Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #23, Spring 2004
October 28, 2004

Members Present:
Chris Edwards (presiding), John Britt, Neal Carlson (non-binding vote), Cindy Farrar (non-binding vote), John Horstman, Jonathan Jackson, Marcie Jackson, Matt Mino, Elspeth Simpson, Zach Thomas, Amy Tilley

Ombuds:
Dennis Li (Brandon Wagner supervising)

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a panel of professors from a graduate-level course. The letter accused Students A, B, C, D, and E of turning in a group project with sections plagiarized from internet sources. Due to the nature of the assignment, the project was also distributed to groups outside of Rice.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation.” Students B, C, D, and E pled “Not In Violation.”

Testimony:
In his opening statement, Student A admitted that he was responsible for the sections of the group project in question and that he used the alleged source material in those sections without properly citing it according to the standards expected of Rice University students. Student A explained that he did, however, make an effort to cite according to the standards he has been taught and did not intend to misrepresent someone else’s work as his own. He also explained how the part of the assignment in question was very minor background information.

In their opening statements, Students B, C, D, and E agreed that the part of the assignment in question was minor. Each student also explained that he assumed all of Student A’s work on the project to be original and properly cited. Due to the large scale of the project in question, none of the Students B, C, D, or E felt like they could have been reasonably expected to know that Student A’s section contained plagiarized material.

The Honor Council then heard from three witnesses. The first witness, one of the accusers, explained that the assignment in question was graded as if no violation had occurred. He went on to explain the grading procedures in the class in which the alleged violation occurred. The second witness, a student, explained his experiences with team dynamics with regards to group projects similar to the one in question. The third witness, another student, talked about his experiences with citation expectations during his time at Rice.

In their closing statements, the accused students reiterated the points they made in their opening statements. One of the accused urged the Honor Council to keep in mind the spirit of the law in its deliberations.

Deliberation:
The majority of the Council felt that Students B, C, D, and E were “Not In Violation” of the Honor Code because they could not have reasonably known that a part of their group project, to which they did not contribute, contained plagiarized material. Most Council members felt that Student A had violated the Honor Code by not fulfilling his duty to properly cite according to the course’s standards.

A straw poll was taken to assess where the Council stood on whether or not a violation occurred.

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

The Council discussed the difference between improper citation and plagiarism, as it related to the section of the project in question. After this discussion, Council members were ready to vote on whether each of the accused students had violated the Honor Code.

Straw Poll #2: Did Student A violate the Honor Code?
Yes: 9 (+2 non-binding)
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #3: Did Student B violate the Honor Code?
Yes: 1
No: 8 (+2 non-binding)
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #4: Did Student C violate the Honor Code?
Yes: 1
No: 8 (+2 non-binding)
Abstentions: 0
Straw Poll #5: Did Student D violate the Honor Code?
Yes: 1
No: 8 (+2 non-binding)
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #6: Did Student E violate the Honor Code?
Yes: 1
No: 8 (+2 non-binding)
Abstentions: 0

Straw Polls #1-6 were made binding.

The Honor Council then moved into penalty deliberations for Student A. The Council considered each of the mitigating circumstances outlined in the Consensus Penalty Structure separately. Most Council members agreed to mitigate for cooperation because they felt that Student A’s plea of “In Violation” was made in good faith. Council members also felt like Student A had been forthcoming in his testimony and in providing evidence for the hearing. One member felt that the mitigating for actions unknown to the accused was appropriate because Student A thought he was using proper citations according to the guidelines he knew. None of the Council members felt that extreme and unusual emotional distress was an issue in this case. Some Council members felt that because the part of the assignment in question was a minor part of the overall project, the violation was not of a serious nature. Others felt like the violation was relatively minor because Student A had attempted to cite his work. These members mitigated based on the nature of the violation.

Various penalties were suggested and a straw poll was taken to see where Council members stood. The penalty F in the course plus a 2-semester suspension was automatically considered according to the Consensus Penalty Structure. A straw poll was taken for evaluating initial penalty options.

A member that abstained was unsure about the idea of requesting Student A to resubmit the corrected project to outside groups. The Council discussed this issue and whether a punitive or rehabilitative penalty was needed in this case. Several Council members suggested that a 1/3 letter grade reduction on the assignment and a re-write with resubmission to the outside groups would serve as a good compromise. A second penalty straw poll was taken.

Several members felt strongly that the plagiarized work needed to be corrected and resubmitted to the groups outside of Rice that received it. Others felt like the Council should not get involved in matters outside of Rice. The Council agreed that a good compromise would be to suggest, but not require that a corrected version of the project be given to the groups outside of Rice that received the plagiarized copy. A third penalty straw poll was taken.

The Council further discussed the differences between the penalty options for the sake of those Council members who were still unsure about one penalty as opposed to the other.

Straw Poll #10: Penalty for Student A
1 letter grade reduction on the assignment and a re-write of the plagiarized section with appropriate citations and a suggested resubmission of the corrected version of the project to the groups outside of Rice that received it: 3 (+2 non-binding)
1/3 letter grade reduction on the assignment and a re-write of the plagiarized section with appropriate citations and a suggested resubmission of the corrected version of the project to the groups outside of Rice that received it: 6
Abstentions: 0

A two-thirds majority was reached. The Council strove to reach a unanimous decision, but all members felt strongly towards the penalty for which they voted.

Straw Poll #10 was made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Students B, C, D, and E “Not In Violation” of the Honor Code. It finds Student A “In Violation” of the Honor Code and suggests that he receive a 1/3 letter grade reduction on the assignment in question, be required to re-write the plagiarized section of the assignment with appropriate citations, and be encouraged to resubmit the corrected version of the project to the groups outside of Rice that received the plagiarized, original copy.

Time of hearing and deliberation: 4 hours and 15 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Zach Thomas

Clerk

Last modified Saturday, February 12, 2005 10:37 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu