| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case # 6, Fall 1996
January 18, 1997
Members present: John Dombrowski, John Doll, Julieann Grant, Dan
Grossman, Lauren Kern (presiding), Cyndy Schmidt (observing), Noah Shapiro,
Robinson Vu
Ombudsman: Grace Li
Letter Of Accusation
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor
stating that one of her students (Student A) had plagiarized on a paper in
a lower level humanities class. Additionally, the letter mentioned that
Student A misrepresented citations and fabricated some sources used in the
paper .
Evidence Submitted
*statement by Student A
*three books from the professor
*course syllabus and assignment
*notes and rough draft of paper
*original submissions of paper and sources
Plea
Student A entered a plea of In Violation.
Testimony
Student A said that she had no intention of violating the honor
code when she miscited sources and that the inaccuracies were due to
negligence and lack of experience. She knew while writing the paper that
she was unsure of the sources and citations, but did not realize that
improperly citing sources is an honor code violation. There were no
special circumstances relevant to her violation.
Witness 1, the professor, explained the goals of the course and the
skills focused on in class. The Witness did not consider the lack of
accurate paraphrasing to be cause for the violation as developing
paraphrasing skills is an integral part of the course. The fabrication and
misrepresentation of sources and citations, however, were the basis for the
accusation.
Penalty Deliberation
The Council recommended a penalty of F in the course for this
violation. Because the paper was worth 10% of the course grade, the
consensus penalty for the violation was an F in the course and a one
semester suspension from the University. This penalty was mitigated based
on the fact that Student A pled In Violation and cooperated with the
Council.
An F in the course and Loss of Credit in the course were proposed
as mitigated penalties. The Council agreed with the professor that the
inaccurate paraphrasing was not the issue, but rather the misrepresentation
of sources and inaccurate citations. While the accused did not intend to
violate the Honor Code, fabricating or otherwise misrepresenting sources
and citations is still plagiarism. Loss of Credit in the course was
proposed on the basis of unintentionality and that the accused cooperated
with the Council. After discussion, however, it was decided that an F in
the course was more appropriate due to the gross negligence involved and
lack of other mitigating circumstances. The final straw poll read as
follows:
F in the course and 1 semester suspension 0
F in the course
7 (+1 observing)
Loss of credit in the course
0
The Council also recommends that a suspension clause be attached to
Student A's record.
Time of hearing and deliberation: 1 hour, 50 minutes.
Respectfully submitted,
Julieann Grant
Trial Clerk