Abstract of the Honor Council
Case 2, Fall 2006
October 17, 2006

Members Present:
Becky Thilo (presiding), Erin Waller (clerk), John Horstman (recording), Jacqui Cacan, Court Jackson, Jon Jackson, Chris Koops, Charles Lawrie, Amber Raley, Saira Karim (observing), Richard Romeo (observing), John Sanders (observing)

Ombuds:
Robert Dahnke, Will Pryor (observing)

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a lower-level humanities course accusing Student A of plagiarizing a graded paper by taking a portion of her paper from an unacknowledged source.

Evidence Submitted:

• Letter of Accusation
• Written Statement
• Assignment in question
• Registrar’s add/drop record of the course in question
• Assignment prompt
• Syllabus
• Source Text
• Course roster

Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation.”

Testimony:
Student A opened by saying that while doing research for the essay in question, she copied and pasted portions of several internet articles into a Word file that she planned to use as a reference. She admitted that she later incorporated portions of these sources into her essay. She turned in the essay the next day and dropped the class a week and a half later.

Council members asked Student A to clarify when she dropped the class and if, at that time, she was aware that she was being investigated by the Honor Council. She said that she was not aware of the investigation when she dropped the class. Student A was also asked whether or not she considered not turning in the paper since, as she testified in her opening statement, she had been thinking about dropping the class for some time. Student A clarified that when she began the paper, she was planning to continue in the class; however, she decided to drop the class immediately after turning in the paper in question. Council members noted that Student A had chosen to quote the same passage that the alleged internet source had quoted. Student A responded that she had been planning on using that passage anyway. Student A again clarified that she had known that turning in the paper was a violation of the C ode when she turned it in.

Student A closed by citing academic and familial stress as the reason she plagiarized that paper and expressed remorse for her violation.

Verdict Deliberation:
In their initial impressions, Council members agreed that the there had been a violation through plagiarism, by not acknowledging the source text. One member noted that even though S tudent A dropped the course, the violation had occurred at the moment the paper was turned in.

Straw Poll #1: Is there clear and convincing evidence that a violation occurred?
Yes: 9 + 3 non-binding
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #2: Is there clear and convincing evidence that Student A is In Violation?
Yes: 9 + 3 non-binding
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Polls #1 and #2 were made binding.

Penalty Deliberations:
Before beginning penalty deliberations, the Chair re-articulated that academic stress, signs of remorse and rehabilitation, and the external effects of the penalty, all of which were referenced by Student A, cannot be considered in deliberations.

In opening penalty deliberations, Council members first considered any mitigating circumstances. Several members indicated that they would be mitigating on Student A’s full cooperation and agreed that the plea of “In Violation” was made in good faith. Some members indicated that they would be mitigating further on the nature of the violation, specifically the assignment weight which was 5%. One member expressed the idea that the penalty did not need to be corrective because the student, through dropping the course, was already not getting credit for the plagiarized work or the course.  As far as aggravating circumstances, most Council members indicated that they would not be aggravating on anything, although one member noted that Student A admitted that when she turned it in she knew what she was doing was wrong.

One member suggested that the spirit of self-accusation was somewhat present in Student A’s dropping the course, while other Council members saw her dropping as a sign of rehabilitation and remorse, which cannot be considered. Members discussed the weight of a withdrawal from the class verses re-enrolling Student A and giving her an F.

Straw poll #3: What is the appropriate penalty for Student A?
F in the course and a 2 semester suspension: 0
F in the course: 3
Withdrawal from the course: 3 + 1 non-binding
Letter of Reprimand: 1 non-binding
Abstentions: 3

The members who abstained indicated that they were still deciding between an F in the course and a Withdrawal from the course. The observing member who voted for the Letter of Reprimand said that it was simply the penalty they felt most appropriate. The Council members who voted for an F in the course cited that they were not considering the weight of the assignment and were less concerned with the implementation than with assigning the appropriate penalty . The members for voted for Withdrawal indicated that they were taking into account assignment weight and considering the implementation, they felt that a Withdrawal from the course was thus the closest they could get to the appropriate penalty. The Council discussed the weight of a Withdrawal as a penalty.

Straw Poll #4: What is the appropriate penalty for Student A?
F in the course: 1
Withdrawal from the Course: 7 + 3 non-binding
Letter of Reprimand: 0
Abstentions: 1

The Council member who chose to abstain wanted more discussion over the weight of a Withdrawal as a penalty. The members who moved from F in the course, Letter of Reprimand, and Abstentions to Withdrawal indicated that they were persuaded by the arguments that a Withdrawal is the most appropriate penalty given the circumstances.

Straw Poll #5
F in the course: 1
Withdrawal from the Course: 8 + 3 non-binding
Letter of Reprimand: 0
Abstentions: 0

The Council, having reached the required 2/3 majority, strove for unanimity but the member who voted for F in the course felt firm in her position.

Straw poll #5 was made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A “In Violation” of the Honor Code and recommends that she be given a “W” in the course. A prior violation flag is also attached to her record.

Total time of deliberations: 1 hour, 5 minutes
Total time of Hearing: 1 hour, 25 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,
Erin Waller
Clerk