Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case 14, Fall 2004
February 16, 2005

Members Present:
Chris Edwards (presiding), John Brawley, Jeb Britt, Julia Bursten, Cindy Farrar, Roy Ha, Ashley-Rachelle Head, Andrew Koller, Zach Thomas

Ombuds:
Peter Choo

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from the instructor of a lower level science course accusing Student A of plagiarizing large sections of a course paper verbatim from an essay found online.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation.”

Testimony:
In her opening statement, Student A admitted a failure to properly cite and quote references. She found the sources used in writing the paper and submitted them for Council perusal and stated that the writing style was consistent with other papers submitted for the course and that she purchased no papers online. When asked by the Council about the very close similarities between the submitted paper and a paper found online, Student A claimed the similarities in wording were coincidental and that the submitted paper was paraphrased from original sources.

In her closing statement, Student A expressed embarrassment and shame at the situation and indicated the level of cooperation in producing the sources used in writing the paper and gave some extenuating circumstances as possible bases for mitigation.

Deliberation:
The Council concluded quickly that a violation occurred. It was clear to Council members that the paper was directly taken from an alternate source, instead of paraphrased from the sources given that large portions of the paper were almost word for word copies of a paper found online. The Council took a poll to confirm this consensus.

Straw Poll #1: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstain: 0

Straw Poll #2: Is Student A in Violation?
Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Polls 1 and 2 were made binding.

In penalty deliberations, the Council determined that there was no evidence to suggest that mitigation based on actions unknown to the accused student or extreme and unusual emotional distress leading the accused student to violate the Honor Code was warranted. The Council then discussed how much cooperation was offered. It was felt that not all details of the case were disclosed and that Student A had attempted to mislead the Council. There was some discussion of mitigation based on the fact that the paper was worth only a small portion of the course’s final grade.

Based on what some Council members felt was active deception in testimony by Student A, the Council discussed whether or not the violation was heinous. Some members felt that deliberately misleading testimony combined with the manifold nature of the violation constituted serious damage to the academic atmosphere of the University. Other members felt that an attempt to defend her actions did not constitute a heinous violation. A straw poll was taken to gauge Council opinion officially:

Straw Poll #3: Is the Violation heinous?
Yes: 1
No: 8
Abstentions: 0

Since there was insufficient support for declaring the violation heinous, the Council moved onto discussion of the penalty. Initially, some members were hesitant to agree on the penalty before thinking more about the level of mitigation to apply. However, these members considered the facts of the case and could not find sufficient grounds for mitigation.

Straw Poll #5: Penalty for Student A
F + 2: 9
F + 1: 0
Abstentions: 0

With a unanimous decision, Straw poll #5 was made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A “In Violation” of the Honor Code and recommends to the Assistant Dean of Student Judicial Programs that she receive a grade of “F” in the course and a two semester suspension. A Prior Violation Flag is also attached to her record.

Time of hearing and deliberation: 2 hours

Respectfully Submitted,

Roy Ha

Clerk

Last modified Wednesday, March 21, 2005 08:30 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu