| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #6, Spring 1998
March 11, 1998
Members Present:
John Doll (presiding), John Dombrowski, Erin McCauley, Juliann Grant, Weera
Chainakul, Frankie Vasquez-Harris, Courtney Kelso, Kristin Johnson, Jan Huber
Ombuds:
Elizabeth Oehler
Letter of Accusation:
The council received a letter of accusation from a professor in an upper level
humanities course. The letter stated that Student A had turned in a paper which
appeared not to be her own work.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of Accusation
Course Syllabus
Cope of the writing assignment from the syllabus
Student A's original paper
Copy of possible source from which the paper was plagiarized
Student A's statement
Pleas:
Student A plead IN VIOLATION.
At this time, council members Erin McCauley and Kristin Johnson were dismissed
in order to proceed with the hearing.
Testimony:
Student A testified that she was given and extension on the assignment in
question. She was running later turning it in by the deadline, and accidentally
omitted all citations from her paper. The professor testified that over 70% of
the paper was directly lifted, word-for-word from another source without
citation. Student A brought up the fact that she was having personal problems at
the time of the paper due date. At this time abstracts from two previous Honor
Council trials in which Student A was found in violation were submitted for the
councilŐs review.
Deliberation:
The Council noted that the paper turned in by Student A and the copy of the
source passages were identical. After consulting the two previous abstracts,
both arguably heinous violations in which Student A received suspensions from
the university, many members of the council felt that repeated violations of the
Honor Code constituted another heinous violation. In the consensus penalty
structure, a violation termed heinous can be penalized with an F in the course
and an indefinite suspension. The suspension clauses in both previous abstracts
also make the indefinite suspension possible. The Council discussed whether the
mitigating circumstances of cooperation with the Council (in the form of a plea
of In Violation) and sever emotional stress would be used. Several members felt
that the heinous nature of these many violations outweighed any effect the
mitigating circumstances would have.
Straw Poll #1
F in the course and a 4 semester suspension: 1
F in the course and an indefinite suspension: 5
abstentions: 1
The abstaining member discussed his reservations about indefinite suspension,
and his concern that he couldnŐt mitigate down from an indefinite suspension.
He finally agreed that the violations were heinous, because of their frequency,
and was ready to vote again.
Straw Pole #2
F in the course and a 4 semester suspension: 1
F in the course and an indefinite suspension: 6
abstentions: 0
Thus the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor System and
recommends that she receive an F in the course and an indefinite suspension.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hour 35 minutes
Respectfully Submitted,
Courtney Kelso
(trial clerk)