Abstract of the Honor Council
Case 18, Fall 2004
March 22, 2005

Members Present:

Chris Edwards (presiding), Amy Askin, John Britt, Mariam Chughtai, Roy Ha, Andrew Hawthorn, John Horstman, Elspeth Simpson, Zach Thomas

Ombuds:

Jeff Wheelhouse, Brandon Wagner (supervising)

Letter of Accusation:

The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from an instructor in a mid-level architecture course.  The letter accused Student A of directly copying material from textbooks during an exam, without acknowledging the sources in her submission.

Evidence Submitted:

• Letter of accusation
• Written statements from investigative meeting
• Exam in question (with some allegedly plagiarized sections underlined by the instructor)
• Final Exam Questions and Instructions
• Website identified by the investigation, with salient sections highlighted by investigator
• Excerpts from course reader, with salient sections highlighted by investigator (3)
• Deposition of Instructor
• Deposition of university administrator
• Depositions of other students in the course (4)
• Class Syllabus
• Mid-Term Exam of the Accused
• Textbooks in the course alleged to have been plagiarized
• Final Exam of other randomly selected student in the course

Plea:

Student A pled “In Violation.”

Testimony:

Student A pled, “In Violation,” explaining that because English was not her first language, she often memorized areas of the text.  She explained that while taking the exam, she ran out of time and intended to go back and cite the areas that were taken directly from the texts.  Student A explained that during her mid-term exam, she used quotations and parenthetical references to indicate areas where she had used material directly from the textbooks.  She stated that after the mid-term exam, the instructor remarked that her citation style was more sophisticated than the instructor expected which led Student A to believe that citation was not necessary.

The Council asked Student A questions about the instructor’s expectations and the degree to which the instructor explained the class policy on plagiarism during an exam.  Student A stated that there was no discussion of plagiarism at any time during the course.

The Council heard from Witness A, another student in the course whose presence was requested by Student A.  Student A asked Witness A questions about the course, the exam, and the discussion of plagiarism.  Witness A testified that the instructor did not discuss their expectation for citation nor their policy on plagiarism during the course.  Witness A also testified to the difficulty of the exam. 

Student A ended her testimony stating that she intended to go back and cite the areas in question, but did not have time to do so within the allowed time for the exam.

Deliberation:

The Council began the deliberations by discussing whether or not the instructor had discussed plagiarism during the course and if the plagiarism policy was clearly stated.  Council members remarked about how the students did not remember any discussion of plagiarism, given the level of detail of the explanation the instructor provided in the letter of accusation.  Some members questioned the credibility of the witness.  There was some discussion of the use of non-approved sources during the exam.  A straw poll was taken to establish whether or not a violation had occurred.

There was discussion among Council members as to whether the instructor was clear about the citation standard for the course.  Some Council members referred to Student A’s written statement and concluded that Student A did have an understanding of the instructor’s policy.

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

Straw Poll #2: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstain: 0

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

Straw Poll #3: Is the accused student In Violation?
Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstain: 0

Straw Poll #2 and #3 were made binding.

The Council moved into 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 discussed whether Student A had entered a plea of “In Violation” in good faith and had fully disclosed the circumstances in the case.  There was some additional discussion about the credibility of the witness that was presented and degree of cooperation of the accused. 

The Council also discussed the nature of the violation.  The Council noted that Student A made a conscious decision to turn in the assignment without citations.  There was some discussion as to whether or not the nature of the violation was heinous, but the Council determined shortly thereafter that the violation could not be considered heinous.  A straw poll was taken to determine a penalty.

There was discussion among Council members about the nature of the violation including the portion of the assignment that was considered plagiarized.  There was further discussion about the severity of the violation.  Some Council members revealed that they were applying a differing amounts of mitigation based on nature of the violation.  A second straw poll was taken to determine a penalty.

The Council engaged in further discussion about the nature and severity of the violation.  Council members discussed the differences between a course-based penalty and an assignment-based penalty.  A third penalty straw poll was taken.

The Council continued to discuss the nature and severity of the violation and discussed whether the areas of the assignment that were plagiarized were facts or an author’s analysis.  A fourth straw poll was taken.

The Council in this straw poll met its burden of a 2/3 majority in reaching a binding decision on penalty.  However, in an attempt to strive for unanimity further discussion about the penalty took place, involving further consideration of circumstances previously mentioned.  A fifth and final penalty straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #8: Penalty for Student A
Zero on the assignment: 9
F on the assignment: 0
1 letter grade reduction in course: 0
Abstentions: 0

With a unanimous decision, Straw Poll #8 was made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A “In Violation” of the Honor Code and recommends to the Assistant Dean of Student Judicial Programs that she receive a grade of “0” on the assignment in question.  A Prior Violation Flag is also attached to her record.

Time of hearing and deliberation: 3 hours, 30 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Andrew Hawthorn
Clerk