Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #6, Fall 2004
December 8, 2004

Members Present:
Chris Edwards (presiding), John Britt, Travis Youngblood, Matthew Mino, Prashant Setty, Loyola Gressot, Divya Pande, Andrew Koller, Marcie Jackson, Julia Bursten (observing), Grant Belgard (observing).

Ombuds:
Brandon Wagner

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in an upper level science class. The letter accused Student A of plagiarism on an assignment, which was a violation of the class’s Honor Code policy. The assignment appeared to be an exact replica of another student’s work, which had been submitted the previous year.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation.”

Testimony:
Student A pled “In violation,” admitting that she did submit another student’s assignment, but only as an example to see if it was what the professor wanted. She stated that she never intended to turn in the other student’s assignment as her own, but due to extreme external circumstances, she decided to use another student’s assignment at the last second. She testified that she wasn’t thinking straight and would never have done such a thing if she was not under such stress.

Student A testified that she was having personal problems. She had been making great efforts to visit her family, and this was putting great demands on her educational, extra-curricular, and family lives. Furthermore, Student A had additional family problems. Under the stress of these circumstances, Student A decided against creating her own assignment and used the assignment that she had obtained from another student.

The Council heard testimony from the student who had loaned Student A her assignment. She testified that she has been contacted a few weeks before the assignment was due and was asked for a copy of the assignment by Student A.

The Council heard testimony from a roommate of Student A. The roommate testified that Student A would frequently make the multi-hour drive to visit her family. The roommate also testified that they would often talk about Student A’s family situation. She also stated that Student A would spend her time during the weekends in the room.

Finally, the Council heard testimony from a friend of Student A. The friend testified that Student A didn’t want to go out and seemed very unhappy.

Student A ended the testimony phase of the hearing by stating that she was very sorry that this had occurred. She testified that she never meant to use her friend’s assignment and that she was always planning to create her own. At the last moment, under the pressure of all of her circumstances, she made a mistake.

Deliberation:
The Council deliberated over a number of items. First, however, the Council established that a violation had occurred. The Council discussed that Student A had pled “In Violation” and that the evidence seemed clear and convincing to make such a decision.

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

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

Another straw poll was taken to establish whether Student A was In Violation.

Straw Poll #2: Was Student A In Violation?
Yes: 9 (+2 observing, non-binding vote)
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

The results of Straw Polls #1 and #2 were made binding.

The Council then took an assessment of what they felt to be relevant for the case. First, mitigating circumstances were evaluated. Several members of the Council argued that extreme and unusual circumstances that led the accused to violate the Honor Code did apply in this case. Furthermore, some members argued that because the assignment represents a smaller percentage of Student A’s total grade that the nature of the violation could also apply as a mitigating circumstance. A few members also argued that Student A was very cooperative and fully disclosed all of the relevant information. No member argued that the violation resulted from an action unknown to the accused.

A straw poll was taken to get a sense of what the Council felt the appropriate penalty should be at this point.

Straw Poll #3
F+2 Semester Suspension: 2
F+1 Semester Suspension: 2 (+1 observing, non-binding vote)
F in the class: 2 (+1 observing, non-binding vote)
Abstentions: 3

Some members argued that Student A’s circumstances were not extreme enough to justify reducing the penalty for a violation such as this. These members argued that Student A had ways to deal with her circumstances and they argued that her behavior didn’t seem to reflect serious depression. Other members disagreed, and argued that Student A’s circumstances were very extreme and that her behavior fits what one might reasonably expect from someone struggling over very difficult personal challenges.

After more discussion the Council decided to take another straw poll.

Straw Poll #4
F+2 Semester Suspension: 2
F+1 Semester Suspension: 1 (+1 observing, non-binding vote)
F in the class: 4 (+1 observing, non-binding vote)
Abstentions: 2

Members of the Council who were arguing for a grade of “F” in the course reiterated that they were using 3 of the 4 mitigating circumstances discussed above. These members argued that the nature of the violation and the cooperation of Student A caused them to move from an F + 1 semester suspension to a grade of F in the course.

Another straw poll was taken to see whether the members that had been previously abstaining had made a decision.

Straw Poll #5
F+2 Semester Suspension: 2
F+1 Semester Suspension: 1 (+1 non-binding vote)
F in the class: 6 (+1 non-binding vote)
Abstentions: 0

Since the Council had reached its burden of 2/3 agreement on a penalty, a final poll was taken to make the results of straw poll #5 binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A “In Violation” of the Honor Code and recommends that she receive a grade of “F” in the course in question. A prior violation flag is also attached to her record.

Time of hearing and deliberation: 2 hours and 45 min

Respectfully Submitted,

Matt Mino

Clerk

Last modified Wednesday, January 26, 2005 09:27 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu