Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #9, Fall 2004
February 1, 2005

Members Present:
Chris Edwards (presiding), Amy Pollard, John Britt, Andrew Hawthorn, Brandon Mack, Mariam Chughtai, Ashley-Rachelle Head, John Horstman, Marcie Jackson, Casey Bonfield (observing)

Ombuds:
Risa Gordon

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a mid-level business class. The letter accused Student A of plagiarism, which was a violation of the class’s Honor Code policy. The assignment appeared to contain direct quotes from numerous Internet sources without any citation.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation."

Testimony:
Student A pled “In Violation,” admitting to directly quoting Internet sources without proper citation. He stated that he believed the sections he included in his assignment were common knowledge and did not require citation. He further stated that he believed the Internet sources he utilized were suggested by the professor and therefore were not necessary to cite.

Student A testified that he was having personal problems. He stated that a family medical emergency caused him to rush through the assignment in order to return home as quickly as possible. He explained that his worry for his family led to the rushed assignment and the improper citation, and that if he had had more time, he would have reviewed his work more carefully.

Student A ended the testimony phase of the hearing by stating that he was very sorry the violation had occurred and that he was eager to resolve the situation.

Deliberation:
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 2 hours, 26 minutes Initial polling of the hearing panel indicated that the overwhelming weight of the material evidence, coupled with Student A’s plea and testimony, left no room for the possibility that Student A was not “In Violation.” A straw poll was taken to establish whether or not a violation had occurred.

Straw Poll #1: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 9 (+1 non-binding)
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

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

Straw Poll #2: Was Student A “In Violation”?
Yes: 9 (+1 non-binding)
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 to the penalty deliberations for the case. First, mitigating circumstances were evaluated. Several members of the Council argued that severe emotional distress was relevant. Other members argued that the emotional distress did not directly lead to the violation because Student A had known about the assignment for a month. Furthermore, some members argued that because the assignment represents a relatively small 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 the violation was not malicious in nature. The Council agreed that Student A was very cooperative and fully disclosed all of the relevant information. No member was able to argue 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.

Some members believed that strong mitigating circumstances justified a penalty no greater than a two-letter grade reduction in the course. Other members argued that the mitigating circumstances were not sufficient to mitigate below a grade of “F” in the class. The Council debated the distinctions between several of the possible penalties in order to establish which were more severe than others. After more discussion the Council decided to take another straw poll.

Members of the Council who were arguing for a grade of “F” in the class reiterated that they mitigated based on cooperation and nature, but not on emotional distress because it did not directly lead to the violation. Members arguing for a lesser penalty reiterated that emotional distress was a mitigating factor in their decision.

Another straw poll was taken to see whether council was closer to unanimity.

Straw Poll #5
F in the class: 7
2 letter grade reduction in class: 1 (+1 non-binding)
Zero on the assignment: 1
Abstentions: 0

Since the council had reached its burden of 2/3 agreement on a penalty, the results of straw poll #5 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A “In Violation” of the Honor Code and recommends that he receive a grade of “F” in the course in question. A Prior Violation Flag is also attached to his record.

Time of hearing and deliberation: 1 hour and 49 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Amy Pollard

Clerk

Last modified Saturday, February 5, 2005 11:00 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu