| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #16, Spring, 1998
May 1st, 1998
Members Present:
Courtney Kelso (presiding), Erin McCauley, Jessica Dirks, Julieann Grant, Betsy
Winakur, Lisa Hsieh, John Doll, Julie Bachir (observing), Deanna Smith
(observing), Jennifer Ngo (observing)
Ombuds:
Mark Covey, Austin Ku (observing ombuds)
Letter of Accusation:
The council received a letter of self accusation from a student in an upper
level science class. The student stated that he had turned in a plagiarized
assignment. After the deadline, he had replaced the assignment with a blank
assignment.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of Accusation
The syllabus for the course
Student A's written statement
The assignment sheet
The ProfessorŐs deposition
An additional sheet of information from the professor
Pleas
Student A plead In Violation.
Testimony:
Student A explained the nature of the procedure to turn in assignments for the
course, and gave a time line as to the events in the day following the
submission of the plagiarized assignment. She had discussed the violation with a
friend to come up with possible solutions. The friend testified to this
discussion. She had settled on the plan to resubmit a blank assignment, when she
was confronted by her roommate about violation. They agreed to bring the matter
to the Honor Council. Student A also submitted the blank assignment as planned.
The professors deposition stated that he had received only Student A's blank
assignment, and that he had received this assignment late.
Deliberation:
The members present felt that while this was a hearing, that it would be
appropriate to first vote as to whether or not a violation had occurred. The
relevant sections of the blue book which would allow this sort of modification
were discussed. They included the first page where the chair is allowed "to
modify the procedures in a particular case in order to reach a timely and just
decision" and section III of our procedure which states that "the
hearing or trial shall be conducted in such a manner that the fact of the case
may be ascertained and a just decision reached."
Some members of the council felt that since Student A had resubmitted a blank
assignment before the professor graded the plagiarized assignment, that it was
as though no plagiarized assignment had been submitted. Other members of council
felt that the deadline for an assignment is the only line that can be drawn as
to whether or not a paper is plagiarized. If there is plagiarized work which is
available to the professor to be graded after the deadline, that a violation has
occurred. Several members expressed concern as to the precedent that this case
would set.
Straw Poll #2
In Violation 4 (+2 observing)
Not in Violation 2 (+1 observing)
Abstentions 1
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A Not In Violation of the Honor System.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 2 hours
Respectfully Submitted,
Erin McCauley
(Secretary)