Search News


Browse Archives

News

Southern Illinois President Cleared of Plagiarism

October 12, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

He made citation "errors" and "mistakes" that require immediate correction. But Glenn Poshard, president of Southern Illinois University, did not intentionally plagiarize a doctoral dissertation he completed as a graduate student there more than 20 years ago, according to a faculty panel formed by the institution's chancellor to look into the charges of academic dishonesty.

Those allegations first surfaced this summer after the university's student newspaper, The Daily Egyptian, followed up on a tip that dozens of passages that appeared in Poshard's dissertation without proper citation had appeared verbatim in other sources. The latest findings come less than a year after the then-chancellor of Southern Illinois's Carbondale campus was forced out amid accusations that he had copied content from another university's strategic plan.

The seven-person committee of senior faculty, whose report on Poshard was unveiled Thursday, recommended that the university take no action against the president. It calls for the dissertation to be withdrawn from the university library and be replaced with a corrected copy prepared by Poshard, and for the president to write a statement that expands on why his errors occurred and speaks more broadly about the "culture of integrity" at the university. (The panel noted that allegations of Poshard plagiarizing his master's thesis follow the same pattern as those in the dissertation, so it chose to focus on the latter.)

Still, the report is far from a ringing endorsement of Poshard's past work. The committee notes that there are many cases in the dissertation in which “the words of others are present in a continuous flow with Student Poshard’s own words, so that readers cannot distinguish between those sources.” Given the modern-day definition of plagiarism at Southern Illinois's Graduate School as "representing the work of another as one's own work," the report says the allegations against Poshard would be "sufficiently supported," were it not for the historical context of the case.

But that context is vital, the report notes. At the time when Poshard was a graduate student at Southern Illinois, the graduate school's student handbook lacked a definition of plagiarism. The panel found that Poshard had used an "informal style" of citing sources that was commonly embraced by other graduate students. Faculty members advising him on the dissertation approved the style then, and no one asked him to clarify anything at the time of submission, the report finds.

The mistakes were most likely products of "carelessness" and fall into the category of "inadvertent plagiarism," according to the committee.

Poshard has denied the allegations of intentional wrongdoing but left open the possibility that he made accidental errors. During a meeting with the faculty panel, the president said his dissertation committee had no qualms with his style of citation, which often included scant inclusion of quotation marks.

"Even though the Review Committee says these mistakes were unintentional and inadvertent, they are my mistakes. And I take full responsibility for them," he said at a news conference Thursday. "They are not the fault of my committee, my department, my college or my university." He added that "whether one wants to argue whether what I did constitutes plagiarism depends on how you feel about me."

Poshard teared up during his emotional address. "This just happens to be one of those moments when I feel a sense of relief that this is finally coming to a close," he said. "It's been difficult for my family and me."

Roger Tedrick, chairman of SIU's Board of Trustees, said Poshard has the board's full support. "The report says no intentional plagiarism, and the board stands behind it."

The case has raised questions about who is suited to review cases of academic dishonesty. Southern Illinois's department of educational administration and higher education, which awarded Poshard’s degree, turned down the president’s request to review the material. Many criticized the president's move, citing the inherent conflicts of interest. Fernando M. Trevino, chancellor of the main Carbondale campus, assembled the seven-person committee instead.

While both Tedrick and other speakers said they don't see a need for an external review, some still disagree. Robert Ware, a professor of philosophy at the university's Edwardsville campus, has circulated a petition signed by 30 professors and 9 anonymous faculty members calling for a panel outside the university to look into the matter. He said it is unethical for an internal group to have the only say.

"I'm deeply embarrassed and appalled by the committee's findings," he said. "They have not only sharply diminished the academic standards of the university, but they've undermined the mission of SIU as well. If this is to be the standard of the university -- and I don't see how you can hold students to a different standard than the president -- I can't give writing assignments anymore." He explained that students will be able to cite inadvertent plagiarism any time their work is questioned.

Joan Friedenberg, a professor emeritus of linguistics, also criticized the committee's decision. “It sends the message that the consequences of plagiarism are determined by who you are more than anything else”

Ware said the committee had produced a document that isn't establishing whether plagiarism occurred but rather "is excusing whatever did happen."

But R. Gerald Nelms, an associate professor of composition and rhetoric who accepted the president's request to look at the allegations against him independently from a university panel (given Nelms' research on plagiarism), agreed with the committee's main findings. He said that while he found violations including poor citations and "bad judgment," "most of the passages alleged to be plagiarized were not technically plagiarized and ... all of the infractions amount only to minor failures to conform to academic citation conventions in place at the present time."

Nelms said in his written comments that colleges face serious dangers "if we allow such an overzealous prosecution of citation infractions to outweigh our students’ genuine engagement with the learning…. Such overreaction multiplied could have a chilling effect on scholarship generally. The most important lesson that I draw from the scholarship on citation and plagiarism is this: We must always balance our high standards for research and scholarly publication with our need to not impede the free exchange of ideas. The world can withstand a few unprosecuted citation infractions.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Southern Illinois President Cleared of Plagiarism

  • newfangled quotation marks
  • Posted by Dave Stone on October 12, 2007 at 8:10am EDT
  • I just don't get it. What exactly were they calling quotation marks back when Posherd was doing his dissertation? It seems to me that the word "quotation" suggests that you use them when you quote something. If he's off the hook because historical standards were different, I'd love to hear more about this parallel universe in which quotation doesn't use quotation marks.

  • Goodbye ethics
  • Posted by Bob on October 12, 2007 at 8:50am EDT
  • Sounds like lawyers and political hacks parsing the obvious into the meaningless.

    SIU has redefined plagiarism and ethics based on a person's status.

    When an adult in a leadership position is not held to normal standards of ethical and professional conduct, how can we expect our kids who attend Illinois universities to adhere to them? I don't want to hear about student cheating, student plagiarism or underage drinking problems on our campuses when adults parse simple cheating by one of their own into "bad judgment."

  • A NEW PRECEDENT?
  • Posted by Bob on October 12, 2007 at 9:10am EDT
  • It appears that the SIU faculty committee and the president have set a new precedent in defining plagiarism. First, some instances of plagiarism are not really instances of plagiarism, but only "errors" and "mistakes." Second, the definition of plagiarism depends on the "historical context." Third the definition of plagiarism depends on how one "feels" toward the person who is accused of plagiarism. Interesting interpretations of plagiarism. Reminds one of Bill Clinton's response: It all depends on what is is.

    A legal question: Do the authors from whose works Mr. Poshead copied the material have a any legal claim against him? He benefited from stealing their words and passing them as his own. It is that doctorate that enabled him to secure an academic position, and eventually the presidency.

  • Why are some so upset on SIU's President's case
  • Posted by Jaime Torres , Director, Office of International Education at St. Louis Community College on October 12, 2007 at 9:35am EDT
  • I wondered how many of those that have done research and reported on them have "used" others words to express their findings? When we study cross-cultural matters, we find that addressing findings or feelings on your own words sometimes is better express when others agree with you. I believe much is being concluded from the findings of the Committee. I believe that many of those that submitted thesis and research findings that now criticize the findings of the Committee needs to searc their works and writing before they judge others.....muchas gracias..

  • Windfalls
  • Posted by A Grad Student on October 12, 2007 at 10:15am EDT
  • I hope they have hired additional staff to handle all the complaints from current and past students whose course grades were lowered because of plagiarism. Hey if the president of the university can do it why can't any of their students?

  • Interesting...
  • Posted by joshua j. kurz on October 12, 2007 at 11:40am EDT
  • This case leaves me wondering how Ward Churchill, accused of essentially the same things, was fired, yet no action was taken here other than an admonition and requiring a correction. Does the length of time the "errors" occurred make a difference? Or is it that Churchill is an outspoken critic of...just about everything?

  • Posted by Doc on October 12, 2007 at 11:40am EDT
  • Obviously, someone was out to "get" him. I find it hard to believe that someone would want to read a 20 year old dissertation. I wonder why neither his dissertation director, nor his committee found evidentce of plagarism. I know that after 5 people read my dissertation before submitting it to my comm. errors were found. After my defense and rewrite, The were still 3 or 4 punctuation errors. We are all fallible, I give him the benefit of the doubt, and I do not know him or his university.

  • What about MLK?
  • Posted by Stubbornly Rational on October 12, 2007 at 11:40am EDT
  • The 5 ton elephant in the room whenever anyone discusses the deterioration of standards regarding plagiarism is Martin Luther King. King, as is well known, is a textbook example of a blatant plagiarist. For quite some time, several English departments used his thesis as a classic example of plagiarism. King even copied typographical errors in the footnotes of the sources he copied. Various mealy-mouthed apologies and "theories" explaining why this was OK (and why BU chose to cover it up) don't alter the truth. Perhaps it is time to reopen the whole topic, beginning with a frank discussion of King's thesis. How about it?

  • I’m Standing Up For Glenn Poshard!!!
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 12, 2007 at 12:25pm EDT
  • Let’s see, Glenn Poshard -- distinguished-looking, full head of white hair, good old boy -- has three degrees from SIUC (’70, ’74, ’84) ... Poshard serves in Illinois State Senate (’84 – ’88) ... Poshard serves in U.S. House of Representatives (’88 – ’92) ... Poshard serves in U.S. Senate (’93 – ’98) ... Poshard bases candidacy for governor on honesty and ethical government (a right-leaning Democrat, he barely loses ... 1998) ... Poshard serves four years as SUIC Vice Chancellor for Administration ... SIUE fires Chris Dussold for plagiarizing a statement of his teaching philosophy (2004) ... Poshard appointed Chairman of SIU Board of Trustees (2004) ... Poshard appointed President of SIU System (2006) ... “anonymous” group charges Poshard with plagiarism in writing masters thesis and Ph.D. dissertation (2007) ... Poshard asks underling, R.Gerald Nelms, to review said documents (2007) ... Nelms says ...

    “if we allow such an overzealous prosecution of citation infractions to outweigh our students’ genuine engagement with the learning…. Such overreaction multiplied could have a chilling effect on scholarship generally. The most important lesson that I draw from the scholarship on citation and plagiarism is this: We must always balance our high standards for research and scholarly publication with our need to not impede the free exchange of ideas. The world can withstand a few unprosecuted citation infractions.”

    SIU Board of Trustees says no big deal, Poshard’s our man!

    Hey, it makes sense to me. What’s the big deal anyway with stealing another’s words and phrases ... and paragraphs and pages? There are only a finite number of words anyway, and, therefore, only a finite number of ways to put them together coherently.

    P.S. Since, in writing this post, I have plagiarized with reckless abandon, please use the following at your discretion to help me clean up my act ...

    (“”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”)

    Thanks!

  • Posted by Lawrence on October 12, 2007 at 12:25pm EDT
  • The controversy surrounding the SIU President will continue. As it does, the practice of associating this plagiarism charge with the fate of the previous SIU Chancellor is incorrect and unfair. The previous Chancellor did not just copy content from “another university’s strategic plan.” It was a plan he had written. The content use consisted more of format and style. The truth is that charges against the former Chancellor were a convenient opportunity for a President that wanted to make a change for other, unrelated, reasons.

  • Plagiarism Is A Growth Industry
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 12, 2007 at 2:45pm EDT
  • I encourage all posters who might think this is either an isolated incident or a rare disease afflicting faculty and administrators to go to ...

    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/05/17/churchill

    and read the two posts by RWH. S/he lists more than a dozen URLs pointing toward the remarkable increase of plagiarism and other academic dishonesty amongst college and university faculty.

    By the way, the Student Honor Code at SIU (Section II, VIOLATIONS, Article A: Acts of Academic Dishonesty, Item 1 defines plagiarism to be “representing the work of another as one’s own work.” That’s it.

    Now, however -- meaning sometime within the past few months --- SIU has convened a committee – and, if I’m not mistaken, without student partition – that has written a seventeen-page report, “Report on Plagiarism Policies for Southern Illinois University.”

    The Plagiarism Committee – I promise you I didn’t make that up – defined plagiarism to be ...

    “Plagiarism is defined as presenting existing work as one’s own. Any ideas or materials taken from another source, including one’s own work, must be fully acknowledged unless the information is common knowledge. What is considered “common knowledge” may differ from subject to subject.”

    Then they go on to define such things as “common knowledge,” “competitive context,” “intentional plagiarism,” “unintentional plagiarism,” etc., give some examples of plagiarism, and tell the reader how to avoid doing it (just say no).

    http://news.siu.edu/PlagiarismReportFinal 091807.pdf

    It strikes me that plagiarism is a growth industry these days that provides quite wonderful resources for students (obviously), administration (also obviously), and faculty (the incidence of it will soon make that obvious too). Southern Illinois University – leading academic institution that it is – seems to be joining Ohio University as harbingers of things to come in higher education.

  • Posted by Gerald Nelms , Associate Professor at Southern Illinois University Carbondale on October 12, 2007 at 2:45pm EDT
  • Perhaps, those still accusing Glen Poshard of plagiarism should read a little more closely the reports, mine as well as the investigating committee's before making uninformed judgments. The committee's decisions were based on the work of a "blue ribbon" task force that worked for a year evaluating SIU's policies with regard to plagiarism and developed working guidelines based on the scholarship on the issue of plagiarism. The investigating committee also studied the policies of the time, style manuals of the time, and other dissertations from the Department of Higher Education. They interviewed several faculty members still alive from the time. Anyone looking at the dissertation itself would see that graduate student Glen Poshard made a good faith effort at citation and that all but two of the alleged plagiarisms were simply incomplete citations, and the final two do not rise to a level of serious infraction. I would suggest reading the dissertation itself, but it's going to be unavailable until revisions have been made to bring the mis-citations into line with current citation conventions.

  • Message to students
  • Posted by T-bone on October 12, 2007 at 2:45pm EDT
  • This does send a message to students - that plagiarism is a serious offense and those accused of it will be presumed innocent until proven guilty and will have the opportunity to defend their actions through due process in a thorough investigation.

    Isn't this exactly what we want students to learn?

  • Who Am I To Argue With Gerald Nelms ...
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 12, 2007 at 4:05pm EDT
  • Who am I to argue with Gerald Nelms, Associate Professor at SUI, working his way up to Professor.

    Stephen Satris, executive director of the Center for Academic Integrity at Clemson University, said about this incident, "That seems to contradict high standards. I think that's partly what high standards are all about, not overlooking stuff." Satris went on to say, "The norms don't seem to have any teeth if big shots can skirt around them and get away with them."

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-poshardsiu_weboct12,1,6941409.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

    According to Nelms, SIU’s INTERNAL “BLUE RIBBON” investigation concluded “... all but two of the alleged plagiarisms were simply incomplete citations, and the final two do not rise to a level of serious infraction.”

    But in August 2007, an anonymous watchdog group, Alumni and Faculty Against Corruption at SIU, claimed “...sixteen of the passages alleged to be plagiarism cited the correct source, but failed to use quotation marks or did not cite the correct page number (i.e., no big deal). Additionally, fourteen of the suspect passages contained neither quotation marks nor citations of any kind. According to the “Chronicle of Higher Education,” "no one on [Poshard's] dissertation committee told him that he had to use quotation marks." Poshard responded to the controversy by re-submitting his dissertation for review by the SIUC faculty, asking the faculty "to advise me on corrections necessary to make this dissertation consistent with the highest academic standards." On September 10, the “Chronicle of Higher Education” reported apparent mistakes in Poshard's masters thesis were indicative of what it called "a cut-and-paste methodology.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Poshard

    As per my previous post ...

    (“”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, “”)

  • "Puts the Goober in Gubernatorial"
  • Posted by Dash , Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Truman State University on October 12, 2007 at 4:05pm EDT
  • That's what the Chicago Reader said about Poshard when he ran for governor. Seemed appropriate to recall it at this time.

    Still, George Ryan, the guy he lost to, is now in jail for 6.5 years for flagrant and widespread corruption. Maybe that puts Poshard's "integrity" in some perpective.

  • The bad old days
  • Posted by Emeritus who remembers on October 12, 2007 at 4:35pm EDT
  • Professor Nelms writes, " The investigating committee also studied the policies of the time, style manuals of the time, and other dissertations from the Department of Higher Education. "

    He and several other commentators have implied that back in those murky days when there were no rules about plagiarizing, no clear notion of what it was, and few standards existed, it is not surprising that dissertation writers made (innocent) mistakes.

    Bullshit. Twenty years ago = 1987, when there were clear standards set forth in plain language, in the student handbooks—and elswhere—at nearly every institution of higher education in the US. Plagiarism is not a new concept! What it consists in is no mystery and hasn't been for centuries.

    I've been teaching in higher ed since 1962 (OK, I'm emeritus now) and can only laugh at this 'back then we didn't know" excuse—laugh sadly.

  • Posted by Gerald Nelms on October 12, 2007 at 5:25pm EDT
  • Once again, go read the reports: http://news.siu.edu/

    As for the history of citation, the late Robert Connors in In “The Rhetoric of Citation Systems, Part II: Competing Epistemic Values in Citation” (Rhetoric Review 17.2 [Spring 1999]: 219-245) writes, "Early disciplinary journals [developing in the early 20th Century] show a riot of different notational systems at work . . . . There were no formal rules” (p. 43). Connors goes on to explain that the move from footnoting to other forms of citation and documentation went on throughout the 20th Century. By 1960, many scientific journals had moved to other notational systems, but the APA and the MLA continued to offer footnotes one alternative form of citation throughout the 1970s and into the middle of the 1980s. At the time of the writing of this dissertation, then, there may have been some confusion over the kind of citation system that students in Higher Education were expected to use. And, of course, there remain a confusing array of different systems from footnoting to numbering to endnoting, to parenthetical citation. Some disciplines sanction a particular citation system, but others allow for a variety, and this variety can confuse students.

    Perhaps, more importantly, the investigating committee found that at the time, SIU had no plagiarism policy at all and Poshard's department did not have a recommended citation and documentation style.

    Let me go further, I was very impressed with Glen Poshard's dissertation. I was especially impressed with exactly that chapter where most of the allegations of plagiarism are directed, his review of the literature. Graduate student Poshard does exactly what we want our students to do: relate and consolidate source information under topics and sub-topics, rather than simply summarize source-by-source, one after the other. He reconciles source information, putting sources in dialogue with each other. He integrates sources with his own ideas. He doesn't simply adopt text. The "mis-citations" are surrounded by his own ideas and language. This kind of synthesizing and integrating of sources always risks the possibility of mis-citation. Yet, it reveals a deeper engagement with sources than the alternative, the one-by-one summaries that students often give, making the reader do all the work identifying topics and sub-topics and finding relationships.

    Finally, let me say something about Glen Poshard, the person. I had never met the man before being asked to do my analysis, other than to shake his hand in a reception line. I was very impressed with him. He's very smart and very, very dedicated to Southern Illinois University. Any characterization of the man as somehow unsophisticated or not intelligent is simply, absolutely wrong. I was also impressed by his high ethical standards. He gave me the freedom to report whatever I found in my analysis. He was eager to know how serious his "mistakes" were. And they were simply the mistakes that many students--even, no especially, graduate students--would make. Graduate students, after all, are would-be scholars who have yet to become expert enough to be considered insiders yet who are expected to sound like expert insiders when writing their dissertations. As Victorian literature and Bible scholar John Gabel (and one of my dissertation committee members) once said to me: "A dissertation is the last work you’ll do as a student, not the first work you do as a professional scholar."

  • Get over it
  • Posted by Chmee on October 12, 2007 at 5:25pm EDT
  • It's freakin' dissertation...basically a homework assignment that nobody reads once it is approved and defended...unless someone wants to play "gotcha!"

    It is time to recognize that the real problem is that the dissertation is outmoded artifact that sets the stage for a lifetime of useless and pointless research for most.

    All of you who are bemoaning the double-standard, can feel free to focus on something useful: demonstrating that you actually have a non-trivial positive impact on student learning.

  • Posted by old hum prof , Asst. Vice President for Undergraduate Studies at University of Northern Colorado on October 12, 2007 at 7:10pm EDT
  • Two things are abundantly and irrefutably clear: (1) a group was, for whatever reason, out to get this guy, and was so energized by this pursuit that they were willing to pore over hundreds of pages of an obscure dissertation to find errata; (2) errata were there to be discovered. Less clear is the question whether any of these errata rise to the level of academic dishonesty. Those who have given close attention to the matter--and actually read the damn thing--have concluded that they do not. Many who have not given attention to the matter seem very anxious to assert that they do. I think it almost certain that any analysis of any doctoral dissertation will reveal a certain level of error in citation and some close calls on attribution of wording. In rare cases (M.L. King's among the better-known) the offense is egregious. But between inadvertences and acts of disnonesty there is some territory. One should tread carefully here. The SIU philosophy prof quoted in the article seems disinclined to make distinctions, an odd trait in a philosopher.

  • Posted by Emeritus who remembers , reply to Professor Nelms on October 12, 2007 at 10:35pm EDT
  • Professor Nelms writes

    "As for the history of citation, the late Robert Connors in In “The Rhetoric of Citation Systems, Part II: Competing Epistemic Values in Citation” (Rhetoric Review 17.2 [Spring 1999]: 219-245) writes, 'Early disciplinary journals [developing in the early 20th Century] show a riot of different notational systems at work. . . . There were no formal rules' (p. 43). Connors goes on to explain that the move from footnoting to other forms of citation and documentation went on throughout the 20th Century. By 1960, many scientific journals had moved to other notational systems, but the APA and the MLA continued to offer footnotes one alternative form of citation throughout the 1970s and into the middle of the 1980s. At the time of the writing of this dissertation, then, there may have been some confusion over the kind of citation system that students in Higher Education were expected to use. And, of course, there remain a confusing array of different systems from footnoting to numbering to endnoting, to parenthetical citation. Some disciplines sanction a particular citation system, but others allow for a variety, and this variety can confuse students."

    1987 is not the "early 20th Century." I'll give Professor Nelms a nickel for every instance he can cite of a school's not providing a style sheet or an indication of which of the standard ways of footnoting, citing references, or a means indicating which is direct discourse and which is indirect discourse in the body of a thesis to its students. (Usually, and no doubt in this case, students are referred to and told to follow the MLA stylesheet.)

    This information, i.e., information on how to format a thesis or dissertation is provided to every student embarking on writing one at every institution I'm familiar with, from Reed and Princeton's undergraduate theses to Harvard's doctoral dissertations (in various fields).

    There should have been no ambiguity on this score in 1987, however much there may have been in 1920. Connors' findings are not germane to the case in question.

    I do thank Professor Nelms for his thoughtful reply to what I wrote earlier.

  • Posted by Jonathan Chu , Associate Prof. at University of Massaschusetts Boston on October 13, 2007 at 4:05am EDT
  • There was a time when presidents of universities represented scholars with a vision of to what the University should aspire. So now we excuse, to put the best light on it, scholarship which we may judge to be slopply but which, in the context of the moment, is acceptable for those who represent scholars to the rest of the world?

  • Sauce for the Goose
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tenured on October 13, 2007 at 4:05am EDT
  • I am perfectly happy to give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Poshard. People make mistakes, standards are misunderstood, etc., etc.

    So my only question to Professor Nelms is this: When will Professor Dussold be reinstated in his previous position with appropriate back pay? After all, if we can excuse carelessness in a doctoral dissertation, surely we can forgive someone who borrows the words of another on something as inconsequential as a statement of teaching philosophy. Right?

  • Six Things ...
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 13, 2007 at 4:05am EDT
  • First, I would like to echo the sentiments of Emeritus Who Remembers (by the way, are you Sioux?) vis-a-vis there being only loose guidelines for avoiding plagiarism back in the day.

    Did you say Bullshit? Oh yes, Bullshit!

    As an undergraduate in the late 50s and when writing my Ph.D. dissertation in the late 60s, Kate Turabian’s “A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations” was a constant companion. It was required for purchase in my Freshman Composition course in 1956. As I recall, there was not much discussion about plagiarism, per se, but no one – and I mean NO one – had any doubt whatsoever about the requirements for honest written and formally spoken discourse.

    http://www.turabian.org/

    Second, I am unimpressed with the relevance of Professor Nelms’ committee member’s statement, “A dissertation is the last work you’ll do as a student, not the first work you do as a professional scholar.” That may be technically true, but I and my committee at Virginia Tech were just as anal retentive about the content and style of my dissertation as I and any of my co-authors have been with anything I have written in the interim.

    Third, plagiarism has a proud history. Not only was M.L. King, Jr. a plagiarist, so were, among many others, T.S. Eliot, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Alex Haley, George Harrison, and Virgil. William Shakespeare’s plagiarized often and well ... for example “Othello” is right from the 16th century pages of Giraldi Cinthio.

    http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=3009

    Oscar Wilde was a notorious plagiarist: Once, in an exchange with his good friend, the painter James Whistler, he is reported to have said "I wish I'd said that, James," to which Whistler responded "You will, Oscar, you will." On another occasion, Whistler said about Wilde, "He has the courage of the opinions of others." Not to be outdone, Wilde used Whistler’s aphorism – and without attribution -- in a subsequent essay.

    Fourth, for an excellent list of articles and essays about plagiarism, see Eastern Michigan University’s “Plagiarism and Citing Reference Sources ...

    http://keithstanger.com/estyle_2.htm

    Fifth, it strikes me that UC-Berkeley has a better definition of plagiarism than does SIU; to wit ...

    "Plagiarism is defined as the use of intellectual material produced by another person without acknowledging its source. This includes, but is not limited to:
    (a.) Copying from the writings or works of others into one's academic assignment without attribution, or submitting such work as if it were one's own;
    (b.) Using the views, opinions, or insights of another without acknowledgment; or
    (c.) Paraphrasing the characteristic or original phraseology, metaphor, or other literary device of another without proper attribution."

    Thank goodness there’s none of that intentional and unintentional nonsense there. What does “unintentional” plagiarism mean anyway except something along the lines of uninformed ... or careless ... or just plain lazy. “Oh I didn’t really mean to do it ... I was just preoccupied with other responsibilities when I wrote that ... my mistakes were unintentional”

    Sixth, let’s face it, Glenn Poshard – sweet guy and brilliant scholar that Gerald Nelms has reported him to be – has admitted that he plagiarized and has pleaded with SIU faculty to bail him out by temporarily removing his dissertation from the library, correcting it, and putting the revised version back on the shelf. In truth, I’m not quite sure about the point – or even the ethical legitimacy – of such a process. If it has a purpose other than removing from permanent and public display all evidence of the president’s admitted plagiarism, perhaps someone will explain it to me. Oh, that everyone who has ever been guilty of plagiarism (and found out) could have their work rescued from literary purgatory, revised by experts, given Kate Turabian’s seal of approval, and then be replaced with respect and reverence on the most favored shelves in the SIU library.

  • Poshard
  • Posted by Tony Williams , Professor at SIU at Carbondale on October 13, 2007 at 2:10pm EDT
  • According to judicial practice, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Whether intentional or deliberate, neither is plagiarism. Unfortunately, I wish to state my complete disagreement with Professor Nelms and state that although a dissertation is supposed to be the first stage in a career in scholarship, it ought to reflect the highest standards of integrity and honesty. Unlike Professor Nelms, I regard any instance of plagiarism as inexcusable and the fact that a review was undertaken by an internal committee and not an external body with expertise in plagiarism makes this whole exercise a complete farce.

    Furthermore, even though SIU had no stated policy on plagiarism at the time does not mean that candidates did not know the score. I'm also appalled at the implication that graduate committee standards 20 -30 years ago were lax. They may have been at SIU but not elsewhere as I can testify from my own experience of American and European higher education. No matter how much Professor Nelms justifies his supplemental report to appease his master (who is a good old boy local politician), the fact remains that great damage has been done to the integrity of this university by a non-academic President who should have had the integrity to resign once this incident came to light. He will, of course, do nothing to help the unfortunate professor who he dismissed merely for duplicating a teaching statement.

  • 1965 Webster’s definition of “plagiarize”
  • Posted by Auctor Ignotus on October 13, 2007 at 5:25pm EDT
  • Plagiarize: To steal and pass off as one’s own (the ideas or words of another). To present as one’s own an idea or product derived from an existing source.

    Source: Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1965), 646.

  • Look Ma, No Cites!
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tenured on October 13, 2007 at 5:25pm EDT
  • OK, maybe I do need to get my own blog, but Frizbane Manley's comments got me thinking about this whole issue of plagiarism and just how serious a violation it actually is. (Thanks, Frizbane, for getting me thinking on a day when I'd much rather vegetate in front of the television set rooting against the football teams of universities that once interviewed me but hired someone else.)

    First, a confession of sorts. When I was an undergrad back in the days of wine, roses, and polyester, I was pretty hazy on the definition of academic dishonesty. It is, in fact, possible that some of the help I gave to friends on their papers and take-home exams may have crossed a line, though that possibility never occurred to me at the time (seriously). And I do remember one particularly vexing paper assingment that led me to spend hours at Denny's bending one friend's ear so hard that to this day he would need only the prosthetic snout to portray Dumbo at Disneyland. Anyhow, by the time I wrote the paper, not even I could tell for sure where my ideas left off and his began.

    So I didn't do the really obvious stuff, like handing in a transcribed journal article as original work, but I was at least close enough to the border to watch the illegal immigrants jump the fence, as it were. (By the way, my favorite plagiarism story involves a student transcriber who favored me with a paper that included the phrase, "As we found in our previous article...")

    What I guess I'm saying is that I've never been as horrified by plagiarism as many of my colleagues. Usually, I let first offenders off with a warning and a directive to re-write the paper. Second offenders I nail to the wall, but I rarely see any. To some extent, I see it as just another dumb thing that kids of that age do, like driving too fast, ingesting dangerous and illegal substances, and falsely pledging their undying love as a means to get sex. These are all bad ideas and should be discouraged vigorously, but they're not generally worth ruining someone's life over.

    My own hierarchy of actionable plagiarism goes something like this:

    1. First timer undergraduate--stern warning and visit to the principal's office. Sort of the way you deal with your grade schooler's first instance of shoplifting.

    2. Repeat offender undergraduate--progressive discipline starting with failing the paper/class and eventually leading to bad things like suspension and expulsion.

    3. First offender grad student--it all depends on how heavy the "lifting" was. I tend to be harder on grad students for all the obvious reasons, but even here justice and mercy can coexist.

    4. Repeat offender grad student--buh bye!

    5. Plagiarism on thesis/dissertation--sorry, President Poshard, but this is pretty serious stuff. But it does depend on the ratio of borrowing to original thought. If, in fact, Poshard's dissertation is nearly all original insight, then I don't see the value in defrocking him.

    6. Plagiarism by professionals--similar to #5 above, with an additional rap on the knuckles for being a full-blown grownup. Bad Doris Kearns Goodwin! Bad Professor Ogletree! Fix your mistakes, do your penance, and promise us all that you won't sin again.

    THREE IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS!

