Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #26, Spring 2004
October 5, 2004

Members Present:
Chris Edwards (presiding), Loyola Gressot, John Brawley, Zach Thomas, Tina Chen, Amy Pollard, Andrew Traverso, Roy Ha, Karoline Pershell

Ombuds:
Brandon Wagner, Peter Choo (observing)

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in and upper level engineering class. The letter accused Student A of plagiarism by using a solution presented in a textbook and claiming it as her own.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled "In Violation."


Testimony:
Student A opened by stating that she was in violation of the Code by not citing the source but had not looked at the sample solution. Student A said that she had used this text book as a supplemental material throughout the semester for clarification. The textbook presented a step by step method for solving problems of the nature of the one assigned and provided equations and correction factors for doing so. Student A argued that by following the process laid out in the textbook, there was little room for variation in finding a solution and that all similarity found between her work and the solution proposed by the textbook could be explained by following the same procedure. The student also stated that the variation was constrained by the limitations imposed by the prompt. The student said she had not felt a citation was needed at the time, since the Honor Code policy did not set out strict requirements for citations, only asking that they be used when appropriate. The student said she had approached the project like a job assignment where a citation for using equations and processes would not be indicated. Student A stated that she had solved the problem herself and offered her preliminary solutions as evidence of the fact that she had done the work herself. Student A denied awareness that the sample solution existed in the textbook.

The Council then heard testimony from the professor of the class. The professor confirmed Student A’s statements that the similarities between the solutions would be explained by following the same process. The professor stated she was unaware at the time of the accusation that the alleged source gave a different method for solving problems from the one taught in class and had only seen the similarities between the sample solution and student A’s project. The witness stated that this new information, coupled with the student’s notes, explained most of these and that she now believed the student’s project was the student’s own work. The witness and the student both agreed that the solution was only part of the project and that a complete project could not have been taken directly from the alleged source. The witness stated that there was still a small section of the project that seemed questionable as to whether the student did use the solution presented in the textbook as the wordings were very similar, but that it was such a minor part that a citation would have sufficed. The professor also told the Council that in her academic discipline while it is acceptable to use equations and constants without a citation, it is inappropriate to use such a detailed process without one. The professor stated that students using the process given in the course textbook and the course notes did not cite their textbooks about half the time.

In her closing statement, Student A reiterated that she had failed to cite her source but that she had not used the sample solution at all.

Deliberation:
All Council members agreed that plagiarism of the solution had not occurred. Members disagreed as to whether Student A’s failure to cite the source constituted a violation. Some members felt that the Honor Code Policy for the class was vague and questioned whether this lack of citation would be considered a violation. Others felt it was the student’s responsibility to clarify any questions with the professor and that ignorance is not an excuse under the Honor Code. Several members were felt that since it was not considered a violation to use the course textbook without a citation, then using a similar amount of information from a different textbook should be considered a violation either. Other members were concerned that had the accuser known all of the information, the issue would not have been brought to the Honor Council.

Straw Poll #1: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 6
No: 1
Abstain: 2

Abstaining members said they were trying to decide if in fact failure to cite an outside source constituted a violation of the professor’s Honor Code Policy. The sentiment that this seemed to be a technical violation was expressed. Other Council members stated that it is the job of the Honor Council to determine whether or not a violation occurred regardless of nature, which would come into play in penalty deliberations. Others were still concerned that citing a course textbook and an outside textbook seemed to be the same thing and should be treated as such under an Honor Code policy.

Straw Poll #2: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 8
No: 1
Abstain: 0

Straw Poll #2 was made binding. Thus the Honor Council finds Student A "Not in Violation" of the Honor Code.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 2 hours, 42 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Loyola Gressot
Clerk

Last modified Sunday, October 10, 2004 08:31 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu