Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #16, Spring 2003
April 28, 2003

Members Present:
Keith Henneke (presiding), Amy Askin, Sally Anne Gutting, Jason Longoria, Jason Love, Matt Overbeck, Divya Pande, Travis Youngblood, Stephen Zak, Richard Barker (observing), John Britt (observing) Loyola Gressot (observing), Marcie Jackson (observing), Amber Obermeyer (observing)

Ombuds:
John Fossum, Brandon Wagner (observing)

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor, accusing Student A of plagiarism on a paper in a lower-level humanities class.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled In Violation.

Testimony:
Student A stated that she did copy her essay from a website, but was not proud of it.

She stated in questioning that she began her research out of the book from the class. She e-mailed the professor an essay in advance for feedback because she was unsure of how to complete the assignment. The professor let her know that she could not turn in the initial essay because it was on a topic they discussed in-class and the professor referred the student to another topic. She looked at the text and was still unsure as to how to complete the paper, so she looked on the Internet. She did not intend to simply copy the Internet paper, only use it as a starting point. Student A explained to the council that she cut and pasted the essay into Microsoft Word and went over it adding her own analysis and omitting portions of the internet text that did not seem to fit. The council asked Student A to show what parts of the essay were her own work, and after looking over the paper, she admitted that she thought that she had added information but must not have. She stated that it took her about two hours to complete the assignment. A council member asked Student A if she copied from the Internet essay because she did not know how to complete the assignment or if she simply didn't want to do it. Student A stated that it was a little of both, and she initially only looked at the website to get started. In closing Student A asked the council to refer to her written statement. She also stated that she had really learned from this experience and urged the council to not suspend her.



Deliberation:
The council agreed that there was no question of whether Student A was in violation or not.

Straw Poll #1: Is Student A In Violation?
Yes: 9 + 5 observing
No: 0
Abstentions: 0


Penalty Phase:

The council began to discuss mitigating circumstances. Most of the council believed that the case should be mitigated due to cooperation, because of both a plea of in violation made in good faith and full cooperation with the council. Council members did however think that this was a serious offence.

Straw Poll #2:
Penalty for Student A
F in the course and 2-semester suspension:0
F in the course and 1 semester suspension:1
F in the course: 7 (+4 observing)
F on assignment and one letter grade reduction in course: 1
0 on assignment and one letter grade reduction in course: 0
Abstentions: 0 (+ 1 observing)

Members of the council discussed that they viewed this as a serious case and also that they were thinking of the consistency of penalties in various cases. Members discussed how this case was similar to and different from other recent cases. Council members also discussed how Student A satisfied both types of cooperation.

Straw Poll #3
F in course and 1 semester suspension: 1 (+2 observing)
F in course: 8 (+3 observing)
F on assignment and one letter grade reduction in course: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Polls #1 and 3 were made binding.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A in Violation of the Honor System and recommends that she receive an F in the course. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to her record.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 35 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Sally Anne Gutting, Clerk

Last modified Tuesday, August 26, 2003 01:05 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu