Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #21, Spring 2004
May 5, 2004

Members Present:
Chris Edwards (presiding), Amy Askin, Joshua Barron, John Britt, Loyola Gressot, Roy Ha, Andrew Hawthorn (observing), John Horstman, Andrew Koller, John Pitcher

Ombuds:
Brandon Wagner

Letter of Accusation:
The honor council received a letter from a lower level humanities professor. The letter stated that Student A had plagiarized portions of his first and last papers (the last paper was based on the first paper).

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled "Not In Violation"

Opening:
Student A opened by explaining that the first paper had been handed in late to the professor, because he thought that the paper had already been handed in, but that when the professor said that he was short his first paper grade, he submitted the first paper. He also stated that his last paper had used sections from his first paper, because it was permitted in the prompt for the assignment.

Testimony:
Student A was asked why there was no bibliography on his first paper, and he said it was because he forgot to hand it in the first time. He also stated that the reason why he did not cite sources after each paragraph was that he felt putting them at the end was sufficient. He admitted that he was careless in this class but said that it was largely due to the fact that he felt the class was extremely lax when it came to text citations. He said that he had been more careful in other classes. When asked if he had copied and pasted large sections, Student A said that he had not, though he might have done it a little bit with small sections.

The professor from the course then came to the Council as a witness. After being sworn in, the professor answered questions from both the Council and the accused. When asked if the Code had ever been discussed in class, the professor said it had been mentioned one day, and that the discussion centered on how to cite the professor’s lectures in one’s paper. When asked if the professor would consider Student A’s final paper a double-submission, the professor was unsure. The paper that was submitted was insufficient in meeting the professor’s expectations, but the professor was not sure if this also was an Honor Code violation.

The questioning then turned to the sections of the paper that were identical in the accused student’s paper and in the internet sources. The professor said that one would need to cite where quotes came from “as you would on any paper.” The hand-in procedure for the first paper that was lost was also discussed. Student A said that he had handed in the paper to the professor’s box. The professor also summed up the citation issues by saying that while the accused had incorrectly cited several passages, the main problem with the paper as far as the Honor Code was concerned were the large sections that were word-for-word the same as the internet sources and not attributed in any way inside the text.

With no further questions, the professor was excused. Student A was asked about his feelings on the failure to cite the direct quotes, and he said it was due to sloppiness, but not from an intention to mislead. He also emphasized that all the problems were due to a miscommunication, not a deliberate attempt to violate the code. Student A also mentioned that this was a very stressful time, and asked the Council to consider the fact that he had not violated the Code in the past, and apologized for making a mistake. With no further questions for the Council, Student A began to make a closing, but was interrupted by the phone and the professor calling to append the testimony.

The professor said that based on the guidelines for the final paper, Student A could have either written on a different topic or expanded upon his original topic. However, Student A wrote about a different topic in addition to his first topic, but added his first topic to the paper, and thus the professor felt that the way the first paper was used in the final paper did constitute an Honor Code violation. The professor endeavored to find Student A’s proposal for the final paper and returned to the Council. However, the only thing the professor could find was an email from the accused that discussed the proposal, not the actual proposal. This email was submitted as evidence.

After the professor left the Council for a second time, the accused was given a second chance to make a closing statement. The accused said that the email was an example of how he and the professor had talked a lot about the final paper, and thus pointed to the fact that it was acceptable from an Honor Code standpoint to submit the final topic the way he did. He also spoke to his poor attendance in the class by saying attendance was not part of the grade and that he felt that he had done enough to pass the course. The problem had come about because both he and the professor were busy people, and the discrepancy on the paper should not have come to this.

Deliberation:
The Council members first expressed their initial reactions. They felt that there was clearly plagiarism on the case, and some members felt that the accused was also in-violation because the final paper used sections from the first paper, though others felt that it was too ambiguous. Some members also mentioned that the Council needed to insure that the remorse of the accused and any ignorance on the rules of citation were not used as a mitigating circumstance. One member mentioned that this was not a case of paraphrasing sections and neglecting to cite the source, but that this was direct plagiarism.

Since there seemed to be a consensus among the Council members that a violation had occurred, Straw Poll #1 was taken.

Straw Poll #1: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 9 + 1 observing
No: 0
Abstain: 0

This straw poll was then made binding. The Council then took a straw poll on whether or not Student A was “In Violation” of the Honor Code.

Straw Poll #2: Is student A in violation?
Yes: 9 + 1 observing
No: 0
Abstain: 0

This straw poll was also made binding. The Council then discussed various mitigating circumstances. It was determined that the violation did not occur due to an action unknown to the accused. It was also determined that this was not an action that came under severe emotional stress. Any stress that led to the violation was academic and is something with which all Rice students in general are expected to contend.

The Council then discussed cooperation. Some members felt that the accused did not cooperate, because he did not acknowledge what he did was wrong. Others argued that he was fairly forthcoming in explaining what he did. However, some members countered this argument by explaining how they felt that the accused had tried to make up stories to make his violation seem non-existent. Some members expressed doubts as to whether the first paper had ever been handed in the first time, but other members said that there was not enough evidence to prove that it had not.

The Council then discussed whether the nature of the violation supported reducing the penalty. Some felt it did, because some of the paper had not been plagiarized, so this violation was less severe than simply handing in an Internet paper. Others, however, felt that the weight of the paper was significant enough to warrant no mitigation, as a violation could always have been worse.

Straw Poll #3: Penalty for Student A
F+2: 4 + 1 Observing
F+1: 3 Observing
F: 0
Abstain: 2

Those voting for an F in the course and a one semester suspension were asked why they chose this penalty. They felt that the violation could have been worse, and for the even worse violations the violation could be classified as heinous. Of the two abstaining members, one was considering whether or not cooperation was warranted, and decided that based on the testimony the accused had not been cooperative. The other member simply wanted to hear more discussion. One member said that since the accused student had plagiarized on two assignments, it was as bad as just taking a source off the Internet. This caused those that felt that nature of the violation warranted mitigation to change their minds.

Straw Poll #4: Penalty for Student A
F+2: 9 + 1 Observing
F+1: 0
Abstain: 0

Straw Poll #4 was then made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A “In Violation” of the Honor Code and recommends the student receive a grade of “F” in the course and a two semester suspension.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour, 30 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Barron

Clerk

Last modified Sunday, October 10, 2004 08:22 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu