Abstract of the Honor Council
Case 27, Spring 2005
April 14, 2005

Members Present:
John Horstman (Presiding), Andrew Hawthorn, Amy Askin, Jeb Britt, Julia Bursten, Mariam Chugthai, Chris Edwards, Robby Nelson, Travis Youngblood, Ryan Stinnett (Observing)

Ombuds:
Peter Choo

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor of a lower-level Humanities class.  The letter accused Student A of directly using material from outside sources without citing those sources in his paper.

Evidence Submitted:

• Letter of accusation
• Written statement
• Assignment prompt
• E-mails sent by professor to class (2)
• Deposition of professor
• Deposition of student’s friend
• Evidence gathered by investigator
• Paper with notes by investigator
• Possible sources found by investigator
• Original paper, with notes from professor
• Possible sources, presented by professor
• Rough draft of paper in question, with notes from professor
• Course syllabus
• Cited sources
• Article given to class
• Faculty handbook from Honor Council website with marked passages
• Note cards used by the accused during paper research and writing
• Explanation of citations presented by accused

Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation”

Testimony:
The accused presented verbiage of a section of the Honor System Faculty Handbook and asked that the case be dismissed due to the faculty member not returning his paper and intentionally misleading him about where his paper was and when it would be returned.  The accused stated that he believes that the professor did not act in an ethical manner in handling this case.

The accused explained that he was under intense academic stress and was rushing to submit his paper and was sloppy in citing his sources.  The accused referred to a deposition presented as evidence which talked about depression and emotional distress.

The accused presented note cards which showed where he took notes before writing his paper.  He explained that the note cards indicated the sources and he likely mixed up the citations when indicating them in his paper.

The accused explained that he had not been treated for depression or his emotional distress.

Council members asked questions about the style of citation used and whether or not the accused thought quotation marks were required.  Additional questions were asked about the use of outside sources and clearing them with the professor prior to the paper being turned in for a grade.  Additional questions were asked about the intent of the use of outside sources in the paper.

The accused explained that he did not ask for clarification on the citation style the professor required and that he has used several styles in the past.  He also explained that he would not have changed his method of citation if he had not been under emotional distress.

In closing, the accused explained that he would never do anything intentionally to jeopardize a grade.  He explained that he was trying to provide citation for the sources in his paper and that he mixed up areas of citation by mistake.

Deliberation:
During initial deliberations, Council members felt that a violation had occurred.  Council members discussed the Honor System faculty guidelines that were presented as evidence and determined that the argument was of no relevance to the case.

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

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

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

Straw polls 1 and 2 were made binding.

The Council began penalty deliberations by discussing the argument of stress that was presented by the accused.  The Council believed that the accused presented testimony about academic stress, and not emotional distress.

The Council discussed the testimony of the accused that a mistake was made while citing the work in question. and the amount of work that was plagiarized in the paper. 

Council members expressed that they could not find any mitigating factors that applied to this case. 

Council members discussed the attempt to cite and the parenthetical references that appeared in the paper.

Council members discussed the professor’s remarks that the use of outside sources was discouraged. 

Additional discussion centered around the remarks the professor made about the rough draft.  Council members reviewed the professor’s deposition to understand how the paper was submitted for review by the professor.

The Council engaged in a brief discussion about whether or not they felt this violation was heinous.

A straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #3: Penalty for Student A
F + 2: 6 +1
F + 1: 1
F in course: 1
Zero on assignment: 0
Letter of reprimand: 0
Abstentions: 1

The Council again discussed whether or not any grounds for mitigation existed.  Those members who mitigated during the previous straw poll presented their arguments. 

Some Council members did not feel that the accused was cooperative and made a good faith plea of “in violation.”

A straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #4: Penalty for Student A
F + 2: 9 + 1
F + 1: 0
F in course: 0
Abstentions: 0

With a unanimous decision, Straw Poll #4 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 he receive an “F” in the course and two semester suspension.  A Prior Violation Flag is also attached to his record.

Time of hearing and deliberation: 2 hours 30 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Andrew Hawthorn
Clerk