Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #23, Spring, 2003
September 29, 2002

Members Present:
Keith Henneke (presiding), Joshua Barron, Michelle Calabretta, Loyola Gressot, Jason Longoria, Matthew Mino, Matt Overbeck, Amy Tilley, Stephen Zak.

Ombuds:
Kate Gurba

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a formal letter of accusation from a professor accusing Student A of self-plagiarism in an upper level humanities class (Class B). Student A was accused of handing in a paper to another professor’s class (Class B) that had also been handed to the accusing professor’s upper level humanities class (Class A).

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A plead In Violation

Testimony:
Student A read his letter of accusation to the Council and proceeded to outline his opinion of the case. He believed that he had violated the letter of the Honor Code, but not the intent; he saw this as a matter concerning a small procedural oversight. Furthermore, Student A said that Professor B had given him permission to submit a paper that had been researched in another class (Class A) if it had a perspective that was appropriate for Class B. The Student then went and summarized the case by saying that he had received permission to write a joint paper for Class B, and at no time did Professor B ever consider the paper submitted an Honor Code Violation. Furthermore, the Student went on to reveal that the research and construction done for the paper was always done with both classes, A and B, in mind and also that the permission from Professor B had been given before any work was done on the papers. The only problem that the student believed to exist was that he had not gotten the permission of Professor A to submit a joint paper to Professor B.

At this point, Professor B was sworn in. Professor B said that he had in fact given permission for Student A to write a combined paper and did not feel that the student had violated the agreement that they had made. Also, a revised paper was the one that was eventually graded by Professor B. Professor B also stated that few instructions had been given about what was expected from the paper and that he felt the paper idea originally submitted by Student A had potential. The professor concluded by saying that he felt this procedure had dragged on and that enough emotional suffering had occurred for the accused. Professor B also stated that he did not feel as if the paper was a violation of the Honor Code.

The accused responded to the testimony by saying that this was just a matter of ambiguity and that he felt that the paper submitted to Professor B would have stood on its own as a paper appropriate for Class B. Student A felt as if enough of the material was the same for both courses, and that is why it was included in both papers. In his closing statement, Student A reiterated that the accusation did not come from the Professor B and that Professor A had no problem with the paper that she had received. Furthermore, Student A believed that the punishment should be a letter of reprimand or community service.

Deliberation:
The Council debated whether in fact Student A was in violation, despite his saying so. According to the Academic Fraud section of Blue Book, a student does need to get both professors permission to submit a joint work. However, it was made clear that the Academic Fraud guidelines were not official regulations of the Rice Honor Code, but rather a helpful guide for students. Some members of the Council felt that Student A was trying to write both papers at the same time, and, therefore, was following the agreement made with Professor B. Others felt that the paper submitted to Professor B was only a revision and not a paper that could have stood on its own. The fact that the student had received permission from Professor B to write a joint paper swayed a number of members of the council. Also, these same members were persuaded by the fact that Professor B did not consider the paper an Honor Code Violation. The argument was made that something is usually not considered an Honor Code Violation until an assignment is turned in, but in this case, Student A was being accused by a professor who was still accepting the original paper submitted. Professor A was accusing Student A of a violation for another class in which the professor for that class, Professor B, did not consider it a violation.

Straw Poll #1: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 6
No: 3
Abstentions: 0

Discussion continued about which class the student might be found in violation in. Also, some members were worried about the time frame in which the two papers were written; they questioned how closely both papers were written.

Straw Poll #2: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 7 No: 1 Abstentions: 1

The discussion went on for a few more minutes, but the same issues were discussed.

Straw Poll #3 Did a violation occur?
Yes: 7
No: 2
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #3 was made binding. Thus, Student A was found Not In Violation.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour, 41 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Matthew Mino,
Clerk

Last modified Thursday, November 6, 2003 10:23 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu