Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #24, Spring 2003
September 9, 2003

Members Present:
Keith Henneke (presiding), Amy Askin, Joshua Barron, John Britt, Chris Edwards, Saskia Fuerst, R. Alexander Garcia, Marcie Jackson (observing), Amy Tilley, Stephen Zak

Ombuds:
Kate Gurba (observing), Brandon Wagner

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor, accusing Student A self-plagiarism in an upper level humanities class. Student A was accused of handing in a paper that had also been handed in for a different class.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled In Violation.

Testimony:
Student A opened by referring to her written statement. She produced a letter from her therapist saying that she had been having certain problems during the time in which the paper was turned in, and she asked that the Council consider severe emotional distress as a mitigating factor in choosing a penalty. Student A also explained that she had not realized her actions constituted a violation of the Honor Code, though she understood that ignorance of the Honor Code was not an excuse.

During questioning, Student A told the Council that she had made no major revisions on the paper before turning it in again. She had originally thought of doing two different papers, but had chosen topics that could be used interchangeably if she decided to write only one. She explained that the week in question had been very stressful, and that it led to her decision not to write a separate paper for the second class in order to alleviate the stress.

In her closing statement, Student A expressed her opinion that everything that needed to be covered in the hearing had been.

Deliberation:
The Council agreed that Student A was definitely in-violation of the honor code. There was discussion as to which class the violation occurred in, or if it occurred in both classes, since the papers were handed in very close to each other. The Council decided that the first paper handed in did not constitute a violation, but that the second one did. The date on the title pages was used to determine which paper was turned in first.

Straw Poll #1: Is Student A In Violation in the class that the paper was turned into first?
Yes: 0
No: 9 + 1 non-binding vote
Abstentions: 0



Straw Poll #2: Is Student A in Violation in the class that the paper was turned into second?
Yes: 9 + 1 non-binding vote
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Penalty Phase

The Council began to discuss mitigating circumstances. Self-accusation and an action unknown to the accused did not apply in this case. All members felt that cooperation did, due to Student A's plea of In Violation and full disclosure. When it came to the issue of mitigating based on the severity of the violation, some members expressed the feeling that plagiarizing one's own work was much less severe than stealing someone else's work, though still a serious offence. With regard to severe emotional distress, some Council members felt that it should apply, while others felt that it should not since the emotional problems did not specifically cause the violation since the accused did not make a conscious decision to violate the Code. Other members felt that while ignorance should not help an accused, it should not hurt the accused either.

After penalties were suggested, prior to the voting, some members expressed the sentiment that a re-write should not be in the penalty on the grounds that it would impose on the professor, and that the professor might not accept any re-write as acceptable. Some members also spoke against the loss of credit penalty because they felt that it could possibly help the accused. Some members also spoke on how all members should make sure they are not mitigating on ignorance of the code.


Straw Poll #3: Penalty for Student A
F in course and a 2 semester suspension: 0
Zero on the assignment: 6 + 1 non-binding vote
Zero on the assignment and the loss of one letter grade: 0
Zero on the assignment and an acceptable re-write: 0
Loss of Credit in the Course: 0
Zero on the assignment and a re-write for half-credit: 0
Loss of Credit in the Course and a letter of repremand: 0
Abstentions: 3

The abstaining members expressed sentiments that they felt a zero on the assignment might be a little harsh, but that they could not see a way to make it less harsh, since they believed the accused did not deserve credit for her assignment.

Straw Poll #4: Penalty for Student A
Zero on the assignment:9 + 1 non-binding vote
Loss of Credit in the Course:0
Loss of Credit in the Course and a letter of reprimand:0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Polls #1, 2, and 4 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. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to her record.

Time of Trial and Deliberation:1 hour, 9 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Barron, Clerk

Last modified Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:20 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu