Abstract of the Honor Council
Cases 28 and 30, Spring 2005
May 6, 2005

Members Present:
John Horstman (Presiding), Andrew Hawthorn, Julia Bursten, Paul Campbell, Tina Chen, Mariam Chughtai, Chris Edwards, Brandon Mack, Ryan Stinnett, Ted Torous (Observing)

Ombuds:
Peter Choo

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received two letters of accusation from a professor of a lower-level Humanities class.  The letters accused Student A of directly using material from outside sources without citing them in her papers.

It should be noted that the Council received two letters of accusation and decided to combine the hearings for the two cases.  A separate vote was taken for each accusation.

Evidence Submitted:

• Letters of accusation (2)
• Written statement
• Submitted Paper A
• Professor’s alleged source for Paper A
• Student A’s notes for Paper A
• Comment on Paper A from Investigator
• Submitted Paper B
• Professor’s alleged source for Paper B
• Student A’s notes for Paper B
• E-mail from professor to class
• E-mails from professor to Student A (2)
• Syllabus
• Books used in class
• Original copies of notes for papers
• Four printed copies of sources provided by the accused

Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation” to both accusations.

Testimony:
The accused presented testimony that she recognizes that there is a problem of plagiarism but that she did not intentionally plagiarize material.

Council members asked questions about how the accused went about preparing her papers. The accused testified that she went online to get biographical information about the authors of the books despite the instruction that no outside sources were to be used when preparing a response.  The accused testified that she took notes while reviewing the web sites and that her notes may match the web site copy almost verbatim.  She testified that it is possible that she transferred information from her notes into her papers.

Council members asked questions about the use of outside sources.  The accused testified that she did not believe it was a violation of the Honor Code to consult outside sources for background material on the authors.

Council members asked questions about the accused’s notes.  Council members pointed out areas that appear to be direct quotes from the sources and asked questions about their appearance in the notes and paper.  In some instances, the accused was unable to explain why they appeared in her paper.

In her closing statement, the accused explained that she was trying to get background information about the authors and was not trying to plagiarize.

Deliberation:

In discussing paper A, Council members believed that the accused student was in violation.

A straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #1: Did a violation occur on Paper A?
Yes: 9 + 1 non-binding
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #2: Did Student A violate the Honor Code on Paper A?
Yes: 9 + 1 non-binding
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Polls 1 and 2 were made binding.

The Council began penalty deliberations on Paper A.  It was noted that a prior violation flag was attached to the accused’s record.  Council members discussed the timing and nature of the prior violation and its effect on the penalty. 

The Council discussed the nature of the violation on Paper A.  Council members pointed out that there appeared to be two issues at hand, that the accused failed to follow the instruction not to use outside sources and that she plagiarized from outside sources.  The Council discussed the credibility of the accused’s testimony.

Discussion stemmed around the accused’s notes and the transfer of information from the web sites to her paper.

Discussion centered around four web site print outs that were brought into the Council during the hearing.  Some Council members questioned whether or not the print outs were brought in to be deceptive in nature.

Discussion returned to the instance of a prior violation flag.  Council members discussed penalty with regard to exceeding the CPS in the presence of the prior violation flag.

Straw Poll #3: Penalty for Student A, Paper A
F in course + 3 semester suspension: 2
F in course + 2 semester suspension: 4
F in course + 1 semester suspension: 1
F in course: 1 non-binding
Abstentions: 2

Council members continued discussion about the nature of the violation.  Some Council members were mitigating based on nature of the violation.  Council members again discussed the credibility and cooperation of the accused during the hearing.

Straw Poll #4: Penalty for Student A, Paper A
F in course + 3 semester suspension: 0
F in course + 2 semester suspension: 8
F in course + 1 semester suspension: 1 + 1 non-binding
F in course: 0
Abstentions: 0

Council members discussed their reasons for lesser penalties and revealed that they were mitigating based on nature of the violation and cooperation.

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 she receive an “F” in the course and two semester suspension.  A Prior Violation Flag is also attached to her record.
The Council began deliberations on Paper B.  In initial discussions Council members believed that the accused was in violation of the Honor Code.

A straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #5: Did a violation occur on Paper B?
Yes: 9 + 1 non-binding
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #6: Did Student A violate the Honor Code on Paper B?
Yes: 9 + 1 non-binding
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Polls 5 and 6 were made binding.

Council members were reminded that a prior violation flag was attached to the accused’s record. 

Council members discussed the cooperation of the accused and nature of the violation.  Council members argued that this submission could be simply a case of “bad paraphrasing.”  There was discussion about the presence of certain phrases in the accused’s notes.  Council members discussed the difference between paraphrasing and “cutting and pasting” with regard to nature of the violation.

Straw Poll #7: Penalty for Student A, Paper B
F in course + 3 semester suspension: 2
F in course + 2 semester suspension: 4
F in course + 1 semester suspension: 3 + 1 non-binding
Abstentions: 0

Some Council members started at a higher ceiling with regard to the penalty.  Others believed that the nature of the violation was less than in the previous cases presented to the Council.  Council members stated that they did not see a direct “word for word” quote in this instance.

Some Council members introduced the idea of intent and explained that an argument could be made that the accused did not intend to plagiarize material and intended to provide original thought.

Straw Poll #8: Penalty for Student A, Paper B
F in course + 3 semester suspension: 1
F in course + 2 semester suspension: 6
F in course + 1 semester suspension: 2 + 1 non-binding
Abstentions: 0

In striving for unanimity, Council members continued to discuss nature of the violation and the presence of the prior violation flag.

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 an “F” in the course and two semester suspension.  A Prior Violation Flag is also attached to her record.

Time of hearing and deliberation: 3 hours, 11 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Andrew Hawthorn
Clerk