| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #7, Fall 1993
Abstract of the Honor Council
November 30, 1993
Members present: Alex Cestero, Sam Cole, Chad Fargason, Carolyn
Gill, Steve Hackney, Larkin McReynolds, Bradley Monton, Dan
Grossman (observing), Wes Yeackle (observing).
Ombudsman: Snehal Patel.
Letter of Accusation
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from the
professor of a lower-level humanities course concerning plagiarism on a
paper worth less than 10% of the total course grade. The professor
explained that the paper the accused student (Student A) submitted was
in a different voice than the previous papers s/he had turned in for the
class. Since the professor had noticed that Student A had brought Cliff
Notes to class, s/he sought out the Cliff Notes for the book which the
essay was about. The professor found that Student A had taken ideas and
sentences from the Cliff Notes without any citation. The professor wrote
that s/he spoke with Student A about the paper, and that Student A
explained that s/he had learning disabilities, had not written papers for a
number of years, and did not understand what plagiarism was. The
professor suggested that since Student A attempted to learn what
plagiarism was, and now recognizes that his/her actions were wrong, the
penalty should be mitigated.
Evidence Submitted
o The paper which Student A turned in
o Medical literature concerning learning disabilities
Plea
Student A entered a plea of In Violation.
Opening Statement
Student A explained that s/he has a learning disability which
affects his/her comprehension and organization skills. In the past, s/he
has had an learning disability advisor to assist him/her with assignments,
but when s/he came to Rice, s/he decided to attempt work on his/her
own. Student A explained that s/he had not written a paper for a long
time since arriving at Rice, and did not comprehend what plagiarism
was. At the time s/he used the Cliff Notes to write the paper, Student A
said, s/he did not realize that that was wrong. Student A pointed out that,
after talking to the professor about the paper, s/he took action to
understand what plagiarism was, and would never commit a violation of
this sort again. S/he asked not to be suspended from Rice.
Questioning
Student A was asked what his/her understanding of plagiarism
was before writing the paper. S/he explained that s/he never had much of
an understanding at all, and that it is not a normal thing for him/her to
write papers. Student A was asked about his/her learning disability, and
explained that s/he took longer to understand things, and often
miscomprehended things. When asked why s/he used Cliff Notes,
Student A said that they helped him/her understand the text, and that
s/he did not realize that using them for the paper was wrong.
When asked, Student A said that s/he did receive an Honor
System orientation when s/he first entered Rice, and probably was
explained plagiarism, but that s/he did not retain the explanation. S/he
explained that his/her learning disability can also affect his/her memory.
Student A was asked about the time s/he spent on the paper. S/he
explained that s/he wrote the paper quickly. When asked if the
plagiarism would have occurred if s/he had spend more time on the
paper, s/he said that it probably would have, because s/he did not
understand what plagiarism was.
Witness -- The Professor
The professor first went over his/her letter of accusation. S/he
was asked by the council if s/he ever explained plagiarism to the class.
S/he said that s/he explained that s/he wanted students to put their own
ideas in the papers they submitted. S/he was asked how Student A was
doing in the class, and explained that s/he was toward the bottom of the
class. The professor said that Student A had not talked to him/her about
writing papers, even though the professor had asked his/her students to
do so. The professor said that, after s/he told Student A that s/he had
plagiarized, Student A was very forthcoming and learned what s/he had
done wrong. When asked, the professor said that, in his/her opinion,
Student A did not comprehend plagiarism when s/he wrote the paper in
question.
Closing Statement
Student A asked that the council take the special circumstances
of this case into consideration, that s/he has a learning disability and did
not understand plagiarism. Student A said that s/he is not a cheater, and
that being suspended from Rice would strongly hurt his/her academic
career. S/he said that s/he deserves an F in the course, but not a
suspension.
Deliberation
The consensus penalty for a violation of this sort is an F in the
course and a one semester suspension from Rice. The council had to
decide if there were any mitigating circumstances which would justify a
lower penalty.
Council members agreed that the fact that Student A cooperated
with council, and the fact that s/he appeared partially rehabilitated
should not be considered as mitigating circumstances.
Because lack of intentionality is a mitigating circumstance, the
council first debated whether the violation was intentional. Had Student
A understood plagiarism when s/he wrote the paper? Some members felt
that, since s/he had written a research paper while in high school, and
since s/he had an Honor System orientation, then s/he must have had at
least a modicum of understanding of plagiarism. However, most
members felt that Student A's learning disability could quite possibly
have prevented him/her from comprehending plagiarism.
The second main issue was whether Student A was grossly
negligent in not understanding plagiarism. Some members felt that, even
if s/he did not understd plagiarism, it was his/her responsiblbisity to do
so, and that s/he should be held fully accountable for that negligence.
All members agreed that Student A was negligent, but many felt that the
negligence did not cancel out the lack of intentionality as a mitigating
circumstance. These members felt that, since writing papers was not an
important part of Student A's life, and since his/her learning disability
made comprehension difficult, then it was partially understandable that
s/he did not comprehend plagiarism.
At this point, two penalties were proposed, and the council
decided to take a straw poll.
Straw Poll #1
F in course 4
F in course + 1 semester suspension 3
Abstentions 0 (+ 2 observing)
One of the abstentions said that, if Student A was simply negligent, then
s/he would deserve an F, but if there was any intentionality in the
violation, then Student A would deserve an F and a semester suspension.
The issue of negligence was further debated. Some members felt
that Student A's background gave him the ability and chance to learn
about plagiarism. Plagiarism is not that difficult of a concept to
understand, and s/he had received an Honor System orientation and
signed the matriculation pledge. Thus, these members felt that Student
A was recklessly negligent and should receive an F and a semester
suspension.
However, one member countered this argument, pointing out that
the distinction was between academic fraud and sloppy scholarship. The
consensus penalty should be given for cases of academic fraud, but this
was simply a case of sloppy scholarship and thus the penalty should be
mitigated.
Debate then turned back to the issue of intentionality. One
member claimed that, at some point, apathy is equal to malice. Student
A's apathy about understanding plagiarism was so extreme that it
reduces to an intentional violation of the Honor System. A member said
that the violation cannot be completely attributed to sloppiness, and that
Student A must have had some understanding that what s/he was doing
was wrong. However, another member pointed out that Student A said
that s/he had the mistaken idea that using other people's ideas was a
positive thing, as long as s/he then commented on those ideas.
One member suggested that the central question was whether
Student A's learning disability could affect his/her understanding of
plagiarism. If Student A did not have a learning disability, then council
would surely deem that s/he had acted intentionally.
At this point, another straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #2
F in course 3
F in course + 1 semester suspension 3 (+ 2 observing)
Abstentions 1
The member who abstained was leaning toward an F, but wanted more
debate. The people who voted for an F and suspension restated their
viewpoint that the violation could have been intentional and that Student
A was grossly negligent regardless, but the abstaining member remained
unconvinced. Others who voted for only an F said that Student A simply
did not comprehend plagiarism due to his/her learning disability, and the
penalty should be mitigated because of this unintentionality.
One member suggested that, after Student A is fully explained
plagiarism, s/he would benefit from rewriting the paper in question.
Because all members agreed, this was added to the penalties. Another
straw poll was then held.
Straw Poll #3
F in course + rewrite paper 4
F + 1 semester suspension 3 (+ 2 observing)
Abstentions 0
With no objections, the result of Straw Poll #3 was made binding. The
Honor Council thus recommends to the Dean of Students that Student A
receive an F in the course, and be made to rewrite the paper on which
s/he plagiarized. The paper will be turned into the professor of the
course, who will tell the council if it is acceptable. If Student A does not
acceptably rewrite the paper, the council will reconvene to reconsider
penalties. The council also recommends that a suspension clause be
attached to Student A's record.
Time of hearing and deliberation: 4 hours.
Respectfully submitted,
Bradley Monton
Trial Clerk