| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #15, Spring 1994
Abstract of the Honor Council
15 February 1994
Members Present: Chad Fargason, Alex Cestero, Dan Grossman (observing),
Thomas Paige, Heather Morschauser, Abby Martin, Wes Yeackle (observing),
Mark Teoh, Andrea Johnson, Adam Thornton, and Caroline Gill.
Ombudsman: Lauren Kern
Evidence: Letter of Accusation
Student A's Homework
Solution Set for Homework
Syllabus
Letter of Accusation: The letter received by the Council stated that
the professor in a lower level science course was concerned that
Student A had plagiarized sections of his homework without proper
attribution of credit. The professor felt that Student A had acquired
a copy of a solution set for a previous year's assignment and had
copied it without proper credit given.
Plea: Student A entered a plea of Not in Violation.
Opening Statement: Student A began by stating his major and explaining
that he had completed many homework assignments for Rice classes
before and knew what was allowed under the Honor Code. He further
stated that he would not jeopardize his position at Rice University by
violating the Code on a homework assignment. He stated that the class
in question was a difficult class for him and he had taken it last
year but had dropped it. Therefore he had the solution sets for last
year's homework assigmnents for the class and had found them helpful
because this year's assignments were similar to previous
assignments. Student A stated that he had a study partner and that
they frequently consulted the old solutions for insight when they were
stuck. They used the solution sets as a learning tool which they used
when there was no other possible source for help. Student A emphasized
that consultation was not plagiarism and that it was accepted by most
students that consulting outside sources to finish an assignment was
reasonable. Student A also asserted that he had consulted the solution
set on several of his past assignments and assumed that problems on
those homeworks were therefore similar to the solution set yet the
professor had never questioned the validity of his work before.
The Council then questioned Student A about the process he used
to complete his assignments and Student A replied that he and his
study partner would go through the book, reread the section pertaining
to the assignment, locate the perti- nent information, and try to
figure out the answer to the problem. On the particular assignrnent in
question, they had found a number of the diagrams in the book, had
found the information in the book, and had used this information,
coupled with the solution sets, to answer the problems. When the
Council questioned why the diagrams drawn in the homework were
exactly the same as the drawing in the solution set but were different
from the drawing in the book slightly, Student A replied that he had
done the diagram like the solution set because that was what he
thought the grader wanted. The Council asked Student A if he
understood the problems before he turned in his completed assignment
and Student A responded that he did. Upon further questioning,
Student A said that the similarity between his diagrams and the
diagrams on the solution set was only a coincidence. Student A went on
to say that he did not consider further explanation necessary because
he assumed the diagrams would be obvious to the grader. When the
Council questioned Student A as to why the number and placement of the
lines were exactly the same as in the solution set even though the
diagram the problem asked for could have been drawn a number of
different ways, Student A said it was just a sketch and the similarity
was coincidental.
Witness #1: The professor began by explaining why he had turned the
accusation into the Council. He said the grader for the assignment had
given the homework to him because he noticed it looked very simllar
to the solution set and that the professor agreed that the
similarity was remarkable. Specifically he cited the unit markings
on the graphs, sentence structure and word choice very similar to the
solution set, the layout of the assignment, and the similarity in the
drawings of the diagrams as factors that raised his suspicion. The
Council then asked the professor whether it was a violation of the
assignment to consult a solution set in completing the problems. The
professor answered that he encouraged students to utilize resources
such as books and other students to help them complete the
assignments. The professor emphasized that the homework in question
implied that Student A did not understand the concepts behind the
problems because if he did, he would have realized that some of the
sections copied were superfluous to the meaning of the problem. When
the Council asked how other students had drawn the diagrams in
question, the professor stated that he did not know because he had not
graded the assignment. The Council then asked the professor if he
thought it was possible to arrive at an original solution to the
problems alter consulting the already known correct answer in the
solution set. The professor responded that he felt that if he had
shown the solution set's diagram to a colleague and then asked the
colleague to reproduce an answer to the problem, the diagram would be
different from the solution set. In closing the professor stated
that the assignment and the solution set were remarkably as well as
unnecessarily similar.
Witness #2: Witness 2 was Student A's study partner and also a member
of the class. Witness 2 stated that they always completed the
homeworks together and would check the solutions sets if they got
stuck. Witness 2 also said that he would check the solution set before
turning in the assignments to make sure the answers he had found were
reasonable. When questioned, Witness 2 stated that his diagrams did
not look like Student A's exact and that he had used a different
format for presenting the same answer. The Council asked Witness 2
if they had ever had to write down an answer without understanding the
problem, if they had copied from the solution set without
comprehension, and Witness 2 said that they always understood the
problems before they turned in the assignments. Student A then asked
Witness 2 if he thought Student A understood the problems and Witness
2 responded that yes, he thought Student A understood. Witness 2
stated that he knew this because they had discussed the problems and
Student A seemed to understand the answers. When the Council asked
Witness 2 if they had ever seen the Student A's final copy and
therefore knew for sure whether or not Student A had copied from the
solution set, Witness 2 answered that Student A left before he had
finished the final copy.
Student A then presented an old homework with the corresponding solution set
and showed the Council how similar the diagrams from the two were, but
noted that while the diagrams were similar, when completing this
assignment, he had thought that the solution set had given the
incorrect answer and had therefore made the necessary adjustments in
his homework. Student A claimed that this was evi- dence that he
understood the problems in general on the homeworks and did not just
copy. Student A also presented his test that covered this information
and included a diagram similar to the one in the assignment in
question. Student A claimed again that he understood the concepts
because this diagram was not similar to the solution set, but was
indeed correct as well. When the Council questioned Student A about
the similarity of the diagrams again, Student A reappointed that the
similarity was just a confidence and that one of the diagrams in
question was not even required by the problem, but because it was in
the solution set, he figured it wouldn't hurt to include on his
homework. The Council then asked why Student A chose the specific unit
marking he did in one of the diagrams. Student A answered that in his
original sketches the units were not marked and that indeed they were
not necessary but because they existed in the diagram in the solution
set, he thought that was what the grader would want. Student A stated
that he did not derive the units markings, that a computer was
necessary for that, but had just taken them from the solution set.
Student A said that he did not know how to get the numbers used in the
unit markings in the diagram. The Council then asked Student A how he
is doing in the class and Student A responded that he was not doing
well and was planning to drop the class pending the outcome of these
proceedings.
Closing: Student A said in closing that all the information he had to
present had been presented. He had understood the problems and had not
taken anyone else's ideas and used them as his own.
Deliberation: The Council then began deliberating. Generally, the
consensus was that indeed Student A was guilty of violating the Code
by copying parts of the solution set without proper credit to its
authors. Several members stated that they believed that Student A did
indeed understand the problems in question and had worked on the
assignment, but that the final copy he turned in was dependent on
information from the solution set that he could not have derived on
his own. One member noted that parts of the assignment that seemed to
be most clearly copied were sections that were unnecessary to answer
the problems and if Student A had indeed understood what he was
writing he would have known that these parts were superfluous. The
first Straw Poll was taken.
Straw Poll #1:
In Violation: 9(2 observing)
Not in Violation: o
Abstentions: 2
In discussing the abstentions, one member noted that if nothing
else, the language in the sentences in the homework was plagiarized
and that if this were an English paper, that much similarity in word
choice would be considered plagiarism. A second straw poll was
called.
Straw Poll #2:
In Violation: 11(2 observing)
Not in Violation: o
Abstentions: o
The Council then began penalty deliberation. The consensus
penalty for a violation on a collaborative assignment worth less
than ten percent of the final grade is an F in the course. The Council
then began discussing mitigating circumstances. Unintentionally was
mentioned but the majority of the Council felt that the severity of
the violation was the key mitigating circumstance. The Council felt
that the violation was not as severe because Student A had simply
taken too much from the solution set unnecessarily but had indeed
understood the problems. It was also noted that the plagiarism
occurred in parts of the assignment that were mainly presentation
and not the fundamentals of the problem. Certain members were unsure
how much the penalty should be mitigated, stating that they were not
convinced that Student A had not just copied from the solution set
without any effort to understand. Other members were uncomfortable
with the amount of similarity between the solution set and the
homework, particularly the word choice and the unit labels. A range of
penalties were suggested and the third Straw Poll was called.
Straw Poll #3:
F in the Course (consensus): 1
Loss of Credit in the Course: 3
Loss of Credit on the Assignment: 1
Abstentions: 6(2 observing)
The consensus of the Council was still that the penalty should
be mitigated because of severity of violation but the question
remained of how much. The need to be consistent from case to case was
brought up. Some members felt that the violations in the assignment
were more than just cosmetic, but generally members felt that Student
A understood the problems more or less but had presented this under-
standing in a manner that violated the Code. Another Straw Poll was
called.
Straw Poll #4:
F in the Course: 0
Loss of Credit in the Course: 7 (1 observing)
Loss of Credit on the Assignment: 3
Abstentions: 1 (1 observing)
After restating the arguments, another Straw Poll was called.
Straw Poll #5:
Loss of Credit in the Course: 7(1 observing)
Loss of Credit on the Assignment: 4(1 observing)
Abstentions: o
With no objections the results of Straw Poll #5 were made
binding. The Honor Council therefore recommends to the Dean of Students
that Student A receive loss of credit in the course in question. The
Council also recommend that a suspension clause be attached to Student
A's record.
Time of hearing and deliberation: 2.5 hours.
Respectfully Submitted,
Andrea Johnson
Trial Clerk