Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #10, Spring 2005
February 3, 2005

Members Present:
Chris Edwards (Chair), John Britt, Matthew Mino, Cindy Farrar (Observing), Robby Nelson (Observing), Zack Thomas, Roy Ha, Elspeth Simpson, Brandon Mack, Ashley-Rachelle Head, Andrew Hawthorn

Ombuds:
Pete Choo

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a graduate level science course. The letter accused Student A of plagiarism on an assignment, which was a violation of the Honor Code policy for the course. The assignment was alleged to contain large sections of text taken from work found in published scientific articles without proper citation.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A plead "In Violation "

Testimony:
Student A pled "In Violation," testifying that he made a mistake by not citing the article that was used extensively in his assignment's introduction. He would later testify that he probably should have notated more clearly where significant portions of text came from in other sections of his assignment. However, he further testified that did not try to misrepresent other's work as his own in these other sections.

When questioned about other sections of text that appeared to be lifted directly from other published works without proper citation, Student A pointed the Council to one non-standard reference in the body of his assignment.

The Council questioned Student A about the citation standards he had used in other papers. Student A testified that he had not written a paper for publication in international journals before (although this paper was not for publication, the assignment prompt asked that it be written as if this were the case). Upon further clarification by Council members, Student A testified that he had written papers at institutions other than Rice University, and had also published work under what may have been different standards. Student A then testified that he was aware that if a paper was to be submitted for publication in a journal, then every word in it should be the authors.

Student A testified that he did not read the assignment prompt, and thus did not know that this assignment was supposed to be written as if it were to be submitted for publication. He also testified that because of his lack of background in the particular scientific discipline of this course in question, he did not understand large sections of the papers he was reading. Because of this lack of understanding, Student A felt that it would be appropriate to take sections from the journals and use them in his assignment; but he testified that he felt these sections were cited appropriately enough for the professor. Student A testified that he assumed his evaluator would read the articles that had been used first, and then read Student A's assignment. In this way, it would be clear what work was from Student A and what work was from other author's publications. He testified that he never tried to hide that other authors created a majority of his submitted assignment.

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 overwhelmingly clear and convincing to make such a decision. The Council did not concur with Student A's belief that his citations were appropriate. Student A had testified that this assignment would not have been appropriate for publication, and the Honor System does not accept that any assignment can contain plagiarized work, whether for publication or not, without explicit authorization from the instructor. There was no link between the authors mentioned and the extensive amount of text used. 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
Abstentions: 0

Another straw poll was taken to establish whether Student A was "In Violation" of the Honor Code.

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 with respect to determining a penalty. First, mitigating circumstances were evaluated. Many members of the Council argued that extreme and unusual emotional distress that led the accused to violate the Honor Code did not apply in this case. Furthermore, some members argued that because the assignment did have the articles used mentioned in the work cited that the nature of the violation could 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 was able to credibly argue that the violation resulted from an action unknown to the accused student.

Some members discussed the possibility of a heinous violation because of how much of Student A's assignment was taken from other sources without proper citation. While most of the Council felt that the violation was of a severe nature, it was clear that there was insufficient support to declare the violation heinous. A straw poll was taken to gauge the opinion at this point of what the Council felt the appropriate penalty should be.

Almost every member agreed that Student A's intent was a factor he or she could not safely weigh. The very vague and obviously inappropriate citation standards used in Student A's assignment did not, they argued, reflect an intent to document sources properly. Furthermore, many members found the testimony that the professor of the class was supposed to read the other articles and then discern what was and was not Student A's work to be untenable; especially since Student A testified that he wouldn't have submitted a paper like this (referring to the citation) for publication. Such testimony from Student A demonstrated, the Council felt, an awareness of what proper citation standards were. After more discussion the Council decided to take another straw poll, the results of which achieved the necessary 6/9 agreement.

Members of the Council who were arguing for a grade of "F" in the course and a 1 semester suspension reiterated that they were using Student A's cooperation with the Council to mitigate down from an F in the course and a 2 semester suspension. Most members, however, believed that Student A did not fully disclose the relevant information necessary to justify a reduction in the penalty based on cooperation alone.

Another straw poll was taken to see if the members that had moved in their decision.

Straw Poll #6
F+2 Semester Suspension: 7 (+1 observing, non-binding vote)
F+1 Semester Suspension: 2 (+1 observing, non-binding vote)
Abstentions: 0

The results of straw poll #5 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A "In Violation" of the Honor Code and recommends a penalty of a grade of "F" in the course and a 2 semester suspension.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour, 40 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Matt Mino

Clerk

Last modified Saturday, February 12, 2005 10:13 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu