Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #5, Fall 2003
January 22, 2004

Members Present:
Keith Henneke (presiding), Joshua Barron, Jeb Britt, Chris Edwards, Loyola Gressot, Marcie Jackson, Geneva Rhee, Elspeth Simpson, Stephen Zak

Ombuds:
Michael Hardy, Brandon Wagner (observing)

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor of an upper level natural sciences class accusing Student A of plagiarizing portions of his research paper from a website, which is a violation of the class’s honor code policy.

Evidence Submitted:


Also available were website sources referenced on the accused’s assignment.

Plea:
Student A plead In Violation

Testimony:
Student A emphasized his lack of intention in committing this violation. The accused explained that he did not copy and paste directly from the website and apologized for treating the citations carelessly.

Deliberation:
The Council agreed unanimously that a violation had occurred in this instance.

Straw Poll #1: Did Student A Commit a Violation?
In Violation: 9
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0

The Council then discussed mitigating circumstances in the determination of a penalty. Because of Student A’s plea and his willingness to fully discuss the incident, the Council agreed that cooperation should be considered as a mitigating factor. Also included was the nature of the violation; some members felt that because the affected part of the assignment was only a small portion of the whole the penalty should be mitigated further, while others pointed out that Student A did cite the source in question at least once, which led them to believe that his negligence was more at fault than the intent to violate the code. While the maximum penalty given under the Council’s penalty structure is an F in the course and 2-semester suspension, most of the penalties considered reflected mitigation by the Council.

Straw Poll #2: Student A’s Penalty
F + 2 semester suspension:0
1 letter grade reduction in class: 2
Zero on the assignment: 1
F on the assignment: 3
1 letter grade reduction on assignment: 2
Abstentions: 1

Some members felt that a penalty pertaining specifically to the assignment would better reflect the ideology and spirit of the code.

Straw Poll #3: Student A’s Penalty
1 letter grade reduction in class: 0
Zero on the assignment: 2
Loss of half of the credit received on the assignment: 4
F on the assignment: 1
1 letter grade reduction on assignment: 2
Abstentions: 0

Some members strongly felt that a zero on the assignment was a just penalty because of the blatant nature of the violation on the portions plagiarized. However, others argued that they felt such a penalty was too harsh because most of the work on the paper was the student’s own. Another penalty choice was added to reflect how much Student A had plagiarized on the paper.

Straw Poll #4: Student A’s Penalty
Zero on the assignment: 2
Loss of half of the credit received on the assignment: 0
Loss of 1/3 of the credit received on assignment: 3
F on the assignment: 3
1 letter grade reduction on assignment: 1
Abstentions: 0

The half-credit penalty was thrown out and then added again for deliberation because some members felt that a paper in which less than half the paper was plagiarized did not merit such a penalty.

Straw Poll #5: Student A’s Penalty
Zero on the assignment: 4
Loss of 1/3 of the credit received on assignment: 1
F on the assignment: 2
1 letter grade reduction on assignment: 0
Abstentions: 2

Straw Poll #6: Student A’s Penalty
Zero on the assignment: 2
Loss of half of the credit received on the assignment: 5
Loss of 1/3 of the credit received on assignment: 0
F on the assignment: 1
1 letter grade reduction on assignment: 0
Abstentions: 1

Most members felt that a zero on the assignment was too harsh and that an F on the assignment was not harsh enough in this instance of plagiarism.

Straw Poll #7: Student A’s Penalty
Zero on the assignment: 0
Loss of half of the credit received on the assignment: 7
Loss of 1/3 of the credit received on assignment: 0
F on the assignment: 2
Abstentions: 0

Because a 2/3 majority vote is required for penalty deliberation, straw polls #1 and #7 were made binding. Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor System and recommends that he receive half-credit on the assignment. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to his record.

Time of Hearing and Deliberation: 1 hour, 20 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Geneva Rhee,
Clerk

Last modified Friday, January 30, 2004 9:21 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu