| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #6, Fall 1998
December 10th, 1998
Members Present:
Claire Boccini, Jeff Charbeneau, Steve Friedfeld, Julieann Grant (presiding),
Erin McCauley, Bill Moore, Rachel Orkand, Kimberly Peters, Amy Rees,
Ombuds:
Ajay Krishnan
Letter of Accusation:
The council received a letter of accusation from the professors of an
upper-level science class. The letter stated that the professors noticed
striking similarities between student A's and student B's final papers.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of Accusation
Course Syllabus
Depositions of one witness
Class syllabus and Honor Code guidelines
Sections of final paper from students A and B highlighted by professor to
emphasize similarities
Complete final papers of students A and B
Complete final papers of two other students in class
class notebooks of students A and B
Textbook assigned for class
papers completed by students A and B for other classes
Laptop computer used by students A and B
Written statements of Students A and B
Pleas:
Student A entered a plea of NOT IN VIOLATION.
Student B entered a plea of NOT IN VIOLATION.
Testimony:
Students A and B testified that they did not use any aid in completing their
papers. Both students stated that they had not used each other's papers and that
any collaboration would not have been possible due to the presence of their
room-mate while they were working on their papers. The students stated that the
similarities in one section of their papers were due to the fact that they were
interpreting the same results and had worked together extensively in this and
other science classes. They drew the council's attention to papers created for
other classes that were similar in phrasing. They emphasized to the council the
fact that they were room-mates and that they spent large amounts of time
together working on this paper. Student A pointed out that she used some phrases
in her paper that were unique and that were part of student B's vocabulary; she
stated this as evidence that she obviously internalized many of the things her
room-mate said and used them in her writing. The accused presented a time-line
in which they alternated with each other using the computer they shared while
the other slept; Student B finished her paper late the night before it was due
and placed it in her bag; student A finished her paper early the next morning
and turned it in.
Witness 1, the professor for the class, and witness 2, the grader, testified
together. They drew the councilŐs attention to the fact that there were more
than six identical sentences in the papers, as well as eight identical phrases
and six very similar sentences. The sentences that were similar resembled each
other in style and meaning. The witnesses clarified the honor code policy for
the class, which stated that students could work together in class, and could
discuss general ideas about the paper, but could not work together as they wrote
up the section of the paper in question. The professors pointed out that these
papers stood out of a large number as being strikingly similar. The similarities
that they pointed out included: Student A used one set of numbers in a previous
section but used Student B's numbers in the section in question, while student B
did not change, and the use of these numbers occurred in an identical sentence;
Student B consistently misused a word throughout her paper, while Student A used
it correctly except as it appeared in the section in question by the professors,
again in an identical sentence; stylistic changes from Student A's original
writing style to one more similar to Student B's in the section of the paper in
question.
Witness three, the students' third room-mate confirmed her deposition stating
that she was present and awake almost all of the time that either of the accused
were working on the computer they share. She emphasized that she would have
noticed if either of her room-mates was receiving aid on her paper.
Deliberation:
The council began by thoroughly examining the evidence presented and noting
that, in addition to the sections in question, the bibliographies of the
students were identical, as was the font set for some of the headings. It was
noted that Student B's font remained constant, while Student A's was sometimes
identical to student B's and sometimes different. In relation to the sections in
question, the council noted that identical sentences contained incorrect grammar
that would not be expected to be identical in use and placement between papers.
The council further noted that sentences that were similar, rather than
identical, were only separated from being identical by very minor changes, and
examined the use of very rare but non-scientific words in the same place in
identical sentences. The council noted that these similarities were minor when
looked at one at a time, but were extraordinary when seen throughout a section
of writing. The council disregarded the third witness's statement because it was
felt that she could not have definitively known if a violation had occurred.
The council held a straw poll at this time to determine whether or not members
felt that a violation had occurred.
Straw Poll #1
Yes: 9
No: 0
Abstentions: 0
The council then moved on to deciding who had committed the violation. The
following evidence was considered in addition to that noted by the first two
witnesses: Many complex sentences in Student B's paper appeared in student A's
paper as 2 short sentences with the same content and many identical words;
Student B consistently used contractions throughout her writing, while Student A
used them only in the section in question; Student B was consistent with her
font and headings while Student A's changed to match student B's for the
identical bibliography and the opening heading to her paper; Students both used
a colloquial expression in the middle of an identical sentence, and student B
had testified that she "never used that word". Finally, the council
noted that if the time-line was correct, student A could have easily copied
parts of Student B's paper after student B had gone to sleep or after Student B
and the third room-mate had left for school.
The council held the following straw polls:
Straw Poll # 2: Student B
In violation: 0
Not in violation: 8
Abstentions: 1
The abstaining member stated that she felt that she was not sure that
collaboration had not occurred.
Straw poll #3: Student A
In violation: 9
Not in violation: 0
Abstentions: 0
Penalty Deliberation: The council could not find any mitigating circumstances in
this case. It was brought up that perhaps only the section of the paper in
question could be considered in violation rather than considering the whole
paper; this would lower the consensus penalty to an F in the course. However,
due to the similarities found throughout the paper, including the bibliography,
most members felt that this was not appropriate.
Straw Poll #4: Penalty for Student A
F in the course + 2 semester suspension: 7
F in the course + 1 semester suspension: 0
F in the course: 2
Abstentions: 0
The council then returned to the issue of collaboration; it was felt after
reviewing the evidence above that another straw poll should be taken:
Straw Poll #5: Student B
In violation: 0
Not in Violation: 9
Abstentions: 0
Straw polls number 3, 4, and 5 were made binding by a motion from the council.
Thus the Honor Council finds Student A IN VIOLATION of the Honor Code and
recommends an F in the course and a 2 semester suspension.
Thus the Honor Council finds Student B NOT IN VIOLATION of the Honor code.
The honor council also recommends that a suspension clause be attached to
Student A's record.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 5 hours, 55 minutes.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Rees
Trial Clerk