| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #7, Fall 1998
January 28, 1999
Members Present:
Courtney Kelso (presiding), Julie Bachir, Jessie Dirks, Steve Friedfeld, Jan
Huber, Erin McCauley, Kimberly Peters, Kasia Solon, Floyd Walker
Ombuds:
Ajay Krishnan
Letter of Accusation:
The council received a letter of accusation from the professor in an upper level
humanities course stating that Student A submitted work that was copied from
another author and presented this work as his own.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of accusation
Student A's statement
Course handout
Student As assignment in question and his other assignments for the course
Authors work
Deposition of other students in the course (Students B and C)
Plea:
Student A plead Not In Violation
Testimony:
The professor alleged that Student A used copyrighted work as his own without
either citing the original work or altering the work sufficiently. Further, the
professor questioned the integrity of the assignment because of varying styles
between all of Student As assignments. An assistant in the class also felt that
Student As work was a copy of the authored work. Student A maintained that he
did alter the work sufficiently and that, in doing so, he was simply using the
authors work as a basis for his own assignment. Further, Student A argued that
the process of using others materials and altering them was encouraged
throughout the class. A friend of the witness stated that he had taken a similar
course with this professor, and that, to his recollection, the professor did not
discuss the definition of using copyrighted material or the extent to which
changes were necessary. Students B and C also stated this in their depositions.
Student A also felt that a bias against him from the professor existed. This
point was supported in Student C's deposition.
Deliberation:
The council was divided as to whether a violation had occurred. Some members
felt that Student A should have cited the original authors work or altered it in
a way that would have been considered sufficient by the professor. Others felt
that the students work was indeed altered sufficiently and that in doing so he
created his own statement. Members felt that, from the evidence presented, it is
possible that the professor did hold a bias against Student A and that this bias
led the professor to charge that the work was copied. Because there was no
written honor policy given to the class, members felt that Student A had no way
of knowing that what he was doing was a violation of the honor code. Other
council members expressed their belief that the student did copy the work, but
was unintentionally negligent in doing so, since it appeared that using others
works with alterations was common practice in the class.
Straw Poll #2:
In Violation 5
Not In Violation 4
Abstentions 0
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A Not In Violation of the Honor Code.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 5 hours
Respectfully Submitted,
Steve Friedfeld
Trial Clerk