| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #27, Spring 2006
September 18, 2006
Members Present:
Becky Thilo (presiding), Tara Grigg (clerk), Ryan Stinnett, Jackie Ammons,
Paul Campbell, Laura Campo, Spencer Crouch, John Horstman, Jonathan Jackson,
Josh Levin (observing), Richard Romeo (observing), Erin Waller (observing),
Jennifer Cieluch (observing)
Ombuds:
Risa Gordon
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from the professors of a
lower-level natural science course accusing students A, B, C, D, and E of
collaborating on a paper assignment. The professors reported many similarities
between the papers, including areas where some text seemed to be copied directly
and a reoccurring set of ideas and structure that was evident in all five
papers.
Evidence Submitted:
Plea:
Students A, B, C, D, and E all pled “In Violation.”
Testimony:
Opening Statement: All five students opened with an apology to the Council
for breaking the Honor Code and asserted that they take full responsibility
for their actions.
When the students were asked to clarify why they believed they were In Violation, they took turns giving their part of the story. Student A responded that he wrote his paper alone. When Student B asked to see his paper, Student A gave his paper to Student B as a reference. Student B replied that he used Student A’s paper for ideas and structure, and then sent Student A’s paper to Student C and Student D after they asked him for help. Student C affirmed that he also used Student A’s ideas and themes to write his own paper, but did not send it to anyone else. Student D affirmed that he received Student A’s paper from Student B, used the paper as a reference for his own, and sent Student A’s paper to Student E when Student E asked him for help. Student E responded that he used Student A’s paper, not only as a reference, but directly copied sections of the paper into his own.
Council members reviewed the Honor Code policy (in the syllabus) and noted that papers could be shared amongst students for editing purposes only and that copying or using another student’s ideas is prohibited. Student E replied that he did not take the Honor Code into consideration and that he knew what he was doing was wrong. Students B, C, and D declared that they did not intend to violate the Honor Code.
When asked if he knew his paper would be copied, Student A declared that he had no knowledge that his paper was copied or passed to several other people. Student A was also asked if he had followed up with Student B after he had sent his paper and he responded that he had not.
A member of the Council asked Student A to explain why several passages in his paper matched the source material word-for-word and did not include proper citation. Student A responded that he forgot to put the excerpt in quotations, but he did include the source in his bibliography. The other students were asked why they did not include a bibliography with their papers. Student B responded that he did not know they needed a bibliography because they had never been required to hand one in with previous papers. Students C, D, and E agreed with Student B.
Some Council members asked the students how they used Student A’s paper. Students B, C, and D responded that they used it as a reference, that only Student A’s paper was used and passed on to other students, and that the paper was not used for proofreading purposes. Student E affirmed that he copied passages of the paper word for word. When the Council asked the students if they had talked about the paper or sharing ideas before they started writing, all of the students answered that they had not.
All five students closed by apologizing to the Council, taking responsibility for their actions, and asserting that they had learned their lesson.
Verdict Deliberations:
In their initial impressions, the Council members agreed that Students B, C, D, and E were all in violation. The members stated that the four students had violated the Honor Code by using unauthorized aid on the paper and using another student’s ideas. A few members were not sure if Student A was In Violation for giving another student unauthorized aid, but other members pointed out that Student A was In Violation because he copied directly from the source without citation.
Straw Poll #1: Is there clear and convincing evidence that a violation occurred?
Yes: 9 + 4 non-binding votes
No: 0
Abstentions: 0
Council members discussed how Student A copied directly from the source and gave Student B unauthorized aid.
Straw Poll #2: Is there clear and convincing evidence that student A is In
Violation?
Yes: 9 + 4 non-binding votes
No: 0
Abstentions: 0
Council members discussed how Student B used Student A’s paper (unauthorized aid) and gave it to Students C and D.
Straw Poll #3: Is there clear and convincing evidence that student B is In
Violation?
Yes: 9 + 4 non-binding votes
No: 0
Abstentions: 0
Council members discussed how Student C used Student A’s paper (unauthorized aid).
Straw Poll #4: Is there clear and convincing evidence that student C is In
Violation?
Yes: 9 + 4 non-binding votes
No: 0
Abstentions: 0
Council members discussed how Student D used Student A’s paper (unauthorized aid) and gave it to Student E.
Straw Poll #5: Is there clear and convincing evidence that student D is In
Violation?
Yes: 9 + 4 non-binding votes
No: 0
Abstentions: 0
Council members discussed how Student E used Student A’s paper (unauthorized aid).
Straw Poll #6: Is there clear and convincing evidence that student E is In
Violation?
Yes: 9 + 4 non-binding votes
No: 0
Abstentions: 0
Straw polls #1 - #6 were made binding.
Penalty Deliberations:
In the penalty deliberation for Student A, Council members first considered the nature of the violation. Many Council members voiced that they thought giving aid was less significant than receiving unauthorized aid and that they believed Student A did not intend to have his words copied. Other Council members stated that Student A gave his paper as a reference and not to be proofread, so he is just as much at fault for knowingly allowing a violation. All members agreed that the portions of plagiarism in Student A’s paper were significant.
For cooperation, Council members agreed that they would mitigate based on the his plea of “In Violation,” which was made in good faith. Many members felt like the Student A gave full and truthful disclosure.
Most Council members were not considering aggravating circumstances, but a few stated that they would be considering collusion with other students since Student A gave his paper to Student B. Also, a few members noted that Student A, while taking responsibility for giving unauthorized aid, did not completely disclose his plagiarism – there were several instances of direct copying in his paper that were taken from an online source and not cited.
Straw Poll #7: What is an appropriate penalty for student A?
F in course & 2 semester suspension: 0
F in course & 1 semester suspension: 2
+ 1 non-binding vote
F in course: 3
+ 2 non-binding votes
2 letter grade reduction in course: 3
+ 1 non-binding vote
Abstentions: 1
The members who voted for suspension stated that they believed the violation to be very serious because it included plagiarism and giving aid. The members who voted for an F in the course agreed that there were two different violations: plagiarism and giving unauthorized aid. However, some members of the Council pointed out that other students in the course submitted papers without bibliographies, which indicated that guidelines for citing were not stringently upheld. The members who voted for a 2 letter grade reduction believed that Student A only gave his paper as a reference and not with the intention that Student B would copy it; they believed the violation, even with the plagiarism, did not warrant losing credit for the course.
Straw Poll #8: What is an appropriate penalty for student A?
F in course & 1 semester suspension: 0
F in course: 5
+ 2 non-binding votes
2 letter grade reduction in course: 4
+ 2 non-binding votes
Abstentions: 0
The members that switched their vote from 1-semester suspension to an F in the course believed that the penalty would be sufficient to cover both violations. The members that voted for a 2 letter grade reduction supported their decision by noting that the assignment was only worth five percent of the student’s total grade.
Straw Poll #9: What is an appropriate penalty for student A?
F in course: 3
2 letter grade reduction in course: 5
+ 4 non-binding votes
Abstentions: 1
Council members noted that even though Student A did not use in-text citation when copying word-for-word from the source, he did acknowledge his source in the form of a bibliography at the end of the paper.
Straw Poll #10: What is an appropriate penalty for student A?
F in course: 2
2 letter grade reduction in course: 7
+ 4 non-binding votes
Abstentions: 0
The members that changed their vote noted that Student A exhibited an effort to cite sources by including a bibliography, showed enormous cooperation with the Council, and did not intend for all four students to use his paper.
The Council reached its required 2/3 majority but discussed further to strive for unanimity. The members reiterated their opinions and none felt the need to change their penalty decision. Straw Poll #10 was made binding. Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends that he receive a 2 letter grade reduction in the course. A prior violation flag is also attached to his record.
In the discussion about the penalty for Student B, the Council began by considering mitigation on the nature of the violation. Many members stated that they would not be mitigating on nature because it was a serious violation and they believed the student did not intend to use the paper solely as a reference, but to copy the ideas. Other Council members stated that Student B put the ideas in his own words and did not copy directly; they pointed out that the student was given the paper, and he did not steal it from Student A. However, Student B did pass on Student A’s paper to two other students for unauthorized use without Student A’s knowledge, which warranted little mitigation on nature.
For cooperation, the Council agreed that the Student B was incredibly cooperative and that it would be hard to know exactly what happened without his input. He also pled “In Violation” in good faith and took responsibility for his actions. Council members agreed that they would be mitigating based on full and truthful disclosure.
Many Council members considered aggravating circumstances when deciding Student B’s penalty. Several members took into account that Student B misused Student A’s intentions and passed on the paper without Student A’s consent. Council members agreed that Student B was a critical link in the distribution of the paper to other students. One member stated that they would consider premeditation as an aggravating circumstance because they believed Student B asked for the paper with the intent to copy it.
Straw Poll #11: What is an appropriate penalty for student B?
F in course & 2 semester suspension: 2
+ 3 non-binding votes
F in course & 1 semester suspension: 6
+ 1 non-binding vote
F in course: 0
Abstentions: 1
The members who voted for an F in the course and 2 semesters of suspension believed that the violation was particularly harmful because Student B passed Student A’s paper to other students without his permission, which offset all mitigation. Council members who voted for an F in the course and one semester suspension believed that the action was harmful to the academic environment of Rice, but that they considered the assignment weight and that the student wrote the ideas in his own words in their penalty decision. A few members reiterated that the student was incredibly cooperative.
Straw Poll #12: What is an appropriate penalty for student B?
F in course & 2 semester suspension: 1
+ 3 non-binding votes
F in course & 1 semester suspension: 7
+ 1 non-binding vote
F in course: 1
Abstentions: 0
The member that voted for an F in the course believed that the violation did not merit suspension because the paper was written in his own words and the assignment was only worth five percent.
Straw Poll #13: What is an appropriate penalty for student B?
F in course & 2 semester suspension: 1
+ 2 non-binding votes
F in course & 1 semester suspension: 6
+ 2 non-binding votes
F in course: 2
Abstentions: 0
The Council reached its required 2/3 majority but discussed further to strive for unanimity. The members reiterated their opinions and none felt the need to change their penalty decision. Straw poll #13 was made binding. Thus, the Honor Council finds Student B In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends that he receive an F in the course and 1 semester suspension. A prior violation flag will also be attached to his record.
When mitigating for nature for Student C, the Council considered that the student used another student’s work, but he did not pass it on to anyone else. He was given Student A’s paper from Student B without the permission of the first student, but Student C exhibited a great amount of paraphrasing and rearranged the ideas within his paper. Some Council members stated that they would be considering assignment weight when deciding on a penalty.
For cooperation, Student C was very cooperative with the Council, made a plea of “In Violation” made in good faith, and provided full and truthful disclosure of information - all meriting mitigation.
All of the Council members announced that they would not be considering aggravating circumstances.
Straw Poll #14: What is an appropriate penalty for student C?
F in course & 2 semester suspension: 0
F in course: 2
+ 4 non-binding votes
2 letter grade reduction in course: 7
Abstentions: 0
The members who voted for an F in the course believed that the penalty for Student C should be similar to Student A’s penalty, but should not be the same because he used Student A’s paper without permission. They voiced that using Student A’s paper was unfair to Student A and undermined the academic environment. Council members who voted for a 2 letter grade reduction stated that Student C did not pass on the paper to any other individuals. A Council member also noted that Student C was similar to Student A because Student C took information from another student and Student A took information from a scientific source – they both used someone else’s ideas.
Straw Poll #15: What is an appropriate penalty for student C?
F in course: 2
+ 3 non-binding votes
2 letter grade reduction in course: 7
+ 1 non-binding vote
Abstentions: 0
The Council reached its required 2/3 majority but discussed further to strive for unanimity. The members reiterated their opinions and none felt the need to change their penalty decision. Straw poll #15 was made binding. Thus, the Honor Council finds Student C In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends that he receive a 2 letter grade reduction in the class. A prior violation flag will also be attached to his record.
For the decision of Student D’s penalty, many Council members first considered the nature of the violation. Many Council members believed that Student D was similar to Student B because he used Student A’s paper and passed it on to another student. A Council member pointed out that Student D only passed the paper on to one other student, but he did not have the permission of Student A to use his paper.
The Council members agreed that the Student D made a plea of “In Violation” in good faith and that the student was extremely cooperative with the Council. He also made a full and truthful disclosure of evidence, which warranted some mitigation.
Many Council members were considering aggravating circumstances for several different reasons. One member noted that Student D perpetuated the cycle of giving and receiving unauthorized aid. Other members announced the presence of premeditation and collusion with other students since Student D asked for the paper and interacted with Students B and E.
Straw Poll #16: What is an appropriate penalty for Student D?
F in course & 2 semester suspension: 0
F in course & 1 semester suspension: 4
+ 2 non-binding votes
F in course: 3
+ 1 non-binding vote
3 letter grade reduction in course: 1
Abstentions: 1
+ 1 non-binding vote
A few Council members were deciding between an F in the course and an F and one semester suspension because they thought Student ’s violation was similar to Student B’s violation. Council members considered that because Student B gave the paper to other students for the purpose of copying, it was partially Student B’s responsibility and that it was worse to start the cycle than to continue it, meaning that Student D’s penalty should be less that Student B’s. One member suggested that a comparison of Student B and Student D be abandoned because it could lead to generalizations and Student D should be treated separately. Council members that voted for suspension reiterated that the violation was serious because Student D gave and used unauthorized aid.
Straw Poll #17: What is an appropriate penalty for Student D?
F in course & 2 semester suspension: 1
F in course & 1 semester suspension: 5
+ 4 non-binding votes
F in course: 3
3 letter grade reduction in course: 0
Abstentions: 0
Council members considered that Student D’s violation was comparable to Student B’s because while Student D passed on the paper to only one individual, he received Student A’s paper in a more illegitimate way.
Straw Poll #18: What is an appropriate penalty for Student D?
F in course & 2 semester suspension: 0
F in course & 1 semester suspension: 6
+ 4 non-binding votes
F in course: 3
Abstentions: 0
The Council reached its required 2/3 majority but discussed further to strive for unanimity. The members reiterated their opinions and none felt the need to change their penalty decision. Straw Poll #18 was made binding. Thus the Honor Council finds Student D In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends that he receive an F in the course and 1 semester suspension. A prior violation flag will also be attached to his record.
While considering the nature of the violation, Council members noted that Student E received Student A’s paper and used huge sections of the paper word for word in his own paper. Council members also considered that Student E used Student A’s paper without Student A’s knowledge. One Council member stated that copying and paraphrasing are both forms of plagiarism and that one form is not more severe than the other. Some members considered that Student E did not pass on the paper to anyone else, but many members said that they did not want to mitigate on the failure to continue the cycle of giving and receiving unauthorized aid.
Council members considered that Student E made a plea of “In Violation” in good faith and was especially cooperative with the Council.
Council members stated that they would not be considering aggravating circumstances.
Straw Poll #19: What is an appropriate penalty for Student E?
F in course & 2 semester suspension: 0
F in course & 1 semester suspension: 4
+ 2 non-binding votes
F in course: 4
+ 2 non-binding votes
Abstentions: 1
The members who voted for an F in the course and 1 semester suspension stated that, although Student E did not pass on Student A’s paper, he copied a large amount of it word for word. Members who voted for an F in the course voiced that they did not believe the violation warranted suspension because it was only worth five percent of the grade, Student E did not perpetuate the cycle of giving and receiving. A member of the Council maintained that paraphrasing and copying are both equal forms of plagiarism.
Straw Poll #20: What is an appropriate penalty for Student E?
F in course & 1 semester suspension: 0
F in course: 9
+ 3 non-binding votes
Abstentions: 0
+ 1 non-binding vote
Straw Poll #21: What is an appropriate penalty for Student E?
F in course & 1 semester suspension: 0
F in course: 9
+ 4 non-binding votes
Abstentions: 0
The Honor Council reached a unanimous decision and straw poll #21 was made binding. Thus, the Honor Council finds Student E In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends that he receive an F in the course. A prior violation flag will also be attached to his record.
Time of Hearing and Deliberations: 2 hours, 55 minutes.
Respectfully submitted,
Tara Grigg
Clerk