Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case 25, Spring 2004
October 17, 2004

Members Present:
Chris Edwards (presiding), John Britt, Matthew Mino, Brandon Mack, Amy Askin, John Horstman, Roy Ha, Tina Chen, Andrew Hawthorn, Jason Lee (observing)

Ombuds:
Brandon Wagner (Dennis Li Observing)

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a social science department. The letter accused Student A of plagiarism on an assignment that was submitted for multiple classes, which could be a violation of the classes’ Honor Code Policy. After a careful evaluation of the evidence, there also appeared to be a multiple submission violation.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled “Not In Violation”

Testimony:
Student A pled “Not In Violation,” arguing that he completed his assignment under tremendous emotional distress, but followed the Honor Code.

Student A described the circumstances surrounding these assignments. In short, a family member had recently died, and he was involved in a car accident soon after. Student A turned in all his work, but after he had received his grades, he submitted a grade appeal because he felt that the work done did not reflect the grade received. A third party, the accuser, was assigned to reevaluate Student A’s work. During this reevaluation, a number of possible citation violations appeared. These possible violations brought the case before the Honor Council.

The testimony phase of the hearing established the relationship between the different classes involved and the professors. Furthermore, time was taken to establish the history of communication between Student A and the professors involved.

Student A also went through the citation problems raised by the third party evaluator and attempted to resolve them. Student A testified that he followed the citation standards he had learned over the course of his academic career at Rice. However, he never asked if there were different citation standards among disciplines. Although there was not clear evidence to argue for the support of all the faculty members involved, Student A testified that he would not have submitted her assignment had he not believed in good faith that he had permission.

It was revealed that Professor D of Course C did not read Student A’s assignment, but still gave him a final grade for his work. It was also revealed that professors from Course B did not protest the citation of Student A’s assignments. Furthermore, Student A testified that he had used the same standards throughout the semester and there had never been any previous objections to his citation standards. The questions about Student A’s work came from the independent evaluator assigned to review the assignment.

Student A read parts of a letter from an immediate family member and also material about post-traumatic stress disorder. Student A argued that while he believed that he followed the Rice Honor Code, any ambiguity in his work resulted from the emotional stress that he was under. He argued that this ambiguity, however, did not constitute a violation of the Honor Code: all sources were cited, but perhaps not clearly as it could have been.

The Council also questioned Student A further about the permission he had to do submit an assignment for multiple classes.

Deliberation:
The Council deliberated over a number of items. First, the Council attempted to establish whether there had been a citation violation. The Council questioned whether this was a matter of poor citation or inadequate citation. Most of the deliberation, however, focused on possible problems associated with multiple submissions. The primary question considered was whether there was permission obtained from all instructors in the classes involved. The Honor System booklet specifies that a work submitted for credit in multiple classes requires the permission of the instructors in each of their respective courses.

After a long discussion and looking at the assignments and e-mail correspondence between Student A and the faculty involved, the first straw poll was taken to establish whether or not a violation had occurred.

A great deal of time was taken to establish the flow of information from different assignments and classes. This effort was made to see if the flow of data and faculty permission could be established. Another straw poll was taken to establish whether or not a violation had occurred.

One member of the Council felt that there was enough evidence to establish that there was permission granted by all faculty involved and also that there was no citation violation. After further discussion, it became clear that all members had formed their final opinions.

A final straw poll was taken to establish whether or not a violation had occurred.

Straw Poll #3: Did a Violation Occur?
Yes: 8
No: 1
Abstentions: (+1 observing, non-binding vote)

Straw poll #3 was made binding.

Thus, the Honor Code Finds Student A “Not in Violation” of the Honor Code.

Time of hearing and deliberation: 4 hours and 17 min

Respectfully Submitted,

Matt Mino

Clerk

Last modified Friday, April 1, 2005 09:34 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu