| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #1, Fall, 1997
January 22, 1998
Members Present:
Betsy Winakur (presiding), Erin McCauley, Amy Rees, Karrie Johnson, Jan-Michael
Huber, Jeff Gavornik, Steve Friedfeld, Roger Chen (observing), John Doll,
Julianne Grant, Linda Lee (observing), Kristin Johnson (observing)
Ombuds:
Mark Covey, Ajay Krishnan (observing ombuds)
Letter of Accusation:
The council received a letter of accusation from a professor of an upper level
humanities course. The letter stated that Student A had turned in a paper which
appeared not to be his own work.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of Accusation
Deposition of the professor
Student A's statement
The assignment sheet for the paper
The paper in question
Two other papers written by Student A for the course
Pleas
Student A plead Not In Violation.
Testimony:
Student A discussed his procedure for writing the paper. He had discussed his
topic with other students in the course and had consulted a book from the
library prior to writing his paper. He did not remember the title of the book,
but said that he had only used it for background information. The professor in
the course testified to his interactions with Student A, and how he had assisted
him writing papers. The professor discussed the stylistic and grammatical
differences between the paper in question and Student A's other papers.
Deliberation:
The papers submitted by Student A were compared in terms of their style and
content. Some members of the council were hesitant to vote "in
violation" because the book which may have been copied was not part of the
evidence. They were convinced, however, that the paper contained portions which
should have been cited because of their content, and that the stylistic
difference between the paper in question and student A's other papers pointed
strongly to copying of words and ideas. In addition the paper did not conform to
the guidelines of the assignment and some members felt that Student A did not
express a clear grasp of the ideas expressed in the paper during his testimony.
Straw Pole #3
In Violation 9 (+1 observing)
Not in Violation 0
Abstentions 0
The consensus penalty for the violation is an F and a two semester suspension.
Unintentionality and severity of violation were discussed as possible mitigating
circumstances. Some members felt that if the violation was unintentional, it was
a case of gross negligence, and therefore should not be mitigated. Those who
argued in favor of mitigating on severity of violation thought that, because the
source of the plagiarized paper was not in evidence it was unclear exactly how
much it had been copied. Other members argued that the entire paper was
plagiarized.
A suspension clause had been attached to Student A's record from Case #6, 1991.
According to the wording of the abstract of that case, Student A could receive a
two semester suspension (in addition to the regular penalty) if he was again
found in violation of the honor code.
Straw Pole #6
F and a 4 semester suspension 6
F and a 3 semester suspension (1 observing)
F and a 2 semester suspension 3
Abstentions 0
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor System and
recommends that he receive an F in the course and a 4 semester suspension and
that a suspension clause be attached to his record.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 5 hours 15 minutes
Respectfully Submitted,
Erin McCauley
(Trial Clerk)