| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #7, Fall 1992 Abstract of the Honor Council 6 February 1993
Members present: Suzanne Angele, Sam Cole, Marc Elliot, Chad Fargason, Larkin McReynolds, Korbin King, and Steve Tran.
Ombudsman: Katie Krolikowski
The Honor Council received a self-accusation from a student in an upper level Humanities course. The accusation concerned a plagiarized final paper for the class. The paper was worth a large percentage of the final grade, and did not give proper credit for either the ideas or the language that was used from secondary sources. The self-accusation stated that no plagiarism was intended, but when the professor informed the accused that there were possible problems with the paper, the accused looked back over the paper and discovered that, indeed, plagiarism had occurred. Work which the accused had thought was his/her own actually came from research that had been done on the same subject for a previous assignment in the same class. When the accused realized this had occurred, the accused immediately submitted a letter of self-accusation to the Council.
The accused entered a plea of Guilty.
In the opening statement, the accused described the extensive research that had been done for a previous class project and how the accused had decided to write the paper on that subject. S/he spent many hours of work writing the paper, and s/he did not realize that there was a problem with the paper or the course until s/he received an 'other' as a course grade. S/he attempted unsuccessfully to contact the professor over break, and went in to see the professor when school reopened. The professor was not back in town yet, but had left a letter to the student stating that there appeared to be problems with the assignment. When the accused reviewed his/her work, s/he discovered that unintentional plagiarism had occurred. The accused submitted the accusation, and then talked to the professor after the professor returned. The accused stated that the professor said that, after reviewing the paper, it was impossible to conclude that the plagiarism was unintentional. The accused remarked that s/he had no need to plagiarize because s/he was probably getting a B or, at the very least, a C in the class. The accused said that s/he could not apologize enough, and s/he realized the evidence strongly suggested that the plagiarism was intentional although this was not the case. The Council questioned the accused on when and how the paper was written, as well as on the research that had been done for the previous project.
The professor of the class was then sworn in to testify. The professor stated that the student had done average work in the class and that the accused's writing showed no improvement over the course of the class. The professor stated that various writing problems had been evident in all of the previous papers the accused had written for the class, including part of the rough draft for the assignment in question the professor had previously read. When the completed assignment was read by the professor, unfamiliar terms as well as extremely sophisticated ideas in the paper seemed to be out of place given the previous quality of the accused's work. In fact, some parts of the assignment seemed to contain language consistent with that of a published author. Since there seemed to be large sections of the paper that were written in this manner, the professor stated s/he could only conclude that the plagiarism was intentional. The professor was questioned as to the accused's previous project for the class and the research the accused had done for it. The professor stated that it is not uncommon for ideas of a secondary source to be confused with one's own ideas when doing such research. However, the similarities in language between the assignment and the secondary source made the plagiarism obvious and pervasive. After further questioning, the professor was excused.
The accused's roommate was then sworn in to testify. The witness stated that they were both in the class and had worked on the assignment at the same time. The witness said that the accused consulted the notes from the project only occasionally. The accused and the Council questioned the roommate as to the work the accused had done on the project and on the accused's past performance in the class. After further questioning, the witness was excused.
The accused was further questioned as to how this assignment was substantially better than other assignments for the class. The accused stated that there were a large number of other papers in the class, and that s/he had done only a limited amount of editing to those papers towards the end of the semester. The accused had edited this paper extensively. The accused postulated that during this editing process, many of the phrases of the secondary sources probably crept into the paper since they were jumbled up in his/her head from the previous research. Additionally, the accused said s/he went back over the notes before writing the paper. The accused also noted that the requirements for documenting and paraphrasing were far different in his/her high school. The Council questioned the accused as to how so much of another author's work could be present in the paper. The accused stated that the ideas of the secondary sources had been internalized, and when s/he went to write the paper, all the ideas were mixed up. The accused went on to say that, although the plagiarism was unintentional, the fact that it happened at all should be the final issue. After further questioning, the accused made his/her closing statement, emphasizing that plagiarism occurred and it should be dealt with in an appropriate manner. The accused was then excused.
The Council then began its deliberations on the penalty. The consensus penalty for a major violation is an F in the course plus two semesters of suspension. The Council discussed how it would have been nearly impossible for the accused to write the paper without a substantial amount of consultation with his/her notes. Although it was clear that substantial plagiarism had occurred, there seemed to be no intent to deceive on the part of the accused. The Council deliberated extensively on how there appeared to be no intentionality involved in the violation. There did, however, appear to be a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of the accused as to what plagiarism meant. Thus, a rehabilitative penalty that focused on learning correct documentation seemed to be an important part of any penalty. After considerable deliberation, a penalty of an F in the course plus a rehabilitation program that focused on learning correct documentation was proposed. Another proposal included a semester of suspension. The consensus penalty was also proposed. After further deliberation, a straw poll was taken.
Results of Straw Poll #1
F in course + rehabilitation program + suspension clause: 5
F in course + 1 semester suspension + rehabilitation program + suspension clause: 2
F in course + 2 semester suspension + suspension clause: 0
The Council deliberated further, and a second straw poll was taken after the consensus penalty had been removed from the table.
Results of Straw Poll #2
F in course + rehabilitation program + suspension clause: 5
F in course + 1 semester suspension + rehabilitation program + suspension clause: 2
With no objections, the results of the second straw poll were made binding.
The Honor Council thus recommends to the Dean of Students that the accused receive an F in the course in question with a suspension clause and undergo a rehabilitation program that includes working with a professor on proper documentation.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sam Cole Trial Clerk