Abstract of the Honor Council
Case 40, Spring 2005
October 6, 2005

Members Present:
John Horstman (presiding), Casey Bonfield, Julia Bursten, Laura Campo, Simon Doyle, Loyola Gressot, Charles Lawrie, Teresa Monkkonen, Ryan Stinnett, Amber Raley (Observing)

Ombuds:
Risa Gordon

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a lower-level social sciences course. The letter explained the professor suspected a violation in the form of inadequate or improper citation in an extra credit response paper.

Evidence Submitted:

• Letter of accusation
• Written statement
• Deposition from professor
• Course syllabus
• Assignment prompt
• Alleged source
• Assignment in question

Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation."

Testimony:
Student A began her opening statement by explaining she thought her method of citation was appropriate at the time she wrote the assignment. She said when she reviewed the assignment, however, she realized she did not follow the direct quotation or paraphrase quotation guidelines as outlined in the Honor System Blue Book. She said was unsure of proper citation method at the time she completed the assignment and she used a footnote citation method she had never used before, but did not use a style guide or ask her professor for clarification of proper citation methods at the time she wrote the assignment. Student A said she viewed the assignment as research-based but informal in format.

A council member asked how many writing assignments were given in this course, and Student A replied this was the only essay assignment.

A council member asked why Student A chose to use footnotes if she was not familiar with the citation method. Student A replied she had seen footnotes in a research context outside of the course in question and wanted to try the citation method.

A council member asked whether the professor recommended a style guide for citation standards for the assignment, and Student A replied the professor did not recommend a specific citation standard, but instead requested that students follow the guidelines for citation set forth by the honor code.

A council member inquired into the nature of the assignment’s format. The assignment prompt gave students the option to either make an oral presentation or write a response paper on a topic, and Student A replied she viewed her written work as an outline for an oral presentation, but that she turned in the written work as her assignment rather than giving an oral presentation on the topic.

A council member asked whether Student A considered the nature of this assignment as a research paper. Student A replied she regarded the assignment as a very informal response exercise that included the source to which she was responding.

A council member inquired about which portions of the assignment Student A intended to submit for grading. Student A replied the first two paragraphs of the assignment, wherein she synthesized a series of definitions pertinent to the topic and gave a personal response to the topic, were intended to be graded. She replied the second portion of the assignment, written in a separate font and copied directly from Student A’s cited source, were not intended to be graded.

Student A noted that she felt the purpose of the assignment was to find an interesting topic and present or summarize it.

A council member asked about Student A’s previous experience with citation methods in research papers. Student A replied she had used internal citation methods in past research papers. She said when she turned in the assignment she thought the footnote covered citation within the bounds of the assignment.

A council member asked why Student A put the footnote reference at the beginning of the paper, rather than at the end of a block of direct quotation or paraphrasing. Student A replied she put the footnote reference at the beginning of the assignment because that is where the ideas that were not hers began. She noted that as she cited the source on the footnote, she credited all quantitative information from the assignment to that source. She noted that she copied and pasted the second portion of the assignment directly into the body of the assignment, but left it in a different font and style because she did not want it to be mistaken for her own work.
Student A chose not to make a closing statement.

Deliberation:
The council was initially split on whether a violation occurred. Council members who made arguments that a violation did not occur were in the majority, and based their decisions on reasoning that they felt the spirit of the honor code was not violated, and that the citation of sources was negligent but not improper. Council members who made arguments that a violation did occur based their decisions on the citation standards outlined in the honor system blue book, and reasoned that the citation failed to meet these standards as it was unclear what, if any, of Student A’s assignment was her own synthesis of ideas.

After council members gave their initial impressions, the council took up a debate over the citation standards expected of the assignment in question. A council member pointed out that the professor stated three times that she referred her students to the honor system blue book if they had questions on citation. A council member reasoned that it is the burden of the student to seek out citation standards for an assignment and it could be reasonably expected of Student A to meet a higher citation standard than the one published in the assignment in question. Another council member disagreed, and argued that the professor was unclear on her personal standards of citation, so Student A could not reasonably be held to a higher citation standard than the one published in the assignment in question.

Another council member pointed out that the assignment prompt itself was unclear, and questioned whether the assignment called for a citation standard higher than the one published in the assignment in question. A council member responded that the assignment prompt made no reference to a preferred citation method, and pointed out the professor’s note on preferred citation methods in the course syllabus, reading that the professor deferred to the honor system blue book for standards of proper citation. A council member pointed out that misunderstanding the spirit of the assignment does not absolve violation.

Council members then turned to the honor system blue book to read its language on academic fraud. A council member argued that academic fraud has an implied malicious intent, and this intent was absent in the assignment in question. Council members debated whether intent was a necessary factor in finding the assignment in violation of the honor code.

A council member moved for a straw poll to decide whether a violation occurred and the motion was seconded.

Straw Poll 1: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 6
No: 1
Abstentions: 2 + 1 non-binding vote

Council members who abstained spoke on their voting rationale. An abstaining member said he felt the assignment did not violate the spirit of the honor code, but she not feel it met the academic and citation standards set forth by Rice University. Another abstaining member said she was bothered by a specific piece of quantitative information in the assignment and needed more time to make a decision based on this piece of information. This member argued that she believed the negligence in citation was a pedagogical error, not an honor code violation.

A council member moved for a straw poll to decide whether a violation occurred and the motion was seconded.

Straw poll 2: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 7 + 1 non-binding vote
No: 2
Abstentions: 0

A council member requested that discussion continue, because she felt finding the assignment not in violation could be damaging to the academic integrity standards of Rice University. Council members debated the citation standard of the assignment in question, using the same lines of reasoning outlined above. After referring to the citation standards outlined on page 35 of the honor system blue book, one of the council members who had voted “not in violation” on the previous straw poll acknowledged that she believed a violation had occurred based on the technical language of the honor system blue book.

A council member moved for a straw poll to decide whether a violation occurred and the motion was seconded.

Straw poll 3: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 8 + 1 non-binding vote
No: 1
Abstentions: 0

A council member referred to page 33 of the honor system blue book, reading the following passage: “[The honor code pledge] is regarded as an indication that the student understands and has complied with the requirements of the assignment as set forth by the professor.” The member reasoned that because the assignment in question is bound by the honor code pledge, Student A could reasonably be expected to follow the citation guidelines outlined by the professor for the assignment in question. The council member who voted “not in violation” on the previous straw poll refuted this argument by reasoning that the student could not be reasonably expected to believe her citation method was erroneous, and thus could not reasonably be expected to ask her professor to clarify the citation standard for the assignment in question.

A council member moved for a straw poll to decide whether a violation occurred and the motion was seconded.

Straw poll 4: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 8 + 1 non-binding vote
No: 1
Abstentions: 0

No further arguments could be found to make the consensus of the Council unanimous. So, the results of Straw Poll 4 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A “Not In Violation” of the Honor Code.

Time of hearing and deliberation: 1 hour, 16 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Julia Bursten

Clerk