Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #5, Fall 2004
November 22, 2004

Members Present:
Chris Edwards (presiding), Casey Bonfield (observing), John Brawley, Jeb Britt, Julia Bursten (observing), Mariam Chughtai, Roy Ha, Jon Jackson, Andrew Koller, Divya Pande, Becky Thilo

Ombuds:
Risa Gordon (observing), Dennis Li

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a mid-level humanities class accusing Student B of plagiarizing Student A’s assignment.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation.” Student B pled “In Violation.”

Testimony:
Student B opened by stating that he was up late working on many assignments and exercised poor judgment in using Student A’s paper to write his own paper. Student B said that Student A had conversed with him about the assignment and then subsequently decided to go to sleep. Student B stated that discussion of the concepts and ideas in assignments for the course was allowed under the Professor’s Honor Code policy. Student B stated that before Student A went to sleep, Student A gave him a hard copy of his paper with the intention that it be used as a guide for concepts and general ideas. Student B added that the paper was not mandatory as the lowest paper grade in the class is dropped.

Student A opened with a reiteration that working together in the class was within the guidelines of the course syllabus, provided that it was a discussion of concepts and ideas. Student A stated that he felt he had crossed the line in giving his assignment to Student B but he felt bad because he couldn’t stay up any longer to discuss the concepts and ideas in the assignment. Student A stated that he gave Student B his assignment only as a guide from which Student B could understand the main ideas and draw his own conclusions. Student A said that he did not remember whether he gave Student B a paper or electronic copy of his assignment.

The Council asked for clarification on whether Student A gave Student B a paper copy or an electronic copy of his assignment. Student B responded that Student A had given him a hard copy. The Council asked how much time Students A and B had spent talking about the concepts in the assignment before Student A gave Student B his assignment. Students A and B both responded by saying that they had spent 20 minutes or less discussing concepts. The Council asked Student B how much of the assignment in question was his own work. Student B stated that perhaps 50% of the assignment was his own work.

In Student A’s closing statement he said that it was an isolated incident and that they had discussed ideas and concepts in previous assignments without sharing documents. He also stated that his intent was not to violate the Honor Code.

In Student B’s closing statement he apologized to Student A for not using Student A’s paper as Student A intended. Student B took responsibility for his actions stating that there was no excuse and that he was sorry.

Deliberation:
The Council agreed that a violation occurred and that Student A was in violation of the Honor Code. There was some discussion as to the exact nature of the violation and noted that the course syllabus allowed discussion of concepts, but explicitly stated that sharing of specific answers was not allowed.

Straw Poll #1: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 9 + 2 non-binding votes
No: 0
Abstain: 0 + 1 Observing

Straw Poll #2: Is there clear and convincing evidence that Student A is In Violation of the Honor Code?
Yes: 9 + 2 non-binding votes
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #3: Is there clear and convincing evidence that Student B is In Violation of the Honor Code?
Yes: 9 + 2 non-binding votes
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Polls 1,2 and 3 were then made binding.

Penalty Deliberations
The Council divided the penalty phase to create separate penalty deliberations for Student A and for Student B.

Student A
The Council began by discussing the integrity of credits and how that applied to the case when aid was given as opposed to received. The Council then discussed mitigating circumstances. The Council varied in the severity with which it thought Student A violated the Honor Code. The Council agreed that it should not mitigate based on actions unknown to the accused or emotional distress but should mitigate heavily based on full disclosure, cooperation and the nature of the violation. Some members also chose to mitigate based on Student A’s intent.

Straw Poll #4: Penalty for Student A
1/3 of a letter grade reduction in the course: 3
Letter of reprimand: 6 + 1 non-binding vote
50% grade reduction on the assignment: 0 + 1 non-binding vote
Abstentions: 0

The Council then strove for unanimity but the Council members varied in the extent to which they felt mitigation applied and would not change their vote to reach a unanimous decision. Some Council members felt that the violation was more technical and that a grade reduction was not warranted. Other Council members felt the violation was more egregious and warranted a grade reduction as a penalty.

Straw Poll #4 was then made binding. Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A “In Violation” of the Honor Code and recommends that he receive a letter of reprimand. A prior violation flag is also attached to his record.

Student B
The Council began by discussing mitigating factors. The Council agreed that severe emotional distress and actions unknown to the accused did not apply. There was some controversy as to whether Student B used an electronic copy or a paper copy of Student A’s assignment to create his assignment. Particularly in light of some technical, grammatical and formatting similarities in the assignments the Council did not feel that Student A was entirely forthcoming with his assertion that he used a hard copy to create his assignment. The Council noted that there was hardly any material in Student B’s assignment that was not contained in Student A’s assignment. The Council did not feel that it should mitigate heavily based on cooperation or the nature of the violation. Some Council members expressed concern over suspension but could not find sufficient reasons to mitigate below the suspension level. Other Council members chose to mitigate based on the size of the assignment or based on other factors.

Straw Poll #5
F in the course and 2 semester suspension: 1
F in the course and 1 semester suspension: 6
F in the course: 2 + 1 non-binding votes
Abstentions: 1 non-binding vote

One observing Council member abstained because he had not decided whether there was sufficient reason or not to mitigate below suspension. Striving for unanimity, the Council discussed the necessity to abide by the CPS and to have clear reasons for mitigation.

Straw Poll #6
F in the course and 2 semester suspension: 1
F in the course and 1 semester suspension: 7
F in the course: 1 + 2 non binding votes
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #6 was then made binding. Thus, the Honor Council finds Student B “In Violation” of the Honor Code and recommends that he receive a grade of “F” in the course and a one semester suspension. A prior violation flag is also attached to his record.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 4 hours, 5 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

John Brawley

Clerk

Last modified Wednesday, January 12, 2005 05:14 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu