Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #18/19, Spring 2004
October 2, 2004

Members Present:
Chris Edwards (presiding), Jeb Britt, Andrew Hawthorn, Jonathan Jackson, Andrew Koller, Becky Thilo, Zach Thomas, Emily Yeomans, Travis Youngblood, John Brawley (non-binding vote), Andrew Traverso (non-binding vote)

Ombuds:
Michael Hardy, Risa Gordon (observing)

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of self-accusation regarding two incidences of self-plagiarism in two lower level humanities classes. The letter stated that Student A had self-plagiarized two papers, which were violations of the Rice Honor Code.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A plead In Violation

Testimony:
In Student A’s opening statement, she explained that after receiving the “Spring Finals Reminder” from her college listserv, she realized that self-plagiarism was a violation of the Honor Code. Student A stated that she wrote the letter of self-accusation, provided relevant evidence, fully disclosed, and answered all questions in an effort to facilitate the process. She emphasized that she was unaware she was violating the Honor Code when she turned in the assignments, and now she feels regret, is sorry for her actions, and hopes to rectify the situation. She felt that certain mitigating circumstances applied to the assignment in Course A.

When questioned, Student A explained that she was under extreme and unusual emotional distress at the time of the submissions, in the form of psychological conditions for which she was receiving treatment and a recent and unexpected death in the family. She also pointed out that changes were made to both papers before turning them in.

In Student A’s closing statement, she reminded the Council of her cooperation by providing evidence (full disclosure). She stated that even though the Council does not consider ignorance of the Code, there was nothing on her Honor Code exam about self-plagiarism, nor did the professors expressly forbid it (as recommended in the Faculty Handbook). Student A said she was proud of her choice to turn herself in and of her academic life at Rice under the Honor Code.

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

Straw Poll #1: Did a Violation Occur?
Yes: 9 (+2 non-binding)
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #2: With respect to Document 2, is the Accused In Violation?
Yes: 9 (+2 non-binding)
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #3: With respect to Document 4, is the Accused In Violation?
Yes: 9 (+2 non-binding)
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Because Document 1 was submitted during high school, the Council agreed that non-Rice credit did not fall within the scope of the Rice Honor Code. Since Document 3 was submitted for credit at Rice, the Council discussed whether a violation had occurred on the original assignment from which Document 4 was plagiarized.

Straw Poll #4: With respect to Document 3, is the Accused In Violation?
Yes: 0
No: 9 (+2 non-binding)
Abstentions: 0

The Council determined whether or not the violation fell within the “unprompted self-accusation made in good faith” clause of CPS, which means the maximum penalty allowed is a grade of F in the course.

Straw Poll #5: With respect to Document 2, is the self-accusation unprompted and made in good faith?
Yes: 9 (+2 non-binding)
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

For penalty deliberation on the self-plagiarized Document 2 submitted to Course A, the Council reviewed mitigating circumstances. The Council considered extreme and unusual emotional distress, cooperation, and nature of the violation as applicable mitigating circumstances. Most of the Council agreed that the nature of self-plagiarism is less severe than other violations since the work was originally that of the student. Some Council members chose to mitigate more because of the degree of cooperation since the accused student provided evidence the Council would never have had access to, like the high school paper. Some Council members provided extra mitigation based on the conditions surrounding the self-accusation and the fact that there was such a low chance of the violation being caught (since Document 1 was not attached to Rice credit).

Straw Poll #6
F in Course A: 0
Full letter grade reduction in Course A: 0 (+1 non-binding)
1/3 letter grade reduction in Course A: 2
Zero on assignment (Document 2): 0
Full letter grade reduction on assignment (Document 2): 2
Re-average Course A grade without assignment (Document 2): 1
Letter of reprimand with half-credit re-write of assignment (Document 2): 1
Letter of reprimand with full-credit re-write of assignment (Document 2): 1 (+1 non-binding)
Letter of reprimand: 2
Abstentions: 0

Some members of the Council felt the penalty should affect the overall course grade, whereas others felt that the penalty should specifically apply to the assignment in violation. The Council also weighed the pros and cons of re-writes, which would involve the professor in the process.

Straw Poll #7
1/3 letter grade reduction in Course A: 6
Zero on assignment (Document 2): 0
Full letter grade reduction on assignment (Document 2): 0
Letter of reprimand with half-credit re-write of assignment (Document 2): 1 (+1 non-binding)
Letter of reprimand with full-credit re-write of assignment (Document 2): 2 (+1 non-binding)
Letter of reprimand: 0
Abstentions: 0

Discussion resumed in an attempt to achieve unanimity.

Straw Poll #8
1/3 letter grade reduction in Course A: 6
Letter of reprimand with half-credit re-write of assignment (Document 2): 2 (+1 non-binding)
Letter of reprimand with full-credit re-write of assignment (Document 2): 1 (+1 non-binding)
Abstentions: 0

Because the Letter of Accusation contained two separate incidences of self-plagiarism, the Council chose to treat them as separate violations. The Council discussed how this applied to the Consensus Penalty Structure in terms of repeat violations.

Straw Poll #9: Is this a repeat violation which allows the Council to exceed CPS?
Yes: 8 (+1 non-binding)
No: 0
Abstentions: 1 (+1 non-binding)

The abstaining members needed more clarification on the issue at hand. It was mentioned that agreeing that the Council has the ability to exceed CPS does not necessarily mean they will.

Straw Poll #10: Is this a repeat violation which allows the Council to exceed CPS?
Yes: 9 (+2 non-binding)
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

The Council determined whether or not the violation fell within the “unprompted self-accusation made in good faith” clause of CPS, which means the maximum penalty allowed is a grade of F in the course.

Straw Poll #11: With respect to Document 4, is the self-accusation unprompted and made in good faith?
Yes: 9 (+2 non-binding)
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

For penalty deliberation on the self-plagiarized Document 4 submitted to Course C, the Council reviewed mitigating circumstances. The Council considered extreme and unusual emotional distress, cooperation, and nature of the violation as applicable mitigating circumstances. Again, most of the Council agreed that the nature of self-plagiarism is less severe than other violations since the work was originally that of the student. Some Council members chose to mitigate less than in the previous situation because both Documents 3 and 4 were submitted for Rice credit. Some chose to apply a certain level of mitigation on emotional distress, while other members of the Council did not feel it applied to this violation. Also, the degree of plagiarism seemed higher to some.

Straw Poll #12
F in Course A: 0
Full letter grade reduction in Course C: 0
2/3 letter grade reduction in Course C: 4 (+1 non-binding)
1/3 letter grade reduction in Course C: 4 (+1 non-binding)
F on assignment (Document 4): 1
Letter of reprimand: 0
Abstentions: 0

The Council discussed the degree of cooperation and the amount of emotional distress that would have altered Student A’s state of mind. Some remarked that self-plagiarizing from a paper submitted to Rice may be a more substantial violation of the Honor Code than self-plagiarizing from a paper submitted to high school. The member of the Council advocating an F on the assignment believed, on principle, that the penalty should apply to the assignment and not to the overall course grade. Some members of the Council discussed the intent of Student A, while others felt that her intent should not be considered and that there was no way of knowing her true intentions. A few members of the Council felt fewer mitigating circumstances to this violation than the previous violation. There was more discussion amongst the Council until a 2/3 majority was reached.

Straw Poll #13
2/3 letter grade reduction in Course C: 5 (+1 non-binding)
1/3 letter grade reduction in Course C: 3 (+1 non-binding)
F on assignment (Document 4): 1
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #14
2/3 letter grade reduction in Course C: 4 (+1 non-binding)
1/3 letter grade reduction in Course C: 4 (+1 non-binding)
F on assignment (Document 4): 1
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #15
2/3 letter grade reduction in Course C: 2 (+1 non-binding)
1/3 letter grade reduction in Course C: 6 (+1 non-binding)
F on assignment (Document 4): 1
Abstentions: 0

Straw polls 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 15 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends that she be given a 1/3 of a letter grade reduction in Courses A and C, and a suspension clause should be attached to her record.

Time of hearing and deliberation: 3 hours and 45 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Becky Thilo

Clerk

Last modified Wednesday, January 12, 2004 05:44 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu