| Honor Council Rice University |
Case#4, Fall 1994
Abstract of the Honor Council
October 25, 1994
Members Present: Alex Cestero, Dan Grossman, Katie
Krolikowski, Heather Morschauser (presiding), Caline Mouawad,
Thomas Page, Ram Rajamony, Kevin Reed, Chris Vissers.
Ombuds: Lan Huynh with Erin Kellam (observing).
Letter of Accusation
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from the
professor of a lower-level humanities course, accusing a student
in her course of possible plagiarism on a paper. The letter
explained that while reading the paper, the professor suspected
that phrases and ideas may have been used without proper
citation. The professor wanted to check some of the sources so
that she could help the accused with proper documentation. When
attempting to verify the citations in the paper, the professor
discovered that almost none of them referred to sources and page
numbers relevant to the idea cited. It was at this point that
the professor wrote the letter of accusation.
Evidence Submitted
written statement of the accused
the paper in question
the books and articles cited in the bibliography of the paper
a course syllabus
a course handout on citation
notes the accused used when writing the paper
a list of corrections prepared by the accused listing the wrong
citations and what they should have been
Plea
The accused entered a plea of Not in Violation.
Opening Statement
The accused explained that the errors came from sloppiness and
not from any intent to give a false citation. She pointed out
that she never claimed others' work as her own, she simply put
down the wrong citations. Furthermore, the bibliography for the
paper was correct as it contained those sources and only those
sources used for the paper. Close but incorrect page numbers
and close page numbers but naming the wrong source were the
major causes of mistakes. The accused then explained how her
process for writing the paper had led to these errors. On her
first trip to the library, she had made photocopies from several
documents. Later, she went back to the library and took notes
directly from some books while writing page numbers in the
margin of her note paper. Finally, she prepared multiple
outlines while planning and writing the paper. In the course of
all this, some of the notes became mixed up and page numbers
were attributed to the wrong source. Also, cites were made to
near page numbers because of the organization of her notes.
After the Honor Council investigation, the accused went back to
the original sources and found all the correct citations. The
accused pointed out that she had nothing to gain by making such
mistakes on the citations. She maintained that since no work
had been wrongly claimed as her own and since the mistakes were
unintentional, she had not violated the Honor Code.
Questioning
The accused was asked about the notes submitted as evidence and
about how the notes became shuffled when writing the paper. She
explained that her room had been a mess at the time and that
some of the notes had been thrown away when the room was
cleaned. The accused was asked why she didn't check the cites
as she was putting them in the paper. She explained that the
original sources were not available to her when she was actually
writing. She wrote the paper mostly from her notes. She
maintained that she never guessed any page numbers, and that if
she had any doubts about the correctness of the notes, there was
nothing to suggest they were wrong, so she assumed they were
correct.
Witness 1 - professor of the course
The professor explained that her original bad feeling about the
paper was the result of the advanced quality of writing, but
that the inconsistencies in citation led her to write the letter
of accusation. Having now read other papers of the accused, she
would have no reason to be suspicious because of the writing
style, but the paper in question was the first of the semester.
This particular paper was worth 15% of the semester grade. Upon
seeing the correct citations prepared for the trial by the
accused, the professor felt the mistakes were the result of
sloppy work and preparation and not the result of intentional
errors.
Further Questioning
The accused was asked how confident she was in the correctness
of her notes when she wrote the paper. She was very confident.
She was also asked if the fact that in the final paper almost
every citation is made to the same source led her to doubt the
citations' correctness. She said that she noticed the
apparently heavy reliance on one source, but that it was the
best source and she trusted that her notes were correct.
Witness 2 - roommate of the accused
The roommate corroborated that the room had been a mess with
the accused's notes all over the floor and that she had thrown
papers away when cleaning the room.
Closing Statement
The accused argued that her mistake did not constitute academic
fraud. Because she always cited at the correct points in the
paper and because all of the mistakes were purely unintentional,
she did not believe she had committed academic fraud. She
contended that the definition of academic fraud required a
degree of intentionality. She had every intention of citing the
paper correctly and as a strong believer in the Honor System,
does not feel she should be convicted of a violation for sloppy
scholarship.
Deliberation
Council members generally agreed with the accused that the
errors were unintentional and did not suggest that the accused
was claiming ideas that belonged to others. However, the fact
that so many citations were wrong to the point that the
professor could not verify the paper's integrity troubled the
Council. Furthermore, an entire source had not been credited in
the paper even though it was mentioned in the bibliography.
While the Council felt that the problem was poor note-taking
prior to writing the paper, the end result was a paper with too
many citation problems.
The Council generally did not agree with the accused's
interpretation of academic fraud and plagiarism. The accused
did not intend to deceive or fraudulently present material, but
she did submit a paper with false citations. As this is
included in the definition of academic fraud, most of the
Council felt that this was the most relevant consideration. A
straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #1
In Violation 8
Not in Violation 0
Abstentions 1
The abstaining member was not convinced that making a single
honest mistake in a paper constituted plagiarism and an Honor
Code Violation. Other members noted that the issue was not one
or two page number mistakes, but a consistent incorrectness that
made the paper unverifiable. Also, the omission of a major
source from citation in the body of the paper was particularly
disturbing. Another straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #2
In Violation 9
Not in Violation 0
Abstentions 0
Thus, the Council finds the accused in violation.
Penalty Deliberation
Because the paper was worth 15% of the semester grade, the
maximum penalty is an F in the course and a 2 semester
suspension. Council members noted major mitigating
circumstances, however. The first was unintentionality; the
accused believed her notes when she wrote the paper. The second
was severity of violation; the accused never claimed the work of
others as her own and the bibliography was correct. There was
some discussion on how accurate the accused could have believed
her notes to be considering their disorganization. Many
penalties were proposed and a straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #3
F in the course 0
Double loss of credit on the assignment with the 1
opportunity to earn one of the credits back with a new paper
One letter grade lower for course and write a new paper 1
Loss of credit on the assignment + rewrite the paper 3
+ reorientation regarding plagiarism
Loss of credit on the assignment 1
Letter of reprimand + rewrite the paper 2
+ reorientation regarding plagiarism
Abstentions 1
Because many of the penalties were similar, compromise was
rather easy. Some Council members questioned the point of
rewriting the same paper since the accused had already found the
correct citations. Another straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #4
One letter grade lower for course and write a new paper 1
Loss of credit on the assignment + rewrite the paper 0
+ reorientation
Loss of credit on the assignment + reorientation 5
Letter of reprimand + rewrite the paper + reorientation 1
Abstentions 2
After hearing from the abstaining members, a final straw poll
was taken:
Straw Poll #5
One letter grade lower for course and write a new paper 0
Loss of credit on the assignment + reorientation 8
Letter of reprimand + rewrite the paper + reorientation 1
Abstentions 0
With no objections, the results of Straw Polls #2 and #5 were
made binding. The Honor Council thus finds the accused In
Violation of the Honor System, and recommends to the Dean of
Students that the accused receive a loss of credit on the
assignment and a reorientation to plagiarism. The Council also
recommends that a suspension clause be attached to the accused's
record.
Time of trial and deliberation: 3 hours, 15 minutes.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dan Grossman
Honor Council Secretary