Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case 15, Fall 2004
March 2, 2005

Members Present:
Chris Edwards (Chair), John Britt, Matthew Mino, Brandon Mack, John Horstman, Julia Bursten, Loyola Gressot, Becky Thilo, Andrew Traverso

Ombuds:
Pete Choo

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a lower level science class. The letter accused Student A of plagiarism on an assignment, which was a violation of the class’ Honor Code policy.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation.”

Testimony:
Student A pled “In Violation,” testifying that he made a mistake by not citing the electronic articles that were used in his assignment. He testified that all of the work for the assignment was done within 4 days, but also that he did not check over his work before he submitted it. In short, nothing was done with the intention to cheat the Honor System. He testified that he was doing well in the class and would never have done anything to get kicked out of Rice. This particular class required a large number of essays, which Student A stated he had completed successfully.

The Council questioned Student A about how he researched this assignment and the procedures that he normally used to write papers. The Council also asked for clarification as Student A demonstrated where the information in question had been taken from.

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 was 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
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

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 the assignment of a penalty. First, mitigating circumstances were evaluated. Some members of the Council argued that extreme and unusual circumstances 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 Student A’s input and some intent to cite articles used that the nature of the violation could also apply as a mitigating circumstance. No member argued that the violation resulted from an action unknown to the accused. A few members also argued that Student A was very cooperative and fully disclosed all of the relevant information. A straw poll was taken to get a rough sense of what the Council felt the appropriate penalty should be.

Members debated whether the semester suspension was an appropriate punishment in this case. Those that felt that it was inappropriate argued that the cooperation of Student A and some effort on his part to cite the sources demonstrated a need to reduce the consensus penalty from a grade of “F” in the course and a two-semester suspension down to a grade of “F” in the course. These members argued that Student A’s plea of “In Violation” demonstrated an awareness of his mistake that would not allow this violation to happen again. 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 course argued that Student A brought in additional information and marked where he took the information in question. These members also argued that the Honor Council needed to protect the integrity of Rice credits, and so a 0 on the assignment was not an appropriate penalty. A third penalty straw poll was taken to see if any members that had moved in their decision, which yielded an abstention. The abstaining member suggested a 1-letter grade reduction in the class as another possible penalty. A fourth and final straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #6
F+1 Semester Suspension: 1
F: 7
1 letter grade reduction in class: 1
Abstentions: 0

The results of Straw Poll #6 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.

Time of hearing and deliberation: 1 hour and 17 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Matt Mino

Clerk

Last modified Friday, April 1, 2005 11:27 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu