| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #19, Spring 1994
Abstract from the Honor Council
Aoril 14, 1994
Members Present: Sam Cole, Chad Fargason, Steve Hackney,
Bradley Monton, Dan Grossman, Lauren Kern, Thomas Page,
Carolyn Gill, Snehal Pattel (Fawn Burns, Kevin Reed and Ram
Raiamonv observing).
Ombudsman: Lan Huynh (Scott Ruthfield. Jennifer Bullard
observing).
A student in a lower level humanities class was accused of
plagiarism on a homework assianment. The professor of the
class suspected a violation when grading the accused's
assignment and noticed similarities in his work and the work
of a student who had been in the class the previous year.
After reviewing both documents carefully, he felt that the
accused had copied a great deal of the other student's work
and had turned it in as his own.
The accused pled Not In Violation.
After the Council read the letter of accusation, the accused
made his opening statement. He stated that he had forgotten
about the assignment comoletely until a classmate reminded
him that it was due in two days. The accused then went to
the library and spent several hours there doing research and
taking notes. Later that evening he went to the room of a
friend who had taken the class before. They began discussing
the assignment and found that they both had been assigned
the same topic. The accused's friend suggested several texts
that would be of interest and then allowed the accused to
look at his assignment from the year before. The accused sat
down and took notes onto the notes he had compiled that day
in research and left after approximately 20 minutes. The
accused said he spent the following evening in the library
doing more research and then completed the assignment
working from his notes which included notes from his
friend's assignment. The accused explained that he felt that
he had not done anything wrong because the professor hadn't
said that students couldn't get help from other students and
he had read all the texts, even the ones his friend
suggested, himself. The accused said that if the two
assignments looked similar it was because of the notes he
took from her that were mixed with his own. He claimed to
have used his friend's work only as an enhancement to his own
research. The accused also stated that he had been under
extreme emotional stress, but did not explain what the
circumstances were.
The first witness was the professor of the class. The
professor stated that one of the reasons that the
assignment was important was so that the students would be
familiar with the library. The professor felt that the
accused had, by getting specific advice on texts from his
friend, missed the purpose of the project. The witness said,
however, that he had not forbidden students to seek other
help, but had thought they would come to him instead. The
professor also said that making the judgement of which texts
to use was equally as important and if literature had been
suggested to the accused, he had not done the work. The
professor noted that the syntax and adjectives were both
unusual and often identical in both assignments. The
professor said it wasn't just the similarity in language and
sentences, it was also the exclusion of certain works and
the poor literature choices shown in both assignments that
indicated a collaboration of the two and plagiarism by the
accused.
The second witness was a teaching assistant in one of the
accused's classes who stated that the accused had been under
a great deal of mental and emotional stress at the time the
assignment was due. He also indicated that the accused had to
put in many hours a day in order to prepare for his class
and that he had been under stress because of tension between
himself and his teacher.
The third witness was the professor of a different class
who stated that in his class he allowed collaboration on
assignments and made a note on the assignment if
collaboration was not allowed.
The fourth witness was a librarian who had helped orient the
accused's class to the library. The witness stated that he
gave a lot of help to the students if they needed it and was
willing to talk them through every step of the way when
doing the research.
The fifth witness was the student who had helped the accused
with the assignment by suggesting and discussing several
texts and then by letting the accused take notes on his
assignment. He noted that the reason for some of the
similarity of the language in the assignments was because it
came straight from the text. He said that the accused was in
his room discussing the assignment and taking notes for
about half an hour. He saw that the accused was taking notes
on paper that he had already written on, the notes from his
day in the library.
The sixth witness was a friend of the accused who was in the
same class. The witness stated that he had seen the accused
in the library the night before the assignment was due
working on it and reading literature for it. The witness
reiterated that the professor of the class had not expressly
forbidden students from receiving aid from each other. He
said that he himself had received help from other students
as well as a great deal of help from the librarian.
The seventh witness was also a friend of the accused who was
in the same class and had reminded the accused of the
assignment before it was due. The witness stated that he had
gone with the accused to the library the night before the
project was due and the two worked there for several hours,
gathering information and reading the texts. He said that he
saw him reading through the information and taking notes on
what he read. He also stated that he had received a great
deal of help from the librarian. The witness said that the
professor had never mentioned any restrictions on getting
help for the assignment. The witness also stated that the
accused had been under an enormous amount of emotional
stress.
