Abstract discussion on Wednesday, April 26th,
at 9 P.M. in the Campus Center, room 205
Will and Grace
Honor Council Academic Trial
Spring 2000
Introduction: Grace and Professor Will
contacted Honor Council about a suspicion of plagiarism. Both parties had communicated before
contacting Honor Council. Honor Council
consensed on a suspicion of violation.
Fact-Finding #1:
Grace’s statement: The week before the paper
was due, Grace chose her paper topic by browsing through a number of sources in
the library. After deciding on a topic,
she photocopied the relevant information from one source. The weekend before the paper was due, Grace
went home, but left her photocopied material at school. At home she located a similar source on the
Internet and printed it out. She
returned to school with the printout.
The night before the paper was due, Grace began working at 2 A.M. Upon its completion, she printed it out
without proofreading it and turned the paper in the next morning.
When Professor Will handed back the papers a week
and a half later, Grace did not receive hers.
She approached him and Professor Will said that he would look in his
office for it. The next day, she
e-mailed him a copy of the paper at his request.
Shortly afterwards, Professor Will contacted Grace
and asked her to meet with him privately.
At this meeting, she read the paper for the first time and saw many
similarities between the web source and her paper. They decided to wait a week before meeting again and in the
interim, Grace wrote Professor Will a letter telling him how she felt about the
situation. They then met again and
decided to contact Honor Council.
Professor Will’s statement: The paper was due in a box
outside his office at 4 P.M. He always
checks-off the names of the students who submit papers, but was unsure at
exactly what time he did this.
Professor Will stated that he never saw Grace’s paper.
When he returned the papers, Grace asked for hers. Professor Will asked her to submit another
copy to him. She sent the paper via
e-mail the following day after he reminded her through e-mail, at which point
he read the paper. The lack of any
documentation, the oddity of the paper topic, and the difference between the
writing style of this and Grace’s previous papers suggested to him that she had
not written this paper. He did a web
search on the paper topic, located the specific document that she had used to
write her paper, and compared it with her paper. Professor Will summarized that her paper was fifty- percent
direct reproduction and fifty percent a combination of reproduction and
paraphrasing. He further noted that
there were no quotation marks, citations or bibliography.
Professor Will then asked Grace to meet with him to
talk about the paper. He said that she
claimed that she submitted the paper on time, but agreed that plagiarism had
occurred. They met again one week
later, at which time they agreed to contact Honor Council. They discussed possible resolutions, which
included her failing the paper, but were open to Honor Council’s
decisions.
The Professor closed his statement by noting that he
could still not find the paper, but he could not rule out that it might have
been misplaced. He does not believe
that this was an attempt on Grace’s part to deceive him, as no one could
believe that plagiarism to this extent could go undetected.
The jury then proceeded to ask a number of questions
to both Professor Will and Grace. Grace said that she started the paper at 2
A.M and guessed that she finished somewhere around 5 A.M. She didn’t remember how she wrote this
paper. Grace noted that she normally
cites in her papers and believes that if she had proofread, she would have
noticed this huge oversight. Professor
Will presented the paper to the jury, her print-out of the web source and the
notes that she has used to the write the paper, which she had given to
Professor Will after he confronted her.
He expressed interest in determining whether or not the paper was
submitted on time. The jury suggested
that Grace return to her room at this time and place the paper on temp storage
so that the jury could examine the creation date and time of the paper. Professor Will left the room and Grace
returned home.
Jury Deliberation:
The document showed that the paper was written on
the date that Grace claimed, however, at 4:55 P.M. Furthermore, the jury noticed that the paper’s total editing time
was thirty-five minutes. Because of the
discrepancy in both the creation and editing times of the paper, the jury
decided to hold another fact-finding session.
Professor Will then reentered the room, at which point the jury revealed
to him its findings. Grace was notified
by the trial’s contact person.
Professor Will left for the evening, after which the jury compiled a
list of questions to ask Grace in the second fact-finding session.
The jury asked Grace its questions. She admitted that she plagiarized, but did
not intend to do so. Netscape was not
open while she was writing the paper; thus, she did not cut and paste directly
from the source to the paper. The paper
itself, her notes and the web source that Professor Will gave to the jury in
the first fact-finding session were the only materials that she used to write
the paper. She doesn’t remember what
happened during the period while she was writing and stated that she was in a
“fog.” While she was writing the paper,
she used only one Microsoft Word file and guessed that she wrote for two and a
half to three hours. Grace said that
she definitely turned in the paper to the box outside his office before the
designated deadline. She was very
surprised when Professor Will confronted her, as she had not read the paper
after printing it out.
Jury Deliberation:
The jury examined the plagiarized paper. Professor Will had previously marked on the
paper what was word-for-word reproduction, what was paraphrased, and what Grace
had altered in the midst of word-for-word reproduction. The paper was divided into three sections,
each of approximately equal length. In
the first and second sections, Grace presented the source verbatim, with some
small systematic changes. The third
section had less word-for-word reproduction.
Instead, Grace paraphrased the author’s ideas and appropriated them as
her own through the use of the first person pronoun.
The jury quickly agreed that it was dealing with a
case of gross plagiarism. However, the
jury felt that the evidence from both the temp storage file and Grace and
Professor Will’s statements was insufficient in determining whether or not
Grace has actually submitted the paper in the manner that she stated. Therefore, the jury consensed on the
following statement of violation:
Statement of Violation:
The student violated the
Honor Code by committing a gross act of plagiarism.
Both parties accepted the statement of violation.
Circumstantial Portion:
Grace started by reading the letter that she had
written to Professor Will weeks ago. In
the letter, Grace stated that she had breached the “letter” of the code, but
not the “spirit.” She said that she did
not want to hide behind excuses and that she was ready to take responsibility
for what she had done. This incident
had already caused Grace to think more about the role of the Honor Code in her
life.
She then explained the circumstances surrounding the
writing of the paper. When she had gone
home prior to writing the paper, it had been for the funeral of a family member. The night before the paper was due, she
learned of another medical emergency involving a person close to her. She stated that she is not a “night person,”
and that the previous incidents only aggravated her stress level. Grace did not ask for an extension because
she did not want it hanging over her head and she thought that it would be a
good distraction from her worries and sadness.
Grace stated that she sometimes would start papers
by copying specific sections and then going back and changing them. However, in this case, she forgot to
proofread and make these changes.
Professor Will began by saying that our knowledge of
what transpired that evening is vague and that the jury cannot know what takes
place in someone’s mind. However, the
quoting does not appear casual because the alterations do not seem to be
accidental; they seem to minimize or obscure the source. In the opinion section, Grace claimed the
opinions were her own, but they were actually from the source. He feels that she did not have scholarly
investment and that she was not prepared academically to complete the assignment. Professor Will also noted that he believed
this act of plagiarism expressed a lack of intellectual seriousness on Grace’s
part. He felt that she did understand
the seriousness of the potential consequences, but was not convinced that she
understands the seriousness of the infraction.
Initially, Professor Will believed that she should receive a 0.0 for the
assignment. However, at this point, he
felt that the jury should follow precedent from pervious cases.
Grace suggested possible resolutions. She proposed that she devise a working
definition of gross plagiarism. Grace
was torn between whether she should fail the class or the paper. Finally, she was concerned with repairing
the breach of trust between her and Professor Will. Grace expressed that she considered her violation as an isolated
incident, not as one in which a breach of trust with the community had been
involved. She stated that any
separation would be purely punitive and would lack any educational value. Separation would make her question all that
she had accomplished. Also, for
financial reasons, Grace said that she would never be able to return to the
college after separation.
The jury compiled a list of issues that should be
addressed and considered in the resolutions:
1)
The
extenuating circumstances surrounding the writing of the paper.
2)
Her
lack of understanding of how her violation affects the community.
3)
The
severity of the violation.
4)
Her
lack of understanding of the severity of the violation.
5)
The
breach of trust between Grace and Professor Will.
6)
The
proper completion of the assignment.
7)
Academic
Accountability.
The jury also referred to Section III, Part A1 of
the Honor Code, which states: “A gross act of plagiarism constitutes a student’s
withdrawal from the commitment to the academic honesty required by the Honor
Code, and will normally result in separation from the community.”
With the previous considerations in mind, the jury
reached preliminary consensus, without any members standing outside, on the
following resolutions:
1)
The
student will receive a 0.0 on the plagiarized paper.
2) The
student will receive a 0.0 for the class.
3) The
student will be separated from the community for the next semester.
4) During
separation from the community the student will keep a journal, with a minimum
of one entry per week, focusing on her evolving reflections on plagiarism,
academic integrity, the community and her feelings regarding her separation.
5) Prior to
reentry to the community, the student will compose a paper discussing her overall
experience away from the community.
6) A
selected member of the jury will serve as a contact person during the student's
separation to periodically discuss her reflections.
7) The
student will rewrite the plagiarized paper for no credit before returning to
the community.
8) The
professor and the student will participate in weekly mediation during which
time the discussion of the rewriting of the plagiarized paper and the
rebuilding of their relationship will be the focus of their efforts. Upon returning to the community mediation
will continue until both parities feel it is no longer necessary.
9) The student will write a letter to the community
which will be published upon her return.
Grace stressed more strongly that the financial
difficulties that she would face as a result of separation would prevent her
from returning. She also noted that
separation would cause very severe repercussions within her family.
Professor Will emphasized that the jury needed to be
clear on what the point of separation should be—i.e. educational vs. punitive
consequences. Separation, he said,
should be for the point of keeping one separate from the community, and not for
alternative goals such as education.
Jury Deliberations:
The jury was concerned about Grace’s seeming
inability to return after separation.
It considered and discussed the social portion of the Honor
Code—specifically, how the resolutions would reflect a degree of “mutual respect
and concern” towards Grace. It considered
alternatives to separation that would fulfill academic accountability, which
included a comment on her transcript noting her academic misconduct. However, the Dean of the College informed
the jury that such a measure could not be carried out. After composing a set of alternate
resolutions, the jury reverted nearly to its original set, deciding that
separation was appropriate in this situation.
The jury more or less felt that it was in no position to consider her
financial circumstances.
With two people standing outside of consensus and
one juror having removed himself due to extenuating circumstances separate from
the trial, the jury consensed on the following final resolutions:
1) The student will receive a 0.0 on the
plagiarized paper.
2) The student will receive a 0.0 for the
class.
3) The student will be separated from the
community for the next semester.
4) During separation from the community the
student will keep a journal, with a minimum of one entry per week, focusing on
her evolving reflections on plagiarism, academic integrity, the community and
her feelings regarding her separation.
5) Prior to reentry to the community, the
student will compose a paper discussing her overall experience away from the
community.
6) A selected member of the jury will serve as
a contact person during the student's separation to periodically discuss her
reflections.
7) The student will rewrite the assignment that
was plagiarized for no credit before returning to the community.
8) The professor and the student will
participate in weekly mediation during which time they will focus on rebuilding
their working relationship. Upon the
student's return to the community, mediation will continue until both parities
feel it is no longer necessary.
9) The student will write a letter to the
community which will be published upon her return.
Grace did not appeal the
decision to the President of the College.
Juror #1:
The jury did not take lightly the decision to
separate the student. We came to this
conclusion after hours and hours of discussing, arguing, and even crying. However, I do believe that we came to the
correct final decision. The extent of
the plagiarism was truly mind-boggling.
I believe that the violation was not done with the intention to deceive,
but I also believe that the student did not, and still does not, understand the
full ramifications of what she had done.
I feel that the student was not willing to take responsibility for her
actions. Rather, the student spoke
about it as if it was a mistake that had occurred during a haze, almost seeming
to imply that it was an unfortunate act that wasn’t her fault. The student knew that the act was wrong and
would never do it again, but the student lacked the understanding of how this
affected the entire community. This
incredibly gross act of plagiarism diminishes the academic integrity of
everyone here, both students and faculty.
It also seemed to disillusion the professor, and I certainly know that
it made me trust the community as a whole a little bit less than I did
before. We (the jury) tried to
structure the separation as much as possible in order for it to be as much of a
learning experience as it possibly could be.
That is why we felt that the journal entries and the writing of a paper
at the end of the separation were so important. However, it would be naive to think that a separation would be a
completely positive experience. There
will definitely be negative ramifications of a separation. However, for me, separation is the correct
thing to do is because it fulfills the requirement of academic accountability
in ERA (Education, Repairing the breach of trust, and Accountability). In my mind, having the student just fail the
paper and the class would not have been enough accountability for an act of
plagiarism of this magnitude. It just
wouldn’t have been fair to everyone else who follows the Code at all times.
Juror #2[1]:
Thinking back on a trial like this is not the
easiest thing to do because regrets of my decisions often arise. I was one of the members of the jury that
stood outside of consensus and for a considerable amount of time, I blocked
consensus and I will succinctly give my reasons for doing this. The case presented to us involved a student
who grossly plagiarized her paper – over 90% of the paper. This student came before the jury and
presented extenuating circumstances where one family member had passed away a
few days prior and another close person in her life [had a medical emergency] that
day, and she asked us to consider these circumstances while making our
decision. Specifically, she said that
she was not in a proper state of mind as a result of what else was going on in her
life and while writing the paper, or plagiarizing it, she was not thinking
clearly and did not consider the wrong nature of her actions, nor their
implications. To me, she seemed to have
a reasonable understanding of the Code and the principles contained therein,
but may have manifested this understanding in a way different than some of us
would because of how she put it into words.
At any rate, the jury met and decided (including myself with some
hesitation, but NOT standing outside) that separation was the best path of
action along with other educational resolutions.
At the presentation of the resolutions, the student
became upset and reiterated the dreadful nature of our call for separation and
told the jury that she would not be able to return to Haverford for a number of
reasons. [Should she be separated, her parents would not provide and further
financial support]. She also explained
the emotional and psychological implications of this separation and stated that
she did not think that she would be able to come back because of the effect
that this separation would have on her and her commitment to, and faith in,
college. Her emotional presentation was
extremely important to me because it made me realize that a jury should have a
higher standard to apply in situations such as these.
Specifically, a student that has committed a gross
act of plagiarism, should be held accountable for the actions, but this
"accountability" should NOT be so severe that it compromises the
student’s academic career and/or the rest of his/her life. The jury was presented with a very drastic
infringement of the code and most people on the jury were pushing for separation,
but they were NOT considering the implications of that separation, and they did
not realize that our "highest" and most important commitment is to
each other as members of a community and then to other principles embodied in
the code. The code states the
following: "As students of Haverford College, we accept the responsibility
of upholding the standards and ideals of the Honor Code, which supports and
sustains our community. The Honor Code depends for its effective operation on
both our personal concern for each other and our collective concern for the
maintenance of the community standards reflected in the Code. Both concerns are
central to the functioning of the Code, and both have meaning only as they form
the basis for the conduct of our daily lives." These are very strong words if you read them closely, as this
concern for one another and the standards of the community form the basis of
our daily conduct, but it seems to me that the fundamental objective is our
care and concern for one another.
There are no community standards if there is no
community and when the implications of a resolution, under the auspices of
education through separation, compromise the future of a community member, then
it is integral for a jury not to implement that resolution for separation. That was a long sentence so let me state it
again more simply. This student's
future very well may be ruined by separation given her financial and emotional
situation and I think that separation was the wrong action in this
situation. The members of the jury, in
favor of separation, were so set on holding the student accountable that they
lost all sight of this need to keep the student's welfare above all other
principles of our community. I blocked
consensus for a considerable amount of time because it was against my
conscience to separate this student because of the effects of this resolution,
but I eventually decided not to block separation and to only stand
outside. In the end, I yielded because
of my faith in my fellow members of the jury, but it is a decision that I
regret whenever I think about it. If
this student does not come back to Haverford because of the reasons that she
gave us in the trial, then I think we, as a jury, made a terrible mistake. In past times, criminals were drawn and
quartered for their crimes because they needed to be held accountable for their
actions. In a modern day, civilized
community like Haverford, we believe that this type of barbaric accountability
is wrong because it is too harsh and it serves no legitimate purpose. However, we do feel that student's who break
the Code should still be held accountable.
It seems to me that in this instance, the call for accountability is too
a considerable extent a more modern and rational derivative of past
infliction’s of pain in the name of justice.
I guess we'll see...
Juror #3:
I was one of two jurors to stand outside of
consensus. I was not comfortable with
separation for many reasons. I believe
that the purpose of separation is to give a person time away from the community
so that she can think about her place at Haverford and the role she will play
here upon her return. An eventual
return to the community is the goal of the separation. Separation is not intended to be
punitive. After listening to the
student’s responses to our resolutions it became clear that due to personal,
family and financial reasons she would be unable to return to the community
after her separation. It also became
clear that because of these same reasons her separation would not be a time of
reflection and personal growth but would instead potentially put her in a
situation that would be too stressful for her to gain any perspective on the
Honor Code and her role in the community.
Although separation is suggested in the Code for acts of gross
plagiarism, I felt that given the circumstances surrounding this case
separation was not in the spirit of the Code.
One
of the things that bothered me most was that the student seemed to have a very
limited understanding of how her act of plagiarism had affected anyone other
than herself. She lacked an
understanding of how actions affected the community as a whole. For this reason, I felt that she definitely
needed to develop a better understanding of the Honor Code. I did not think that cutting her off from
the community would help her develop this.
I felt that this understanding could possibly better be developed at
Haverford.
I
want to say to the student and to the rest of the community that this is
probably the most difficult decision I have ever made. It has consumed me these past few
weeks. I struggled between standing
outside and blocking consensus and I still question my decision
frequently. I ultimately decided to
stand outside rather than block because I respected the weight of the
group. I felt that it would not be
right for one person to prevent everyone in the group from making a decision.
Juror #4:
I have never wanted to separate somebody from the
community. I have trouble convincing
myself that as a student I have the right to separate someone. Yet in this case I do feel it was the best
resolution. First of all, the grossness
of the plagiarism is the worst I've seen at Haverford. Even if she didn't
intend to plagiarize she did – in a bad way.
Also, I felt that separation was the best option because I don't think
that she fully understood what consequences an act such as plagiarism has on
the entire community. She needs this
semester to think critically on what it means to be a part of an academic community
such as Haverford. And I felt really
bad about the financial issues involved.
Separation will not be easy for her but I do feel that it is the best
option for everyone.
Juror #5:
The
decision to separate Grace was one of the hardest decisions I’ve made. After
hearing Grace’s statement and especially after looking at the blatantly
plagiarized paper I began to think seriously about separation for the first
time. I thought a lot about separation for the sake of education in our first
deliberations, I honestly thought that being separated for a semester would
give Grace the opportunity to think about why plagiarism was wrong and
reevaluate her priorities. I accept that Grace wrote the plagiarized paper in a
haze and had no intent to deceive, but I couldn’t get past the fact that she
had done it to such an extreme degree. Listening to her statement and her
answers to our questions only made me more concerned about Grace’s priorities.
It seemed that she was primarily concerned with the consequences of her trial,
not the reason she was there. Even after considerable prodding she never
expressed that she felt dishonest for copying another person’s words and ideas.
I really thought that some time away from the pressures of Haverford with some
structure through resolutions would help Grace consider issues of academic
integrity and honesty.
When we presented the
resolutions to Grace, however, it became clear that her time away from
Haverford would not be a relaxing time for reflection, but rather a stressful
one in light of her financial situation – it would not necessarily be
educational. I found, though, that there was no alternative to separation that
I was comfortable with. It took a lot of discussion and thought for me to
realize that, while I favored separation for educational reasons, I was also
interested in it as a means of academic accountability. I thought about how I
would react as a community member, knowing that someone who plagiarized
word-for-word eighty percent of a paper was not held academically accountable
beyond failing a class she may well have failed anyway. I was very concerned
that this reaction was not in the spirit of Haverford or the Code – it seemed
almost as if I felt Grace deserved punishment. It may be that there is a point
where the Haverford ideals break down and we just have human reactions, liking
wanting to hold someone accountable. I finally decided, though, that we weren’t
doing Grace any favors by holding her less academically accountable than her
fellow Haverford students would be. Part of my concern for Grace throughout the
trial is that she did not entirely take responsibility for her actions. In the
end I decided that if we, as a jury, didn’t hold Grace to the same standards as
other Haverford students we could never expect her to hold herself to those
standards – and if we didn’t hold her fully accountable for her actions she
couldn’t hold herself fully accountable either.
Juror #6:
Sometimes I think that students at Haverford forget
how much power we have. This trial sort
of slugged me in the face—it made me realize the extent to which that power
goes. I never wanted to separate
anyone; in fact, it somehow never occurred to me that I would ever be in a
situation in which separation would be an option. Pretty silly, I guess, especially because I am one of the members
of the jury on Honor Council.
I was
one of the dissenters. As we began to
realize that this trial needed to come to an end, three of us wished to stand
outside of consensus. I didn’t want to
be a part of the decision to separate her, but the trial needed to end, both
for our own sake and that of the two parties.
As we went around to begin our final consensus, I took a deep breath,
looked around the room at the other jurors and thought—thought about the hours
of sleep that they probably lost, like I did; thought about the knot in the
stomach that they each carried around, like I did; thought about the guilt that
they each felt for having to make this decision, much like I did. While I did not consider at the time
separation as the best option, I realized that I trusted a lot the judgment of
my peers, each of whom felt the near horror of what we were doing.
After
some time to reflect on the trial, I feel more confident about our decision, so
much more so to the point that I no longer even consider myself a
dissenter. Initially, we discussed
separation as way in which to educate the confronted party of the seriousness
of her violation. For me, separation as
a means of education is humiliating to Haverford: if separation is truly the
only way to educate someone about an Honor Code infraction, then a decision to
separate would have indicated a severe inadequacy on our part as a
community. If separation was the only
educative tool that would serve to teach the confronted party about plagiarism,
then our community has failed to produce the necessary resources for
education. I didn’t then and still
don’t believe that this community is in any way a failure.
As we
moved through the jury deliberations, we began to realize that our inclination
to separate purported more to hold her accountable for her action rather than
to provide her with time for reflection and self-evaluation. Separation as an educational method seemed
silly to me; as a way to hold someone accountable for his or her actions, it
seemed practical. I still was somewhat
uncomfortable with the idea of separation.
The confronted party indicated that separation would create severe
problems within her family—perhaps even near disownment by her parents. It would leave her to fend for herself
financially, as her parents would not provide her with any support. And it would prevent her from ever
returning, as her financial situation would be severely aggravated by
separation. I didn’t want to separate
someone if it was going to destroy her life, hamper her education and hinder
her from ever returning.
However,
the more I have considered the seriousness of her infraction, the more I feel
that separation was the only appropriate means of holding her accountable. And
while I was concerned greatly about her financial situation, I felt that the
jury was in no way qualified to consider or understand its specifics. She would have the option to appeal our
decision to the President, who would be better qualified at evaluating such
circumstances. I had hoped that she
would appeal so that these circumstances would be properly considered. I’m disappointed to learn that she did not
do so. Based on the information with
which we were provided, which included few details of her financial situation,
I feel now that we made the best decision.
While I understand that the evening of the violation might have been a
difficult and foggy one for the confronted party, it does not excuse the
severity of this lack of intellectual seriousness and academic integrity.
My
throat still clamps up when I think about the severe implications that this
could have upon her life—financial stress, family problems, humiliation,
etc. Every member of the jury
considered a great deal these implications, which is why this trial extended
over a three-week period, with multiple all night deliberations. No one on the jury wanted to screw up
another person’s life. Yet, we all need
to be held accountable for our actions.
As much as it pains me and the other eight people that ‘consensed’ to
this decision to think about what this could cause for her, it was our
responsibility to uphold community standards and consequences, no matter how
severe they might be. And that’s what
we did.
Questions:
1.
Was
separation an appropriate measure in this case?
2.
Was
there a breach of trust between Grace and the community?
3.
Should
the jury have taken financial issues into account, even if that could have
meant her receiving a more lenient set of resolutions than someone with
different financial circumstances would receive?
4.
Should
either the statement of violation or the resolutions have addressed the issue
of the missing paper?
[1] Statements enclosed by brackets have been changed by Honor Council from their original wording in order to protect confidentiality.