| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case # 15
May 8, 1996
Members present: John Doll, Jay Fundling, Carolyn Gill, Dan
Grossman, Courtney Kelso, Lauren Kern, Jennifer Rich, Floyd
Walker, Stephanie Wardwell, George Hatoun (observing), Noah
Shapiro(observing)
Ombuds for Student A: Grace Li
Ombuds for Students B & C: Daniel Whiteson
Letters of Accusation: The Honor Council received two
letters of accusation from a professor in a lower level
humanities class accusing 3 students of turning in papers
written for the class years earlier. Student A was accused
of turning in a paper which had been used as an example in
previous years. Students B and C were accused of turning in
a paper written by Witness #3 in previous years. The matter
was then referred to the Honor Council.
Notation: For the purpose of this abstract, an "original"
paper will be one written by the accused and an "old" paper
will be one written in previous years.
Evidence Submitted : 2 Letters of Accusation
=A5 Student A's and Student B's written statements from the
investigation
=A5 The investigator's report presenting information
recovered from Student B's hard drive
=A5 A deposition from a former professor of the class
=A5 A letter stating the time and date Student A was at a
job interview
A copy of the following papers: 2 papers belonging to
student A from Student B's Hard Drive; the paper Student A
turned in; the paper student A used as a reference; a
paper used as an example in previous years; 2 papers
belonging to Student B from Student B's hard drive; a
paper turned in in previous years; a rough draft of Student
B's original paper; The paper Student B submitted for
early evaluation; The paper Student B turned in; The
paper Student C turned in
Pleas:
Students A and B entered pleas of Not In Violation
Student C entered a plea of In Violation
Opening Statements
Student B stated that on the morning he and Student A
wanted to turn in their papers early, he printed out 2
copies of four papers, including the two in question. He
hurriedly put the papers together, while driving, and
dropped off both papers, Student A's for grading and his own
for comments. He then saw the professor and talked about
his paper, mentioning several themes which were in his
original paper, but not his old one. A week later, on the
paper's due date, he had not heard from the professor so he
turned in his other copy, which had been in his backpack.
Student A stated that Student B misunderstood which
paper he should print out and never saw the paper before it
was turned in.
Witness #1: Friend of Student A
The witness stated that the paper used as a reference
by Student A was given to him by the previous professor and
that he had asked Student A for the paper back.
Questioning: Student A and Student B both stated that they
used the old papers as references while writing their papers
on Student B's computer. In both cases, the reference paper
and the paper being written were saved under very similar
names. Student A stated that he had scanned in the paper
given to him by Witness #1 and that he did not know it was
previously used as a class example. Student A had told
Student B to put his name on his paper, add a source to the
bibliography and proofread it before printing it. Student A
stated that the professor had read his original rough draft
the week before the old one was mistakenly turned in.
Witness #2: The Professor for the course
The professor stated that he encouraged students to
turn in papers early to be reviewed and that Student A had
done this. Student A was the first paper he had seen which
was on one specific company, and since the assignment in
previous years had been to write on a specific company he
decided to check for plagiarism. He returned Student A's
paper and checked the previous professors files. The
witness stated that a paper on file was the same as Student
A's. The witness stated that Student A came up after class
the morning in question and made sure his paper was handed
in. The witness checked and Student A's paper was the same
as the one on file. The witness checked many others in the
class and found that Students B and C turned in identical
papers which were also identical to one in the files.
The witness remembered talking to Student B about his
paper, but did not remember specifics. The witness was
adamant that Student A was there immediately after class the
day in question and that the rough draft Student A turned in
was the old paper. He was sure about this because of
several key words and phrases he memorized, especially the
first sentence.
Further Questioning:
Student C stated that he got his paper from a friend's
desk intending to use it as a reference. He was very busy
the week the paper was due and planned to use the extension
until Monday. Two hours before the paper was due he found
out the extension was not for everyone, panicked and turned
in his friend's old paper.
Student B had no idea how Witness #3's paper got on his
computer, but that lots of people used the computer. He
found the paper on his computer this semester and decided to
use it as a reference.
Witness #3 Author of Student B & C's papers
The witness said that he wrote his paper either at Mudd
or on a friend's computer and did not know how it got on
Student B's computer. He also stated that he had no problem
with Student C using his paper as a source.
Further Questioning:
Student B stated that when he was printing out papers
he used the Find File option and did not look at the papers.
Witness 4 Macintosh Expert
This witness interpreted and explained the evidence
received from Student B's computer. The witness was
especially helpful in explaining how Microsoft Word 6.0
opens Microsoft Word 5.1 files and how that affects the
computer's statistics. Student B stated that he had both
Word 5.1 and 6.0
Questions:
Student A stated that the rough draft he turned in
early was his original paper and that he was not in class
that morning in question as the professor claimed. He noted
the letter from his interviewer which stated he was at an
interview around the time of the class. Student A also
stated that the slight changes between the paper written
years ago and the one handed in must have been done by
Student B when asked to proofread the paper. He stated that
the only place he made minor changes was in the old paper's
bibliography to make it readable. Student B stated when
proofreading Student A's paper he changed some wording and
may have deleted some lines.
Closing Statements:
Student A stated that he had checked the subject with
the professor who had no problem with it, and that since he
never saw the paper on the day it was turned in, he had no
way of knowing it was the wrong one.
Student B stated that his original paper is very
different from the old one he used as a reference and that
this mistake was caused by not looking at the paper before
it was turned in.
Student C wanted to emphasize that he did not get the
old paper with the intention of turning it in as his own,
and that he apologized for his actions.
Deliberations:
The Council was of the opinion that Students A & B were
In Violation because papers which were not theirs were
turned in as such. It was noted that Student A did not see
the paper before it was turned in, but the Council noted
that he still had a responsibility for getting the correct
one turned in, especially since he knew that there were two
files on the computer with very similar names. The Council
then took two straw polls:
Straw Poll 1a: Student A Straw poll 1b: Student B
In Violation 9(+ 2 observing) In Violation 9(+ 2
observing)
Not In Violation 0 Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 0 Abstentions 0
The Council considered the question of Student C's
punishment. While the Council respected him for his
honesty, there were no mitigating circumstances surrounding
his action. As the paper was worth more than 15% of the
course grade, the consensus penalty is a F in the course and
2 semester suspension. The Council decided to take another
straw poll:
Straw Poll #2: Student C
F and 2 semester suspension 9(+ 2 observing)
Abstentions 0
The council then considered penalty for Student B.
While many of the Council felt Student B's story was
credible, several members believed it constituted severe
negligence at the very least. There were three main
problems with the B's story. First, he printed out the
wrong file, knowing there was a file on his computer with a
very similar name to his original paper. Second, he stapled
on a cover page to the paper he did not write without
realizing it, and third he carried around the other copy for
a week and then put a cover page on that, again not
realizing it was not his paper. Council's opinions on this
scenario varied from gross negligence to unlucky mistakes.
Again, the consensus penalty for his violation is an F in
the Course and a two semester suspension. Alternate
penalties were suggested and a straw poll was taken to get
the opinion of the room.
Straw Poll # 3 :Student B
F + 2 semester suspension 0
F in the course 2(+ 1 observing)
No Credit in the course 4
0 on the assignment 2(+ 1 observing)
Abstentions 1
The abstaining member said he still wasn't sure about
the accused's story and that the negligence seemed too
extreme. The Council then considered the question of
Student B giving aid to Student A by taking a very active
role on proofreading Student A's paper. The Council
discussed the ramifications of considering this aspect.
Some believed that proofreading A's paper and turning in the
wrong paper were two different acts and should be considered
completely independently. Others felt that we had found a
violation on this assignment for this class and therefore it
was all the same case. All agreed, however, that the
Council had found B In Violation because of his paper, and
that the Council should unanimously decide if aid was given
before letting that affect punishment.
The old paper turned in for Student A was different
from the paper on file, specifically in that synonyms were
exchanged and in some places lines or paragraphs were
deleted. Most of the Council agreed that making substantive
changes to someone's paper without their knowledge
constitutes giving aid. The question remained if Student A
or B made those changes. Both student's testimony indicated
that B made the changes, but it was not completely clear and
the matter had not been pursued at length with the accused
students, especially since there may have been errors in
scanning the paper which could have been fixed by either
one. The computer records, while not conclusive, seemed to
indicate that Student B had worked on Student A's paper for
less than 2 minutes, consistent with just adding A's name
and extra source to the paper. The council the took a straw
poll:
Straw poll #4: Did Student B give aid?
Gave Aid 2
Did Not Give Aid 7(+ 2 observing)
Abstentions 0
At this point another straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #5: Student B
F + 1 semester suspension 1(+ 1 observing)
F in the class 2
No Credit in the class 4(+ 1 observing)
0 on the assignment 2
Abstentions 0
The Council then discussed the penalties available and
the circumstances, especially printing out the wrong file
and twice putting a cover page on the wrong paper and
turning it in and yet another straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #6: Student B
F + 1 semester suspension 0
F in the class 5(+ 1 observing)
No Credit in the class 3(+ 1 observing)
0 on the paper 1
Abstentions 0
The Council then moved on to the issue of Student A.
The Council was very interested in the conflicting testimony
from Student A and the Professor. The Professor said he saw
Student A at the end of class that morning while Student A
says he was at a job interview. Also, Student A claims he
turned in his original paper earlier for revision while the
professor states it was the copied paper. The Council felt
that if Student A had turned in the old paper as a rough
draft a week earlier, it called into question his case of an
unintentional violation. Some of the things the Professor
remembers from the rough draft were in both the old and
original papers of A. However, the Council noted that the
professor paid close attention to A's rough draft because he
was already suspicious and especially remembered the first
sentence. Several members noted that the professor was sure
the rough draft was word for word like the old paper before
he got A's final paper. Other Council members felt that the
professor was so outraged when he got A's final paper, which
was a direct copy, that it influenced his memory of the
rough draft he had seen.
The Council also looked at A's original paper. The
first several pages contained all the same ideas as the
paper he used as a reference, and all of his sources except
for one were taken from the bibliography of the reference
paper. Furthermore, A testified that he had only looked at
the pages indicated in the reference paper, not the entire
articles or books. This indicated to several members that A
had not actually done any research as was requested and
therefore it was a plagiarized paper. Those members felt
that his penalty should not be lowered because he meant to
turn in a plagiarized paper instead of a word for word
copied paper.
The Council returned to the question of which paper
Student A really wanted to turn in. The evidence indicated
that Student A was not in class that day and some members
thought that if the professor could be positive (and wrong)
about that fact then he could be wrong about which paper he
saw in the rough draft. Other members felt the professors
testimony was very convincing. A straw poll was taken to
see how the council felt on this question.
Straw Poll #7: Which paper did Student A want to turn
in?
Old (previously written): 5(+ 2 observing)
Original (written by A): 2
Abstentions 2
Many Council members who were not sure if A meant to
turn in the old paper still expressed strong concerns that
A's new paper was plagiarized. They pointed out that the
first paragraph of the two had the same substance and that A
did not have to do any research. A straw poll was take to
see where the Council stood on penalty, again the consensus
penalty was an F in the course and a 2 semester suspension.
Straw Poll #8 : Student A
F + 2 semester suspension 7(+ 2 observing)
F + 1 semester suspension 0
F in class 0
Abstentions 2
The Council observed that research was necessary for
the paper, but disagreed over weather the "gathering of
data" that Student A did was sufficient to be research. It
was also noted that the computer files indicated that
someone had examined and saved Student A's original paper
after he turned in the rough draft, possibly indicating that
he had not decided to turn in someone else's paper at that
point.
At this point everyone in the room gave their opinions
of Student A's case. A vast majority stated they thought
unintentionality should not be a mitigating circumstance.
The Council was almost evenly divided between feeling that A
intended to turn in the old paper or that the paper he had
written was plagiarized and thus could not be used to
mitigate. One member expressed concern that the Council was
punishing Student A for a paper he did not turn in, but the
other members felt that saying you meant to turn in one
plagiarized paper instead of another was not grounds for
mitigation. The Council then took another Straw Poll
Straw Poll # 9: Student A
F + 2 semester suspension 8(+ 2 observing)
F + 1 semester suspension 0
F in class 1
Abstentions 0
With no objections, straw polls #1,2,6 & 9 were made
binding.
The Honor Council thus finds students A, B and C In
Violation of the Honor System and recommends to the Dean of
Students that Student A receive an F in the Course
and a 2 semester suspension, Student B receive an F in the
course and Student C receive an F in the course and a 2
semester suspension. A suspension clause is also attached
to their records.
Time of trial and deliberation: 9 hours
Respectfully Submitted
Jay Fundling
Acting Trial Clerk