The accused stated that he understood what plagiarism meant
and that he had not intentionally taken his friend's words
and used them as his own. His notes were mixed together and
he wanted to be brief on the assignment so he had
accidentally left out some of his work. As far as using his
friend's work went, he reiterated that he used him as a
guide.
In the accused's closing statement he retold the sequence of
events before the assignment was due. He stated that he felt
he had done the work that was required of him because he
read everything he used in his assignment, he had used some
judgement in which texts to use and had become somewhat
familiar with what the professor wanted the students to know
about the library. He used his friend as others had used the
librarian and that was alright because the professor had not
stated any restrictions on aid. He also said again that he
had been under emotional stress, but that he had not
violated the Honor Code.
Deliberation:
After the accused was excused, the Council reviewed the
evidence. The two assignments were almost identical in
language and were exactly identical in sources. The Council
decided to take a straw poll on the issue of verdict.
Straw Poll #l:
In violation: 8 (+3 non-voting)
Not in violation: O
Abstentions: l
After some more discussion, the Council took a second straw
poll.
Straw Poll #2:
In violation: 9 (+3 non-voting)
Not in violation: 0
Abstentions: 0
Consensus for the violation was an F in the course. After
the verdict had been decided, the Council began to discuss
mitigating circumstances. Emotional stress was discussed,
but many members felt that they needed to know exactly what
the stress was and why it pushed him to plagiarize in order
for it to be considered a mitigating circumstance. The
accused had stated in his opening statement that he had been
under stress, but did not want to reveal his circumstances
unless it was absolutely necessary. The Council decided that
they would be negligent if they did not consider all the
evidence possible before handing down a verdict or penalty.
The Council decided to reopen the question and answer part
of the trial and called the accused back in to testify.
The Council asked the accused to explain what exactly the
emotional stress was and when it occurred in relation to the
assignment. The accused explained what it was and said that
it had been ongoing since the end of fall term, but it had
culminated within a week of the due date of his project. The
accused had no further closing statement.
Because the accused had been called in to present further
evidence and testimony, the Council had to take another
straw poll on the question of verdict.
Straw Poll #l:
In violation: 9 (+3 non-voting)
Not in violation: 0
Abstentions: 0
The accused was found In Violation.
After the verdict was decided the Council debated the
penalty. The issues of lack of intentionality and emotional
stress were mitigating circumstances for the majority of the
Council. Some members felt that the fact that the accused
had been dealing with the stress for some time did not
justify or explain why he plagiarized on that particular
assignment at that particular time. For other members, the
stress seemed to have simply forced the student into a
breakdown. The Council also attempted to fall in line with
precedent and, as always, tried very hard to maintain as
much unanimity as possible. Four straw polls were taken to
decide the penalty.
Straw Poll #l:
F in the Course: l
Loss of credit in the course (LCC): 2 (+2)
Loss of credit on the assignment (LCA): 3 (+1)
Late Drop: l
Abstentions: 2
A penalty of triple loss of credit was added to the options
because some members of the Council wanted a step in between
loss of credit in the course and a loss of credit on the
assignment. The Council also discussed which penalty would
be tougher.
Straw Poll #2:
LCC: l
Triple LCA (TLCA): 4 (+2)
LCA: 4
Abstentions: (l)
Another penalty, double loss of credit on the assignment was
added as a compromise for many Council members. Unanimity
was a prime concern for most members and the majority of
the Council felt that the step up, or down, to double loss
of credit was both fair and appropriate.
Straw Poll #3:
LCC: l
TLCA: 3 (+l)
Double LCA (DLCA): 5 (+2)
LCA: 0
Abstentions: 0
Straw Poll #4:
LCC: l
TLCA: l (+1)
DLCA: 7 (+2)
Abstentions: 0
The Honor Council thus recommended to the Dean of Students
that the accused be given a double loss of credit on the
assignment.
Respectfully Submitted,
Carolyn Gill.