| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #20
April 26, 1995
Members present: Fawn Burns, Carolyn Gill, Erin Kellum, Lauren Kern,
Katie Krolikowski, Ken Matheis, Thomas Page, Ram Rajamony, Christopher
Stokes, Jay Fundling (observing), and Jen Rich (observing).
Ombudsman: Lan Huynh
Letter of Accusation
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a
professor accusing a student, Student A, of plagiarism on a major
paper in a graduate level humanities class. The letter explained that
seven pages of Student A's paper were photocopies of a corporate
document that Student A had no hand in producing. It also explained
that the text not photocopied still read for the most part as a
rearrangement of lines in the company document.
Evidence Submitted
- Course syllabus
- Term paper of Student A
- Company document
- Two other term papers from the class
Plea
Student A entered a plea of Not In Violation.
Opening Statement
Student A said that she missed the discussion of how the paper
should be written and that she was under emotional pressure and
unusually straining time commitments last semester. Student A
explained that she came from a very different academic environment and
had never before been required to write a paper with footnotes or
referencing. She did not know how to deal with this paper and in the
whirlwind of other pressures at the time she didn't think of
referencing her work. Student A understood the idea of accrediting a
quote to a person but did not equate that to accrediting a piece of
work to a company. She said she knew the paper wouldn't hurt anyone
and she did not see her act as in competition with her peers. Student
A did not think she was violating the Honor Code when she wrote her
paper.
Questioning
Student A said that she knew what a bibliography was simply
from seeing them in books, but she did not remember writing a paper
with one before. She said that for most of the semester the course
had not been demanding. With the paper and the end of the semester,
however, the course suddenly became very demanding.
Witness 1 - Professor
The professor indicated that the syllabus which asks for an
"original" paper was handed out on the first day of class and was
referred to throughout the semester. The paper was specifically
discussed on the first day of class and on several occasions
thereafter. Asked when in their course of study students were usually
required to write papers like this one, the witness responded that
some papers were probably written in required first year courses. The
professor never addressed documentation specifically in class because
she didn't feel it was necessary to do so at the graduate level of
study. There was, however, some documentation in papers handed out to
the class.
The syllabus indicated that the paper could include a "case
study", and the professor explained that a case study was a problem
that students analyzed and responded to. She said students could
either take this route or they could write more of a research report.
The professor assumed from the paper's introduction that Student A was
presenting her interpretation of a problem and a solution, in other
words acting like a reporter. The professor explained, however, that
Student A didn't document any of this information. This witness did
not believe that there was any misunderstanding or miscommunication
between herself and Student A.
Further Questioning
Student A said she didn't remember receiving an Honor System
orientation but that she was aware of the Honor Code and signed the
pledge on her paper. She said she understood vaguely the definition
of plagiarism before coming to Rice: taking credit for someone else's
work.
She said she believed this case was unusual and that her
inexperience lead to her actions. She quoted from a pamphlet she had
on another subject that said parts of it could be reproduced with or
without acknowledgment. Student A said she thought it would be
understood from her opening paragraph that the plans she was
presenting were those of the company and not her own. When asked
about the striking similarity between the text of the document and
most of the text in her paper, Student A indicated that she couldn't
remember exactly how she wrote the paper. She cites the fact that she
offered to work with another student on her idea (allowed by the
course) as proof of the fact that she did not intend to violate the
Code. She understood the case study for this paper to be different
from the other case studies she had done. She cited a lack of
communication with the professor as a factor in how she wrote the
paper.
Although she would have added more information, Student A said
that she would not have written her paper that differently if she had
not been rushed. She said that she didn't feel like she added
anything to the paper; she just wanted to show the company's approach.
She agreed that her paper was similar to handing in a book from the
library. She said she might have added something if she had had more
time, but not because she thought the paper required it. When asked
what she thought an original paper to be, she said she thought of
original as meaning unusual or outstanding. She didn't think she
understood what the professor meant by "original paper." She
reiterated the fact that all her previous work had been
problem-related and that any papers she had written had not required
the use of another's work.
Student A said it did not take her long to write the paper.
She had taken some notes on the company's plans based on her own
knowledge, but she said their document was more accurate and complete.
Closing Statement
Student A restated many of the points she made in the opening
statement, making clear that she did not think she was violating the
Code at the time she was writing this paper. She did add that she was
"goal-oriented" at the time due to all the pressures she was under.
Student A also suggested that the poor relations between she and her
colleagues may have influenced the letter of accusation.
Deliberation
The Council felt that the material evidence made it clear that
Student A had plagiarized and thus violated the Honor Code. Seven
pages of her paper were exact photocopies of a company's document.
The pages not photocopied were still almost entirely plagiarized.
Only the opening and closing paragraphs appear to have been written by
Student A. A straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #1
In Violation 9(+2 observing)
Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 0
Thus, the Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor System.
Penalty Deliberation
The consensus penalty for this violation is an F in the course
and two semesters suspension from the University. The Council
discussed extensively the mitigating circumstance of unintentionality
as it applied to the case. It was generally agreed that Student A
understood plagiarism and the Honor System. Some members questioned
whether she understood how the System applied to this particular
assignment. This was supported by the fact that she described
"original" as meaning something novel and interesting. There was also
some speculation as to whether Student A thought she had quoted the
company implicitly in her opening paragraph.
After circling around the issue of whether or not Student A
intended for the company's ideas to be taken as her own, members were
reminded that this violation went far beyond the plagiarism of ideas
to the exact plagiarism of words and photocopies of documents. The
syllabus itself asks not necessarily for original ideas (as long as
the ideas of others are documented, of course) but for an original
paper. Several members felt that the fact that Student A consciously
turned in essentially another document for her paper indicated the
impossibility of unintentionality. It was also pointed out that
ignorance of the System is no excuse for committing a violation and
that it was Student A's responsibility to find out what was expected
of her in this assignment. A second penalty of an F in the course and
one semester suspension was proposed. A straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #2
F in course + 2 semester suspension 3(+ 1 observing)
F in course + 1 semester suspension 0
Abstentions 6(+ 1observing)
There followed more discussion as to whether the accused could
have reasonably thought that she would not violate the Honor Code with
this paper. Several members pointed out that in the text she did
rearrange, Student A changed the company document to fit into the
format of a paper written by him. One member suggested that the
violation may not have been intentional simply because the plagiarism
was so blatant. But another member reminded the Council that the
professor of the course did not have immediate access to the original
document. A third straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #3
F in course + 2 semester suspension 5(+ 2 observing)
F in course + 1 semester suspension 2
Abstentions 2
After hearing from the abstaining members, another straw poll was
taken:
Straw Poll #4
F in course + 2 semester suspension 5(+ 2 observing)
F in course + 1 semester suspension 4
Abstentions 0
Following more discussion of Student A's understanding of the
Honor Code and the assignment in question, members were encouraged to
strive for unanimity and another straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #5
F in course + 2 semester suspension 5(+ 2 observing)
F in course + 1 semester suspension 4
Abstentions 0
After a general restatement of opinions, the Council members
were reminded that to justly mitigate a penalty from consensus
required clear logical reasons. It was pointed out that
unintentionality and ignorance were separate ideas and that ignorance
should not be used to mitigate. Some members maintained that Student
A did not realize that her act of photocopying pages from a company
report to turn in as the body of her paper constituted plagiarism.
Another straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #6
F in course + 2 semester suspension 5(+ 1 observing)
F in course + 1 semester suspension 3(+ 1 observing)
Abstentions 1
After hearing from the abstaining member, the Council took a final
straw poll:
Straw Poll #7
F in course + 2 semester suspension 6(+ 2 observing)
F in course + 1 semester suspension 3
Abstentions 0
With no objections, the results of Straw Polls #1 and #7 were
made binding. The Honor Council thus finds Student A In Violation of
the Honor System, and recommends to the Dean of Students that Student
A receive an F in the course in question and a two semester suspension
from the University. The Council also recommends that a suspension
clause be attached to Student A's record.
Time of trial and deliberation: approximately 5 hours.
Respectfully submitted,
Lauren T. Kern
Trial Clerk