Abstract of the Honor Council
Case # 23, Fall 2004
May 4th 2005

Members Present:

John Horstman, Loyola Gressot, Becky Thilo, Andrew Hawthorne, Matt Mino, Rob Nelson, Ryan Stinnett, Andrew Traverso, Mariam Chughtai, Charles Lawrie (observing)

Ombuds:

Pete Choo

Letter of Accusation:

The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a lower level science course. The letter accused Student A of plagiarism from an online source for the project assigned in the course, the design of a webpage. 

Evidence Submitted:

• Letter of accusation
• Written statement
• Submitted paper
• Alleged sources (4)
• Deposition of professor
• Syllabus
• Cited sources
• Other assignments from accused

Plea:

Student A pled “In violation”

Testimony:

Student A plead “in violation” stating that he had violated the honor code through “sheer carelessness”.  Student A stated that he attempted to correctly cite the sources he used in his paper but ran out of time.  Student A explained that the professor had given two options for the class project and that students could complete both for extra credit.  Student A stated that he had exercised this option thus his paper was extra credit and he would have passed the class without it.

Student A also expressed his remorse of using inadequate citation thus violating the honor code.  Student A stated that he had already apologized to the professor of the class.  Student A stated that he was a new student who came from a small high school and was overwhelmed with the academic stress level at Rice.  Student A stated that he was struggling with two “overbearing” parents and was very unhappy to the point of depression and wanted to transfer away from Rice.

Student A was asked why his paper did include a bibliography that listed the URL of various websites, some of which did not appear to have been used.  Student A stated that he was writing his paper with various windows open on his web browser and that he retyped information into his paper.   Student A stated that he listed the websites he used in an attempt to give proper credit and that he now acknowledges that he did not succeed in giving enough credit to the sources used.   Student A stated that he was not diagnosed nor under treatment for depression by a psychiatrist, psychologist or counselor.

Student A was given the opportunity to make a closing statement as his last piece of testimony. Student A reiterated his regret in having violated the Honor Code and stated that he felt the whole experience had made him a better person as it had forced him to reevaluate his priorities and values.  Student A asked the council to consider his cooperation in penalty deliberations.

Verdict Deliberation:

The hearing panel deliberated as to the evidence and testimony heard.  Given that the provided online sources matched large portions of Student A’s paper almost exactly, there appeared to be clear and convincing evident that a violation occurred and a straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #1:  Did a violation occur?
Yes: 9 + 1 observing
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

A straw poll was then taken to decide if Student A was in violation

Straw Poll #2:  Is Student A In Violation?
Yes: 9 + 1 observing
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Polls #1 and #2 were made binding

The hearing panel then moved to penalty deliberation.  Some members wanted to make this a heinous violation stating that the citation of websites not used was a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader.  Other members felt that this fit under a heinous violation as theft of another’s work in the form of plagiarism.  A straw poll was taken

Straw Poll #3:  Was this a heinous violation?
Yes: 5 + 1 observing
No: 3
Abstentions: 1

The members against making this a heinous violation states that they felt that this was not in line with similar cases hear in the past.  The hearing panel was reminded that while making the violation a heinous one gives the council the possibility of exceeding the maximum penalty laid out in the Consensus Penalty Structure, they need not necessarily do so.  After further deliberation another straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #4:  Was this a heinous violation?
Yes: 5 + 1 observing
No: 4
Abstentions: 0

As the council felt that all valid points had been made penalty deliberations moved on to discussing mitigating circumstances.  Some members wanted to mitigate based on emotional distress.  Most members felt that undiagnosed depression did not go above and beyond what the average Rice student is expected to be able to handle.  All members felt that self accusation and violation unbeknownst to the accused did not apply.  Some wanted to mitigate based on “heart felt” full disclosure and plea of “in violation”, others felt that they did not get the full story and true motivation behind the unused citation.  Some members felt that Student A’s written statement was unhelpful as it declined to respond to the accusation citing that he had not had enough notice before the investigation to remember and reflect upon the case.  Others stated that this could not be held against him as and accused student has the right to make no statement.  Some members wanted to mitigate upon nature because student stated that he had not intended to violated the Honor Code.  Some pointed out that this was an extra credit assignment and thus worth so little in terms of overall class grade that some mitigation on nature was warranted.  Others felt that the amount of work taken almost word for word from uncited sources made this a very severe violation regardless.  A straw poll was taken.

Straw poll #5: Penalty deliberation
F in the course + 2 semester suspension: 0
F in the course + 1 semester suspension: 1
F in course: 4 + 1 observing
One letter grade reduction: 2
Zero on assignment: 0
Letter of reprimand: 0
Abstentions: 2

Some members brought up that they feel it was worse to cheat on an extra credit or small assignment than a major assignment because the student is trading in his academic integrity for such a small benefit.  Another straw poll was taken.

Straw poll #6: Penalty deliberation
F in course + 1 semester suspension: 1
F in course: 6
One letter grade reduction: 2 + one observing
Abstentions: 0

Some members brought up that they felt that Student A had obviously learned his lesson and that the assignment was such a minor part of his grade that a less harsh penalty was warranted.  Another straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #7: Penalty deliberation
F in course + 1 semester suspension: 1
F in course: 5
Two letter grade reduction in course: 1
One letter grade reduction in course: 2 + 1 observing
Abstentions: 0

Members were reminded that remorse and rehabilitation could not be used as mitigation.  Some members brought up that they felt that evaluating nature based solely on the violation on the assignment in question rather than taking into account the worth of the assignment on the overall class grade was more in line with the blanket CPS.  Panel members felt like they had raised all relevant issues and another straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #8: Penalty deliberation
F in course + 1 semester suspension: 0
F in course: 7
Two letter grade reduction in course: 0
One letter grade reduction in course: 2 + 1 observing
Abstentions: 0

Straw poll #8 was 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.

Respectfully Submitted,

Loyola Gressot

Clerk