Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case 23, Spring 2006
September 10, 2006

Members Present:
Becky Thilo (presiding), Jacqui Cacan (clerk), Jonathan Jackson, Andrew Koller, John Horstman, Paul Campbell, Ryan Stinnett, Laura Campo, Tara Grigg, Spencer Crouch (observing), Jackie Ammons (observing), Erin Waller (observing), and Christian Koops (observing)

Ombuds:
Risa Gordon

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a lower-level humanities course, accusing Student A of submitting a research paper with plagiarized passages and an incomplete bibliography.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation.”

Testimony:
Student A opened by saying he worked quickly on the essay and consulted his writing consultant the day before the due date. In the letter of accusation the accuser noted that the primary source of information was not listed in the bibliography. The student responded to this by stating that he thought he had included the source in a prior bibliography he had e-mailed to the professor. The accused student felt that the writing consultant should have noticed the plagiarized passages and informed him how to properly create a research paper. Student A said he did not attend the classes about citing sources and thought the copied and pasted information was allowed for research papers.

Student A closed by stating the violation was unintentional and without malicious motivation.

Verdict Deliberations:
In their initial impressions, the Council members agreed a violation occurred because information was inserted directly into the paper, without quotes, from sources not cited in the bibliography. Also, the Council agreed the bibliography was incomplete, with many sources not included. All are direct violation of the Honor Code.

Straw Pole #1: Is there clear and convincing evidence a violation occurred?
Yes: 9 + 4 (non-binding votes)
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Pole #2: Is there clear and convincing evidence Student A is In Violation?
Yes: 9 + 4 (non-binding votes)
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

In a vote, straw poles #1 and #2 are made binding.

Penalty Deliberations:
In opening penalty deliberations, Council members first considered the nature of the violation. Members pointed out that Student A did not understand the citation style rules, but it was not an excuse for turning in a largely plagiarized paper that is a large part of the course grade. A few members expressed that this violation does not necessitate a need to spend time away from the university (i.e. suspension). It was pointed out that some members will not mitigate on nature because the syllabus clearly states how to cite in a paper, and Student A included significant uncited parts of a source in his paper.

Next, the Council considered Student A’s cooperation with the Council. Student A did make a plea of “In Violation,” but whether or not the plea was made in good faith was called into question. Members agreed Student A pled “In Violation” for incorrectly citing sources and plagiarizing them in his paper (a violation clearly stated in the Blue Book), but did not take responsibility for the violation that occurred. Members recalled that Student A blamed the writing consultant for not informing him, before he turned the assignment in, that there were obviously plagiarized passages. Several Council members disagreed with the accused student, affirming that it was his responsibility not to plagiarize. Many members agreed that Student A’s violation was more likely the result of confusion about citation than premeditated cheating on the assignment.

The council members unanimously did not choose to consider any aggravating circumstances to consider, nor did they think the violation should be deemed heinous in any way.

Straw Pole #3: What is an appropriate penalty for Student A?
F in the course & 2 semester suspension:        0
F in the course & 1 semester suspension:        1         
F in the course:                                                7 + 4 observing
Letter of reprimand:                            1
Abstentions:                                        0

The member who voted for F +1 was mitigating from the F +2  because of the nature of the violation. A member noted that the assignment was worth 15 percent of the grade, as stated on the syllabus, and therefore,  the Council should at least rectify the grade gained by the paper plus add a little punitive to be appropriate. Members who voted for an F in the course, stated the lack of maliciousness coupled with cooperation with the Council should be considered. However, one of the main objective of the course was to learn how to write and cite a paper properly—which was not completed correctly.

Straw Pole #4: What is an appropriate penalty for Student A?
F in the course & 1 semester suspension:        1         
F in the course:                                                8+ 4 observing
Letter of reprimand:                            0
Abstentions:                                        0

The member changed from “Letter of Reprimand” to “F in the course” felt that Student A failed to meet the main objective of the course (to be able to write a paper correctly), which showed a great problem. Thus, the Council member felt the course grade should reflect this.

The Council has reached its required 2/3 majority and discussed further to strive for unanimity. All members reiterated their opinions and each felt comfortable with the penalty for which he/she had voted.. Straw pole #4 was made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends that he receive an F in the course. A prior violation flag is also attatched to her record.

Time of Hearing and Deliberations: 1 hour, 7 minutes.

Respectfully submitted,
Jacqui Cacan
Clerk