler, Mike Silva (non-binding vote), and Harold Troxel

Ombuds:
Kate Gurba

Letter of Accusation:
The Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in an upper level humanities class. The letter accused Student A of plagiarizing his paper from the Internet.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled In Violation.

Testimony:
Student A opened by explaining that he had never had any formal instruction regarding how to write papers. He said that he was not given the guidelines for papers that the professor placed into evidence and said he used the Internet as a source. He also mentioned how his previous semester had been a lousy one where he had to spend time away from Rice and said he came back the next semester and worked hard.

The instructions for the paper were discussed during questioning. Student A maintained that he did not know the technicalities of citation, and he insisted that the guidelines for the paper had not been passed out but only mentioned verbally. He maintained that he did not cut and paste his paper from the websites. He reiterated his lack of knowledge of how to write paper, but did acknowledge the similarities. In closing, Student A emphasized that he was not ignorant of the honor code, but ignorant of how to cite. Plagiarism had not been his intent.



Deliberation:
In initial discussions, many council members felt that his lack of knowledge amounted to ignorance, something that could not be considered as a mitigating circumstance. The degree to which Student A cooperated with the council was also discussed.

Straw Poll #1:
Did a violation occur?
Yes:9 + 2 non-binding
No:0
Abstain0

Straw Poll #2:
Is Student A in-violation?
Yes:9 + 2 non-binding
No:0
Abstain:0

The council then discussed mitigating circumstances. Many members felt that the main basis of mitigation was cooperation. While they felt that full disclosure could not be given due to how blatant the offense was, many felt Student A pled In Violation in good faith. However, some also expressed the view that due to the nature of the violation, cooperation was not enough to warrant mitigating down. The council also discussed if a re-write of the assignment should be given. The majority felt that while a given penalty that did not suspend Student A should include a re-write of the paper as part of the penalty, if Student A was suspended, a re-write of the paper should not be added because the time away from Rice University would give the Student A plenty of time to consider his actions without forcing him to re-write the paper.

Straw Poll #5:
Penalty for Student A:
F+2:1
F+1+re-write:0
F+15 + 1 non-binding
F+re-write:3 + 1 non-binding
Abstain:0

Straw polls 1, 2, and 5 were made binding.

Thus the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends he receive an F in the course and a 1 semester suspension. A suspension clause will also be attached to his record.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour, 7 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Barron, Clerk

Last modified Wednesday, May 7, 2003, 10:30 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu