| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #5, Fall 1999
December 10, 1999
Members Present:
Allison Holland, Jan Huber, Aaron Martz, Bill Moore (presiding), Neil Nandi,
Elizabeth Oehler, Amy Rees
Ombuds:
Loan Lam
Letter of Accusation:
The council received a letter from a professor in an upper-level humanities
class accusing Student A of plagiarizing his paper from a webpage.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of Accusation
Written statement of Student A
Copy of Student A's paper
Copy of the webpage
Class syllabus
Professor's written requirements for the paper
Works Cited page
First draft of Student A's paper
Copies of two additional webpages used for the first draft
Pleas:
Student A plead In Violation
Testimony:
Student A stated that he understood that he should have turned in a works cited
page with both the first and second copies of his paper, and that he is not sure
why he did not in this case. He also stated that he realized that he should have
put quotes and footnotes with the material that he took from the webpages he
used as a source for his papers; he stated that his omission of quotes or
footnotes was completely unintentional. He stated that he has written many
papers at Rice in the past and that he is in the habit of using either quotes
and in-text citations or quotes and foot-notes.
Student A emphasized the fact that he missed a number of classes and that he had not received the professor's guidelines for the paper. These guidelines included a requirement that students not use outside sources. He explained that, after turning in the first copy of his paper, he got it back from the professor because the professor felt that it did not meet the guidelines he had set out. He testified that he had then spoken with the professor about his paper and that the professor had not mentioned anything to him about using outside sources. The professor allowed the accused to re-write the paper, and it was the second copy of the paper which was turned in to the Honor Council.
Witness #1, the professor for the class, stated that he had not received the accused's works cited page, which the accused stated he turned in one day after turning his paper. He stated that he first suspected that a violation had occurred when he read Student A's second paper and noted some complex phrases. When the professor looked on the internet, he found the webpage which he stated the paper was copied from. The professor emphasized that other students, who had not been in class when he had originally handed out the requirements for the paper, had managed to receive those requirements by talking to the professor and that the requirements had been available in class or in his office.
In closing, Student A stated that he was aware that since he had used an outside source to write extensive portions of his paper, he should have put quotes around those parts of his paper which were taken from that source. He testified to the council that he had taken classes in which citation was carefully explained to him and that he usually cites his work carefully. The accused stressed the unintentionality of his violation, stating that his intent was not malicious but rather a misunderstanding. He further stated that he was not aware that he was not to use outside sources at all, as he had not received the professor's requirements for the paper.
Deliberation:
The council began by establishing that the accused understood the violation he
was being accused of. It was felt that because the accused testified that he
knew he should have put quotes around his phrases, he understood that he had
plagiarized, and thus plead In Violation. The council clarified the fact that
the student's use of outside sources was not necessarily a violation, but that
not citing outisde works would be a violation.The council examined the webpage
and Student A's paper and determined that the majority of the paper was directly
copied from the webpage without either quotation marks or citation. Further, the
council examined the two webpages used for the student's first paper and noted
that material from these two webpages was included in the second paper, so that
two additional sources not listed on Student A's Works Cited page were used
without citation or quotation marks.
Straw Poll #1 (Was Student A In Violation?)
In Violation: 9
Not In Violation: 0
Abstentions: 0
Since the assignment was worth 30% of the course grade, the consensus penalty for the violation was an F in the class and a two semester suspension. At this point, the council examined possible mitigating circumstances. Student A's cooperation with the council, in the form of a plea of "In Violation", was agreed upon as a mitigating circumstance. Unintentionality was ruled out as a mitigating circumstance because it was felt that all students at Rice should understand the importance of citing another person's work. The council did not feel that Student A's testimony that he did not know he was not allowed to use outside sources was relevant, because whether or not he was allowed to use such sources, they should have been cited correctly. The student's own testimony convinced the Council that he did know how to use correct citation. Instances in the paper where Student A had modified copied passages to include the pronoun "I" indicated to the Council that Student A had recognized that he was using another person's words, yet failing to give credit to that person. The fact that a large majority of the paper was plagiarized ruled out the possibility of severity as a mitigating circumstance and further pointed to the negligent nature of this violation. A penalty of an F in the class and a one-semester suspension was suggested as the next lowest penalty the Council could assign. A penalty of an F in the class was suggested as another possible penalty. In addition, a letter of reprimand and a re-write of the paper were added to all three suggested penalties.
Straw Poll #4 (Penalty)
F in the course, letter of reprimand, re-write 2
F in the course, 1 semester suspension, letter of reprimand, re-write 5
F in the course, 2 semester suspension, letter of reprimand, re-write 0
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A IN VIOLATION of the Honor System, and recommends that the student receive a penalty of an F in the class, a one semester suspension, a re-write of the paper, and a letter of reprimand. The council also recommends that a suspension clause be attached to Student A's record.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 3 hours
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Rees
(Trial Clerk)