| Honor Council Rice
University |
|
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #15, Spring 2003
April 25, 2003
Members Present:
Amy Askin, Jeb Britt (non-binding vote), Chris Edwards (Presiding),
Saskia Fuerst (non-binding vote), Loyola Gressot (non-binding vote),
Roy Ha, Jason Longoria, Matt Mino, Amber Obermeyer (non-binding vote),
Ravi Patel, Geneva Rhee, Joan Shreffler, Stephen Zak
Ombuds:
Kate Gurba
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation accusing Student A
of plagerism in an upper level humanities class.
Evidence Submitted:
- Letter of Accusation
- Student A's Written Statement
- Course Syllabus
- Copy of the work in question
- A copy of the alleged source work from the internet
- E-mail deposition of the professor
- Additional paper by the accused for the same class
Plea:
Student A plead In Violation
Testimony:
When asked, the accused admitted that the work, as submitted, amounted
to plagiarism. When asked whether his plagiarism was limited to the
scope indicated in the letter of accusation, he answered in the
affirmative, stating that the second part of the work was, in fact,
his own writing, and that the only source he used was the one
indicated in the letter of accusation.
Deliberation:
The council was uniformly agreed that Student A was in violation of
the Honor Code. Straw Polls 1 and 2 were taken to establish this.
Straw Poll #1: Did a Violation Occur?
Yes: 9 (+4 non-binding votes)
No: 0
Abstention: 0
Straw Poll #2: Did Student A commit a violation?
Yes: 9 (+4 non-binding votes)
No: 0
Abstention: 0
Mitigating circumstances were discussed. Cooperation was the only
circumstance found to apply. Council members discussed the degree to
which the accused cooperated. Some members felt that the plea of in
violation was potentially not made in good faith, and that disclosure
might not have been full. Council members discussed the degree to
which this was the case. Some council members felt that it was
possible that the accused plead in violation based on the weight of
evidence against him, and not in good faith. Other council members
were concerned with the possibility that the second part of his work
might also have come from an external source. It was determined that
the council lacked the expertise to make this determination. Severity
was discussed and found not to apply. A brief discussion ensued as to
whether the violation was heinous. It was determined that there would
not be sufficient support to declare the violation heinous. Penalties
were suggested and a straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #3: Penalties for Student A
F in the course and a 2 semester suspension: 0
F in the course and a 1 semester suspension: 4 (+2 non-binding votes)
F in the course: 1 (+1 non-binding votes)
Abstention: 4 (+1 non-binding votes)
Some members argued that an F in the course is not an appropriate
penalty, based on the philosophy that it is better to not submit a
work, than to submit one which has been cheated upon. Members stated
that they were mitigating primarily on the basis of the cooperation.
The discussion indicated that the degree of mitigation was based in
the degree to which the Council felt that disclosure was full. Some
members felt that there needed to be a penalty of greater weight than
an F in the course, and less than an F in the course and a one
semester suspension. It was suggested that adding a rewriting of the
assignment in question, as well as the subsequent assignments to an F
in the course might work better. Council members voiced concerns
about leaving the ultimate degree of the penalty in the hands of the
accusing faculty member, both in terms of creating a penalty of
indeterminate degree and in terms of unduly increasing the workload of
the professor.
Straw Poll #4: Penalties for Student A
F in the course and a 2 semester suspension: 0
F in the course and a 1 semester suspension: 8 (+2 non-binding votes)
F in the course and a rewrite of the assignment in question and
subsequent assignments in the course: 1 (+1 non-binding vote)
F in the course: 0
Abstention: 0 (+1 non-binding votes)
Another straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #5: Penalties for Student A
F in the course and a 1 semester suspension: 8 (+3 non-binding votes)
F in the course and a rewrite of the assignment in question and
subsequent assignments in the course: 1 (+ 1 non-binding vote)
Abstention: 0 (+0 non-binding votes)
Straw polls 1, 2 and 5 were made binding. Thus, the Honor Council
finds student A in violation of the Honor Code and recommends that he
be given a grade of F in the course and a one semester suspension.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour, 50 minutes
Respectfully Submitted,
Ravi Patel
Clerk
Last modified Tuesday, August
26, 2003 1:21 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu