Comments on Student Plagiarism, Faculty Responsibility

• student plagiarism, faculty responsibility
• Posted by Peter Hoffer , research professor of history at University of Georgia on June 1, 2006 at 9:10am EDT

• The report of the outside examiners in the case of the Ohio University engineering school's plagiarism cases urges that faculty members supervising students must bear responsibility for the students' plagiarism. The report urged that the faculty members most directly involved be severely punished. It does not recommend nearly as severe penalties for the students. This shifts the burden of the offense to the instructor.
  I cannot think of a more mischievous and indefensible proposal. The students cheated, knowing what the standards were and intentionally violating them. They are the guilty parties under the school's code of conduct and conventional notions of both civil and criminal liability. While their instructors should be admonished to look more carefully for infractions, the implication of the report is that the instructor must assume every student is a misdoer and act accordingly. Indeed, in a sense the instructor, along with the school, is the victim of the students' violations of the school's rules, not a co-conspirator, the implication of the OU report.
  Compare the outside report's view of the case to the taking of examinations. Is the instructor to blame--and subject to dismissal from his or her post--if the student cheats on an examination? That would follow directly from the outside examiners report on the Ohio University cases. Instructors under honor codes are required to leave the room when students are taking an exam. Should we, following the implications of the report on Ohio University, throw out the assumptions and the rules in all honor codes, lest instructors be held directly accountable for student misconduct.
  Finally, the outside examiners' recommendations in the Ohio University case are entirely unprecedented. If the recommendations are accepted at OU and become precedent elsewhere, they would have a chilling effect on all graduate education--for facing such severe penalties for student misconduct, no professor would (or should) direct graduate student theses or dissertations.

• Plagiarism Punishment at OU
• Posted by Disturbed OU Faculty Member at Ohio University on June 1, 2006 at 10:20am EDT

• The recommendation of the OU report that two professors be removed and one not allowed to advise theses for two years may or may not be appropriate depending on their involvement in the pattern of plagiarism.

  But, the punishment recommended for the students who plagiarized their theses seems too little given the fact that they were the ones who committed the plagiarism. My hope is that this is not yet one more administrative effort to blame faculty for the sins of students while giving all these uncovered plagiarists the opportunity to freshen up their plagiarized theses and, in several cases, continue in a PhD program.

  It's not student drinking, alone, at Ohio University that caused the Princeton Review to identify OU as the nation's number 2 and Playboy to identify OU as the nation's number 7 party school. The reluctance of the university to enforce student code rules about plagiarism at all levels also affects the party ratings.

• Posted by Concerned University Coordinator on June 1, 2006 at 10:55am EDT

• After reading the comments, I wanted to add that there is a definite power differential between student and faculty. Yes, I agree that the punishment for the faculty was more harsh, but it is necessary to understand that the faculty is also a mentor. There is more responsibility placed on the faculty because they are charged with shaping the professional identity of the student. If they condone plagiarism, they are teaching an awful lesson and deserve a harsher punishment.

• Faculty vs student responsibility
• Posted by Concerned faculty member on June 1, 2006 at 11:40am EDT

• It is interesting to see how a supposed lack of due diligence in checking for plagiarism becomes "condoning" it in the words of one commentator. The inequitable distribution of punishments here seems bizarre and should itself be investigated.

• Faculty Responsibility
• Posted by Jack Trades on June 1, 2006 at 12:20pm EDT

• How, exactly, does a faculty member "monitor" a student's thesis for plagiarism? Go line by line, checking every reference or citation? Since there likely aren't any proper citations in a plagiarized section, are faculty expected to have memorized all the significant work in their field and immediately recognize a stolen line or idea? That seems unrealistic to me, and goes against the assumption of "independent research" on the part of the students. Students can easily draw ideas from works that faculty members aren't familiar with, especially when doing interdisciplinary projects or work on recent theories and technologies. Were these plagiarisms so obvious and egregious that anyone could spot them, or did they require someone to go looking for such problems (say, someone with inside information, like a former student who's overheard something suspicious among his classmates)? I agree with the statement above that faculty aren't obliged to assume cheating on the part of their graduate students, or take the time to track down every source.

  It sounds to me like the faculty's error wasn't in failing to spot the plagiarism initially, but in failing to act upon direct accusations and follow up on any evidence submitted by the former student. In that case, they should be punished for mismanagement and failure to perform their roles as administrators of the school's academic integrity policies. But the plagiarism itself is the students' responsibility and should be punished accordingly. Simply "re-doing" the assignment isn't an option even for my undergraduates--they simply fail the assignment or the course, or get suspended or expelled, depending upon the severity of the case.

• Relative Punishment
• Posted by Andrew Purvis on June 1, 2006 at 12:20pm EDT

• We can talk about the power differential or the mentor-student relationship all we like, but the fact remains that these are not only students who violated the rules, they are graduate students who violated the rules. Worse, they did so on their theses.

  I can see no way to defend a punishment that falls short of full removal from the program and school, though I could understand letting them re-apply after a period of four or five years.

  One of the greater challlenges when dealing with plagiarism is a general lack of institutional support, and while I have been fortunate enough to be back in my enforcement at the community college level, Ivy League schools have been letting more and more of it slide, making the news as their policies change.

  How can we expect students to care when some of the nation's top schools publicly shrug their shoulders and walk away?

• Posted by Need more information on June 1, 2006 at 1:25pm EDT

• Concerning the above posts, it has not been determined if there was simply a lack of "due diligence" or in fact a purposeful disregard for academic honesty:

  “either failed to monitor the writing in their advisees’ theses or simply ignored academic honesty, integrity and basically supported academic fraudulence. We consider this most serious.”

• Checking for plagiarism
• Posted by Rebecca on June 1, 2006 at 3:10pm EDT

• Jack, actually it is quite easy to check for plagiarism using sites such as TurnItIn.com. The student can even check their material themselves to ensure they have not borrowed too liberally from other sources. They are very easy to use by prof and student, and within 24 hours (usually much less) they give a report showing how much, and from where, plagiarism occurred. Simple, and time saving for all!

• The Best Defense
• Posted by MediaDoc , Associate Professor at East Carolina Univ. on June 1, 2006 at 3:10pm EDT

• While it's refreshing to see a university take plagiarism this seriously, it would be even more refreshing if the punishment recommended for the graduate students who actually plagiarized was proportionate to that recommended for the advisors. The professors either negligently, willfully or possibly even simply mistakenly abetted the act, but they didn't commit the act. (For that matter, the article was not clear as to whether the fault was willful, negligent or mistaken.)

  Still, all is not lost for the professors. If you're reading, OU Three, here's what you need to do:

  1) Dig back into your past for any public statement of radical leftist opinion. It need not be on the level of "WTC occupants = Nazis," though that's a nice bar to clear if you can. If not, though, simply comparing Bush II/Reagan/Bush I/Nixon to Hitler or (at the very least) Attila the Hun ought to suffice.

  2) Claim that the student whose complaints got the investigation started was motivated because he disagreed with your political opinion.

  3) Watch as the university backs off. Possibly you'll have to attend a "Cheating is Bad, and Why" seminar, but that'll be the end of it.

  4) Bask in the glow of dozens of Inside HigherEd posters rushing to defend you as bold First Amendment heroes, "speaking truth to power" and being victimized by the "chilling effect" of "the new McCarthyism."

• Posted by Faculty Member Q on June 1, 2006 at 3:15pm EDT

• I've only read this article--and the accompanying commentary-- not any other documents related to this case, so I can only speak with that information in mind.
  The response of the committee does seem without precedent, but I'm not sure it's without warrant. Isn't the subtext here something most of us are well aware of? Faculty don't provide much quality mentorship, they do not often "direct" but rather rubber stamp theses and dissertations, or worse yet coerece students into working on projects that serve their own interests. Notice, also, these are "mere" Masters theses. How much scrutiny do faculty at PHD granting institutions put into these theses, particulary if the Masters programs are cash cows for the department? I suspect a tacit agreement at work here between faculty and students: you don't ask too much of me in terms of intellectual standards, and I won't ask too much of you in terms of time, energy and guidance.

  I read this punishment as a message from administration to faculty, "take these functions seriously, and if you don't you'll be held accountable." So, I'm not surprised by the faculty response. The principle behind the degree of punishment seems a bit odd, to be sure. Basically, they punished most severely those people whom they still had ties to. The stronger the institutional tie, the harsher the punishment, so faculty got it worse than students who got it worse than former students. That policy seems based upon expediency; they punished those they could easily punish.

  The very predictable responses of faculty on this thread are sometimes laughable. The tone seems to be, "we are above reproach". Highly doubtful. Absurdities like "If the recommendations are accepted at OU and become precedent elsewhere, they would have a chilling effect on all graduate education—for facing such severe penalties for student misconduct, no professor would (or should) direct graduate student theses or dissertations." do not strengthen the argument against actions like this. "No professor would (or should) direct" theses? The problem is that they too often do not DIRECT theses on the one hand, and, on the other, of course they must, at least, oversee theses to fulfill their job requirements. If you don't advise grad students then you are not doing your job, not serving your professional community, and not fulfilling your obligations to students--that amounts to negligence. Lastly, no action is going to "chill" the atmosphere to an extent that faculty en masse are going to refuse to advise students and its plainly ridiculous to suggest so.

  By the way, the assumption voiced several times in comments that these students willfully committed pliagiarism is unsupported by the article. Plaigarism only becomes plagiarism when it's been published. Submitting a draft with questionable attribution to a advisor would not, I think, be plagiarism. In fact, it would be an opportunity for intruction on the rules of attribution. (And, don't give me the, "they should know the rules by now" argument; there's far more judgement in these decisions than mere rules can capture.) Our job is to INSTRUCT students on these matters, not assume they know them and then punish them if they don't.

• To Jack's Concerns
• Posted by Vinnie , adjunct and Ph.D wanabe at St. Petersburg College on June 1, 2006 at 3:25pm EDT

• In response to Jack’s concerns I must state that it is the responsibility that the professor ensure that the document being submitted is original, after all they are signing their name to the document supporting that the document is 100% original. I know as a professor that if I am signing my name to a document like a thesis or dissertation, I better be sure the work is done right as it is just as much of a reflection on my work as it is with the student.

  Also, there are several web engines that are useful in determining if a document is plagiarized such as www.mydropbox.com. While these programs are not 100%, there are helpful in determining if a document has material that is not cited. A student should be required to submit a my drop box report (which is provided by the company), with their final papers. This would significantly reduce the load on the professor. However, stating that a professor can check all papers for plagiarism is just the thinking that got these students and faculty in trouble to begin with.

• Here's more information
• Posted by William Johnston , Faculty member at Ohio University on June 1, 2006 at 4:10pm EDT

• Here's some additional information missing from the original story:

  1. Of the 55 theses in question, 44 have sections apparently copied word for word from other theses written in the same department. In some cases, 20 pages are identical.

  2. Most of those 55 theses were written under the direction of two professors. Surely, if they read the theses, they would have known that entire sections, perhaps chapters, were copied from their other students.

  3. Most of these students were assigned thesis research by their advisors as part of continuing sponsored work from defense contractors.

  4. Many of the students worked on the same sponsored projects as other students; the lines of demarcation between the work of these students were blurry.

  5. In some cases, several master's students were co-authors of journal articles with faculty members. Some of the plagiarized work was copied from those journal articles.

  6. Most of the students have graduated and moved on. It is unclear what legal sanctions can be imposed at this point.

  All of these factors complicate the issues. But certainly an interested, involved faculty advisor would have found at least some of the plagiarism.

  And the department chair has already stepped down, supposedly for unrelated reasons.

• Plagiarism
• Posted by Elizabeth Klooster , Adjunct at Baker College on June 1, 2006 at 4:10pm EDT

• Turnitin.com provides students with the opportunity to learn about writing integrity. I have found it to be a useful and appreciated tool. Students must submit an originality report with papers, and if there are problems these can be addressed. As an undergraduate teacher, I have found that not all students are fully aware of the seriousness of plagiarism, given the vast wealth of material on the web. Those that want to cheat find they can't, those that are unlearned can learn, those that strive for excellence are supported when unethical works are caught and dealt with.

• Plagiarism
• Posted by Dr. RingDing on June 1, 2006 at 4:55pm EDT

• In my view, Turnitin.com creates a 'guilty until proven innocent' learning environment in the classroom and absolves faculty of the responsibility to design and implement creative learning activities that prevent students from committing plagiarism.

  Of course, the question left unanswered here is how many Ohio U. faculty in this department have committed plagiarism?

  Recent incidents involving faculty (e.g., 'Four Academic Plagiarists You've Never Heard Of: How Many More Are Out There?' and administrators (e.g., ' Missouri Dean Appears to Have Plagiarized a Speech by Cornel West' have indicated that academic dishonesty is alive and well among these groups, as well.

• re: Who is Responsible?
• Posted by Peter C. Herman , Professor at San Diego State University on June 1, 2006 at 9:10pm EDT

• Prof. William Johnson's post helps explain why OU took the actions it did against the "OU 3." If the facts are indeed as Prof. Johnson presents them (and why should we doubt him?), then these people are indeed culpable and deserve their punishments.

  But "Vinne's" comment seems to me bizarre: "In response to Jack’s concerns I must state that it is the responsibility that the professor ensure that the document being submitted is original, after all they are signing their name to the document supporting that the document is 100% original." It is ENTIRELY the STUDENT'S responsibility to make sure that the work he or she hands in is original. It is not the professor's job to ensure that he is not the victim of fraud and theft. If my car is stolen, is it my fault? even if I left the doors open and the keys in the ignition? "Vinnie" represents an attitude that is all too common in discussions, if such they can be called, of "assessment" and "accountability," i.e., that there no bad students, no bad teachers, and that students are fundamentally not responsible for their learning. In my view, if a student plagiarizes, then the student is the one who bears responsibility for the crime, not the professor.

• Correction
• Posted by Peter C. Herman on June 2, 2006 at 12:10am EDT

• I meant to write: "that there no bad students, only bad teachers . . . ."

  I regret the error.

• Turnitin?!
• Posted by Jack Trades on June 2, 2006 at 1:25pm EDT

• I've never heard of any dissertation being submitted to Turnitin.com--a tool used to filter undergraduate essays and term papers, not 200-500 page books! A "report" on such an item would be nearly as long as the dissertation, and would identify tons of legitimately cited material without adequately identifying the kinds of ideas, arguments, or data that's likely to be plagiarized in a graduate dissertation.

  If, as one respondent above claims, these students used direct quotes from previous dissertations in the same department and with the same advisors, then the plagiarism should have been easy to spot (and indicates a department culture of "shared research" that needs to be addressed). Otherwise, it would be relatively easy to "borrow" ideas and arguments without using direct quotations--the kind of plagiarism not likely to be caught by plagiarism software--in such a way that no faculty member who hasn't read and memorized everything in the field could spot.

  There should be no obligation on the part of students or advisors to make plagiarism software a regular part of the dissertation process. It doesn't solve anything, and misses the point: This is a matter of academic integrity on the part of the students, not of academic policing on the part of their faculty advisors. Policed or not, students, not their faculty, are responsible for their cheating.

  Faculty are only responsible for responding appropriately when they or others discover that cheating (something these faculty apparently didn't do). But to go looking for it as a matter of course assumes guilt where 99% of the time, there is none. I, for one, would never tolerate a graduate program that assumes my lack of integrity and basic understanding of the scholarly process.

  As for punishments, graduate students, unlike undergrads, aren't supposed to be at the stage of needing a "teaching moment" about plagiarism--they know what it is and what their responsibilities are. If they don't, then they don't belong in graduate school, period. If they're uncertain about proper forms for citations, their advisors, countless books, and online guides are readily available to assist them--and once again, it's their job to locate and use these resources. Trying to shift the burden of scholarly integrity onto advisors, editors, or committees just further infantilizes and excuses the scholars themselves.

• Response to Peter
• Posted by John on June 2, 2006 at 1:25pm EDT

• I understand what you are saying, Peter, because I also firmly believe that students need to take responsibility for their actions...and be held accountable. However, please don't ignore that faculty do share some responsibility as well. After all, in your car example, the police would place some responsiblity on you if you left it running with the doors open (there are resonable precautions you should have taken to avoid theft). And in this real-life situation, it sounds as if the faculty could have taken resonable measures as well with the amount of plariarism they encountered.

• To defeat palgiarism
• Posted by Ivan Petryshyn , Mr. at SPJ on June 2, 2006 at 4:20pm EDT

• Actually, any instant of a plagiarism could be easily defeated by meeting those who seem to have committed it and those who have really written the work/project. It's common knowledge that the author knows bwtter the technologies, the methods applied having some history in the line of a research, morover, the real author has very specific preparation black copies quite sufficient for him/her to prove the authorship considering his creative career.
  A good judge and a jury can easily prove the authorship.
  Anyone who has committed a crime of plagiarism is to respond in a serious way:
  it was and still IS a crime, if the researcher doesn't quote the author of the publication/recording /itrepretation, etc.- all the civilized countries in the world know how to solve the problem.
  Sincerely, Ivan Petryshyn, SPJ, Chicago 06/02/06 2:41 pm

• Posted by Larry on June 3, 2006 at 12:30am EDT

• Who are we kidding? Of course faculty know when a student is copying from something in their field. Most of us are intimately familiar with literature in their area, and can tell straight away when something is cribbed.

• Back to Peter
• Posted by vinnie giordano , Adjunct bum at SPC on June 3, 2006 at 5:30am EDT

• Peter, I do not disagree with your statement that the student who plagiarizes their research should be removed from a university for their actions. I fully support the removal of any one who cheats. However, my post was in reference to the responsibility that mentors play in supervising graduate students who are working on their final research project.

  I would hope that if you were mentoring a graduate student that you would check to see that the work is original. After all, you are placing your academic reputation on the line when you sign off on this project as these OU instructors did. Now will some plagiarized material slip past a mentor, you bet. However, in the case of OU, it appears that large paragraphs of material were taken from previous graduate papers. To me this is inexcusable.

  As far as the car analogy I feel John best summed up my position on the matter. When we as professors sign off on a thesis or dissertation, we are putting our stamp of approval on that work. Because of that "stamp," we are saying this student has met academic rigor and is worthy of their graduate degree. We also assume that the mentor has met with the graduate student to review the work, several times before the final document is approved. To me, if a document is approved, that Ph.D is stating, "I assert that this paper is 100% quality." If after that approval, it turns out that the student "stole" large swaths of info from other individuals work, than the following should occur:

  1). The student should be expelled or have their conferred degree taken back.
  2). Have the offending thesis or dissertation removed from the university library.
  3). Depending on how much material has been stolen from others works, the mentor should be reprimanded, ridiculed or outright terminated.

  In closing, the professor holds just as much responsibility as the student to ensure material that includes their names on it is 100% original. To deny that only continues to support the culture of academic dishonesty that continues to exist to this day.

• Yup - turnitin
• Posted by Rebecca on June 3, 2006 at 10:05am EDT

• Yes, Jack, TurnItIn - and others. Although it was the dark ages when I completed theses and dissertation, I did mine in chapters, or at least 20-30 page sections. These would be easily handled by anti-plagiarism sites, and in fact are currently. A colleague of mine is currently completing his PhD, and he is submitting his work in such a manner (although I do not know to which site he submits his work.) The initial report merely notes a 0 -100% similarity to other work. It is up to the prof to decide if a 10% similarity constitutes an infraction by reviewing the works side by side secondarily. Further, if more than one student turned in the same work before publication, these sites would certainly report the similarity.
  And yes, we should be sufficiently familiar with the literature in our fields that we should be able to recognise plagiarism when we see, especially in blatent instances such as this. And yes, regardless of the method we use to check our students work, it is our responsibility to do so. In this case it seems like it should have been screamingly easy to have done so.

• Posted by Student on July 7, 2006 at 1:20pm EDT

• Knowing the "story" from inside, most of the plagiarism accusations are unproper citations. Also remember, the respective student (who prompted the investigation) was dropped by one of the accused teachers (who was actually been cleared)as his advisee. Anyone sees a connection? He was everything but an "honest" accuser and his research work was less than average. No excuse for the chairman (had spent countless hours listening to his students compalin of his lack of involvment) and the other teacher.

• Consistent with my experience
• Posted by Eliot Jacobson , Lecturer at UCSB on July 19, 2006 at 9:55pm EDT

• Dear readers,

  In the 15 years I was a professor at Ohio University, I fought hard to bring integrity to the department, college, and university. I found that such battles only served to bring retribution from my colleagues. After a close friend was denied tenure as punishment for my whistle blowing, I finally had the good sense to leave and retired my tenured position.

  In my first year at Ohio University, I caught a student cheating on one of his Ph.D. exams that I was proctoring. When I questioned the student about knowing the material on the exam in advance of the examination date, I discovered that the student had been coached by his advisor on the questions on the exam the night before. His advisor had written the Ph.D. exam, and this advisor was known for wanting his students to get the top grades on these exams. His advisor was the senior faculty member in the department in my area and was the individual responsible for hiring me as a young assistant professor. Needless to say, things never got easier for me.

  This was just the first in a very long string of incidents I fought against. In one memorable incident, I was asked to serve on a Ph.D. committee for a student's final oral examination. Needing to ask one very easy question, I asked the student for a definition of a technical term on the first page of her dissertation. When she could not tell me the meaning of the word, I refused to pass her. The pressure put on me by the department was enormous, but it was just too absurd to pass a student who did not understand the first page of her own Ph.D. dissertation.

  And everything in between, just fill in the dots.

  I am hardly surprised that this incident occured at Ohio University. I am even less surprised at the trivial consequences to these unethical students and professors.

  I retired from Ohio University after a colleague with whom I had published a number of research papers was denied tenure. This denial happened, in my view, purely as retribution for this individual being my friend and scholarly compatriot.

  Good riddance.

  Eliot Jacobson,
  Associate Professor, Ohio University
  1983 - 1998

• Turnitin? Um, No.
• Posted by JW on July 21, 2006 at 5:25pm EDT

• Sorry folks, but suggesting turnitin.com seems a wee bit silly when it comes to graduate theses & dissertations.

  Turnitin only checks online sources and not all online sources at that.

  Personally, I do not expect grad students to be drawing the bulk of their scholarship from online sources, so I'd question the somewhat grand assertions about turnitin's usefulness when it comes to higher level work. Turnitin is basically an online search engine. It's not going to catch what's not online, and in most fields, grad students will be drawing primarily if not exclusively from offline texts.

• SafeAssignment
• Posted by Faculty at another institution on August 14, 2006 at 6:50pm EDT

• Just to clarify on Safe Assignment (turnitin.com competitor).

  I have used SafeAssignment for over one year now and require my graduate students to submit to it prior to my review of their chapters. It checks more than just online sources (some journal sources are checked) and more importantly for me it checks against my institutions database. This would have caught the offending papers at OU. Of course, this is not all encompassing, but it provides me more information and I can check the details of each paper (not just the matching score, but each sentence and the comparable source). Now, all the faculty in my department are doing the same thing as an extra check. This is another tool for faculty to use in training students. I tell students in class I use the tool and they are more concerned and careful. It does NOT assume guilty until proven innocent. It is totally up to the faculty in how they use the tool.

  I think these tools are useful for any faculty (I teach engineering).

• OSU Plagiarism
• Posted by name withheld on August 16, 2006 at 2:15pm EDT

• I was not surprised to hear of rampant plagiarism at The Ohio State University. I received an MS in 1988 and a student my advisor had a couple of years later lifted some text and a figure from my Master's thesis for inclusion in his Master's thesis without making any reference to my thesis in his list of references cited. When I pointed it out to my former thesis advisor, who was also the other student's advisor, he brushed it off.

  And what became of the other student you might ask? He is now an associate professor at The Ohio State University. How appropriate wouldn't you say?

  name withheld

• Posted by sly on August 16, 2006 at 3:50pm EDT

• It is the faculty’s responsibility as a whole, but in the end is every teacher’s fault. They have to be more carefully and not ignorant.

• National Issue and Scandal
• Posted by Scrawed on September 15, 2006 at 10:10am EDT

• The events at Ohio University are only remarkable in that a student has had the fortitude, and the backing, to come forward with substantive allegations of institutionally condoned plagiarism - and that the university is seeking to actually address the problem instead of cover it up.
  Conditions like those found in Ohio University's mechanical engineering department exist in many American graduate engineering programs. The primary offenders (as in the Ohio University cases) are overwhelmingly international students from India and the PRC (China) and their supporters. The latter include faculty that pride themselves on their liberal social progressiveness, faculty with certain industry ties, administrators, and certain government and industry interests. The end result has been an exodus by American students from departments of engineering. In this light their motivation is quite understandable - why bother with departments that allow some students to pass off Elsevier articles as their own work, and resolutely refuse to do anything about it?
  One thing that can be done to help re-establish ethics in American engineering programs is a reduction in the proportions of international student populations in graduate engineering programs to more rational levels. This will help reduce political pressures on these departments and their host institutions to waive or ignore rules. It's already been demonstrated that they are corruptible with respect to the Indian and Chinese populations.
  Even more critical is the need for the institutions and their constituent members to recognize the rule of universally applicable regulation and law over the rule of "CYA" or the rule of political correctness. Political correctness is not a virtue when it honors and rewards the cheat, and seeks to displace the honest student.
  Finally, there needs to be an external reporting agency or board that is able to address academic dishonesty when the university either refuses to act or refuses to act appropriately.

• Academic Corporatism
• Posted by Lou Jacobson , Re:National issues and scandle at Humboldt State University on February 14, 2007 at 7:20pm EST

• In response to the last post. A lack of American engineers is certainanly going to pose a problem in the coming years.I do not have the time nor the energy to explain the utter ignorance displayed in your post. But let me tell you, this problem has nothing to due with nationality or race. This is an institutional issue and can only be dealt with by a change in internal structures of professionalit and neutrality as Dr. Jacobson fought for.
  This problem is far more significant than any one department. The problem is rooted in economics. Universities are now more than ever, money making machines, taking a Utilitarian perspective on academics. Alumni in high power positions look good and make the University money which, produces the greatest good for greatest number. Let us not focus on creating hate...let us focus on the true problem, the corporatism of our Universities.

• Plagiarism Prevention? Anyone?
• Posted by Faculty Development Coordinator on March 4, 2007 at 12:16am EST

• Just reading this article, it's hard to say if the punishment to the faculty was too harsh, but I agree with the comments that the faculty should share some responsibilities in this issue. I have a concern, though, lots of comments here focus on detecting plagriarism, but no one is talking about plagiarism prevention measures. I guess it is because the original articles disucss for the need of faculty "policing" plagiarism, so that may be the reason so many comments focus on detection measures such as use of Turnitin or websites.

  I recently prepared a workshop for faculty on Plagiarism, and my main focus was on prevention. Faculty can ask students to submit the topic first, then the draft earlier so that it is less likely for students to plagiarize. I read that some professors are even requiring students to submit underlined sourses, so that the faculty can find out if students are missing poitns of articles. I belive that the most important thing faculty can do is to know students' writing and help them develop proper research and writing skills, which are obviously too much work for those professors who have been dismissed. That really makes me think the punishment is somewhat fair in the sense that they did not do their work in helping students learn. Am I being too naive or idealistic?

• Posted by Scrawed on April 25, 2007 at 11:45am EDT

• "I do not have the time nor the energy to explain the utter ignorance displayed in your post. But let me tell you, this problem has nothing to due with nationality or race."

  Lou, I've been there and I've seen it firsthand. I've documented this problem, and I've reported this problem. It is from these observations that my conclusions are drawn.

  In the reportage in the Wall Street Journal on Ohio University's scandal, it was acknowledged that over 90% of the reported theses (36 out of 39, at the time of reporting) were by international students. These numbers have since increased as the scope of the investigation has widened. Many of these international students are from India and China (PRC). Furthermore, the two faculty members implicated in the scandal were from India and Sri Lanka.

  You are right to point out that increasing corporatism in the universities has contributed to this problem. However, this problem does have racial and national dimensions that exacerbate it, that are realized on both policy and action levels. Because the relevant institutions have demonstrated they cannot enforce their own codes and regulations against these populations effectively and meaningfully, it is time to reduce the levels that these populations command in these same institutions until these regulations can in fact be enforced, and are enforced.