    1. ANYONE is permitted to plagiarize teaching statements and strategic plans. There's a reason they coined the word "boilerplate", you know. All those seminars on "best practices" that our Deans send us to virtually invite us to borrow ideas. I'm not sure why borrowing words is so much worse.

    2. If you significantly improve on the plagiarized material, this should be considered a significant mitigating factor. (This is called the George Harrison exception: Have you ever listened to "He's So Fine"? Uggh! Give me "My Sweet Lord" anytime!) If Shakespeare plagiarized, good for him. He stands on the shoulders of midgets.

    3. If you are one of the most significant Americans of the 20th Century, a man who responded to cruel and vicious racism with heroic patience and non-violence at a time when cracking skulls and firing shots would have been entirely justified, then I don't want to hear about plagiarism of some doctoral dissertation. (This, by the way, is directed at "Stubbornly Rational" who seems oddly--or perhaps not so oddly--eager to take a gratuitous swipe at MLK. It is not directed as Frizbane, who merely mentioned King in the context of a longer list of famous and notorious borrowers.)

    Anyhow, that's plenty for the moment. Back to wishing gridiron disaster on the schools that found me unworthy.

  • Okay ... I’m Outta Here
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 13, 2007 at 5:30pm EDT
  • I have said waaaay too much about a topic of little interest to me (I thought), but I missed one point that was just sticking out there like a sore thumb.

    In one of his posts, R. Gerald Nelms said, “Let me go further, I was very impressed with Glen (sic) Poshard’s dissertation. I was especially impressed with exactly that chapter where most of the allegations of plagiarism are directed ...”

    Well, Duhhh!

  • Posted by Gerald Nelms on October 14, 2007 at 8:35am EDT
  • I continue to be amazed at how some of us academics are so eager to make claims based on nothing more than supposition, speculation, and our own agendas. Frizbane, your last message assumes that all or just about all of the literature review in the Poshard dissertation is taken from other sources. It is not! And of course, you conveniently selected my statement out of context. You neglected to address the reasons I gave for being impressed with his literature review. Nice contribution to the free and FAIR exchange of ideas.

    Tony, why would you simply assume that the investigating committee was somehow compromised in their deliberations? You have no knowledge whatsoever about their deliberations. I do have some knowledge, although I was not a part of those deliberations. I know, for example, that the members kept themselves at a distance from the administration and took a lot of precautions to retain their independence. Simply because you don’t like their conclusions is no reason to start name-calling. Their investigation was neither an “exercise” nor a “farce.”

    Nor should we assume that graduate student Poshard’s dissertation committee was lax. Read the committee’s report. The subject matter of giftedness was an emerging field of study in the early 1980s. Most of these folks were not familiar with the literature. Poshard provided them with the source material as he provided them with his literature review. There’s no evidence of them being lax.

    And the notion that citation was a stable domain in the early 1980s is an exaggeration. At the time, both MLA and APA were still in the midst of shifting from notes (first footnotes, then endnotes) over to in-text citation and in fact, were offering the choice between notes and in-text citation at the time. And there were—as there still are—many, many other citation systems that different disciplines use. My understanding is that at the time, while Higher Education was moving toward adopting Chicago style and Turabian—although Turabian was branching away from Chicago style—not all publications in Higher Ed were using either of those styles. It appears that graduate student Poshard did what many graduate students do: he looked at other dissertations and did what they did.

    Furthermore, Tony, you know nothing of how I became involved in doing my analysis of the Poshard dissertation. Your insinuation about my integrity is insulting and probably libelous. My report was written neither to be “supplemental” nor “to appease [my] master.” Since at least 2001, when I took over directing our Communication Across the Curriculum program at SIUC, I have made myself available to consult with or provide workshops for any individual or group on campus wishing my input. Even after our CAC program was discontinued for budgetary reasons, I continued this service to the campus—and to some outside of our campus, too, I should add. It, then, would not make any sense that I would deny this service to the President of my university. I was simply asked to provide my impartial opinion on the allegations, and I did so with the assurance that I would not be under any pressure to not be impartial and objective. Having conducted oral history interviews earlier in my career, I have studied objectivity and adopted what Mark Johnson and George Lakoff call “human objectivity”: a recognition that absolute objectivity is impossible but that subjectivity and objectivity do not exist simply in dualistic opposition but on a continuum and by “bracketing” one’s biases, you can achieve a human objectivity. I do so by consciously and purposefully identifying my biases and placing my goal of objectivity as my top priority. I sought to appease no one but simply to seek what is true as best I could. My findings, I believe, reflect the objective nature of my analysis. I provide plenty of support for my conclusions. (In fact, I have annotated every site of alleged plagiarism in the Poshard dissertation with an explanation, although I don’t think that that annotated document will be able to be made available now.) My report is addressed “To Whom It May Concern,” because after conducting my analysis, I suspected that my report would, at some point, be released. Originally, I had assumed my analysis was simply for President Poshard.

    As for the character of Glen Poshard, Tony, you are off-base. I did not know Glen Poshard before being asked to do my analysis. I had shook his hand once in a reception line; that was it. Having had several conversations with him now, my impression is that he is NOT “a good old boy local politician.” And I wonder what evidence you have to support that belief, other than the fact that he was in the U.S. House of Representatives and ran for Governor of Illinois, neither of which are exactly “local.” Nor did I find him “non-academic.” Again, I wonder what evidence you have of that.

    As for dismissing the distinction between intentional and unintentional mis-citation, that’s simply absurd. Unintentional mis-citation is well-documented. And making the distinction has everything to do with fairness and justice. Unintentional mis-citation is clearly not cheating.
    Finally, the case of Chris Dussold is very different from that of Glen Poshard. I admit that I actually would like to do an analysis of the Dussold case. Some anonymous person last Spring left copies of Dussold’s Statement of Teaching Philosophy and the Statement from the source from which Dussold copied his statement, but quite frankly, a comparison of the two doesn’t really answer all my questions. Dussold clearly adopted the source with very, very little change, even reproducing a typo. Still, we know that there are “institutionalized” contexts where such copying is not just acceptable but is encouraged and expected. The use of templates in business, law, medicine, etc., is one example. Those assigned to write business reports typically are expected to use past reports not simply as models but as templates. The question, then, is this: Do statements of teaching philosophy exist within this institutionalized context? I think it’s a gray area. Clearly, for institutions dedicated more to teaching than to research, it would seem that such statements are not “institutionalized.” I’m not sure that SIUE is an institution that is dedicated simply to teaching. I’ve seen a lot of good research come out of that university. I don't know what the context is for such statements at SIUE. So, do research universities “institutionalize” teaching philosophies? They clearly do not want to publicize it, if they do. On the other hand, Tony’s last statement dismisses teaching statements as unimportant documents whose duplication is irrelevant. I wonder how many other college professors feel the same way. That’s a sad commentary on the status of teaching in our universities, I think. Still, if that is the attitude, maybe adopting someone else’s teaching philosophy is “institutionalized.” I recall the old joke about holiday fruit cakes—that there’s only one and keeps getting passed around. I wonder if the same joke could be said about statements of teaching philosophy.

    But in the end, the findings in the Poshard case are not relevant to that of the Dussold case, because the cases are completely different. The latter, in my mind, must be determined by current context; the former was determined by considerations of intent and historical context.

  • Frizbane Manley ... Please Forgive My Plagiarism
  • Posted by RWH on October 14, 2007 at 5:00pm EDT
  • I have said waaaay too much about a topic of little interest to me (I thought), but I missed one point that was just sticking out there like a sore thumb.

    In one of his posts, R. Gerald Nelms said, “Let me go further, I was very impressed with Glen (sic) Poshard’s dissertation. I was especially impressed with exactly that chapter where most of the allegations of plagiarism are directed, [i.e., put anything you want here].”

    Well, Duhhh!

  • Posted by feeling sullied on October 14, 2007 at 5:05pm EDT
  • Professor Nelms' report is an egregious whitewash of Glenn Poshard's plagiarism, and will be seen as a signal contribution to the culture of corruption at SIU. (When informed that a candidate for an administrative post there had a fraudulent resume, the search committee chair, with the blessing of the university president, excused it as merely reflecting the different practices of a non-scholarly discipline. Nelms continues in this tradition.)
    External observers puzzling over Nelms' report and than of the investigative panel (which views plagiarism as an "informal style" that was rampant in the College of Education in the '70s and '80s) will have to grope for explanations of the faculty's efforts to exhonerate Poshard. My own guess is that a recognition that the College of Education might have to be stripped of its ability to confer advanced degrees, given the practices uncovered, was just too much to bear.
    Two minor notes: Professor Nelms needs to research the meaning of "libel," since nothing Prof. Williams wrote was remotely libelous. And he needs to reflect that the SIUE professor was summarily fired for HIS plagiarism, and never given the nuanced consideration Nelms is now willing to provide. In firing that professor, SIUE apparently violated its own policies, and president Poshard proved completely resistent to appeals that he look into it. Instead, he embarked on smear campaigns against the faculty who appealed to him. That's one aspect of his integrity.
    I feel very queasy now, because I failed students at SIU for plagiarism considerably less serious than Poshard's. If I offer to change their grades to reflect Nelms' standards, I'll be violating my own. But it certainly seems I owe them something, given the internal formal response to Poshard by SIU.

  • Southern Illinois President Cleared of Plagiarism.
  • Posted by Tony Williams , Professor at SIU at Carbondale on October 14, 2007 at 5:05pm EDT
  • I do not intend to reply in detail to this posting but only to ask why did not the appropriate external review occur rather than ones done internally? The most obvious path would have been to contact an outside body fully versed in issues of plagiarism having no connection to the Board of Trustees (who voiced support in Poshard three times before the findings on the internal committee!) and not employees of SIU. The fact that this was not done raises justifiable suspicions on the part of those who see the reluctance to call on a qualifed outside body highly suspicious.

  • Gerald and Glenn up a tree, K-I-S-....
  • Posted by E on October 14, 2007 at 6:30pm EDT
  • I am in possession of Poshard's dissertation. I also attended Gerald Nelms' workshops on plagiairsm. If Poshard's dissertation meets the conventions of the past, why in the world make him correct it? The truth is it doesn NOT conform to the conventions of the 1980's. If Gerald Nelms thinks that the plagiarized chapter is of high quality, then I am convinced more than ever that SIU must have the lowest standards in the country. This is exactly the kind of writing you want students to have? Putting aside all the obvious plagiarism, in the section Nelms speaks of as high quality, Poshard plops in someone else's TEN PAGE exective summary -- right in the middle of the chapter. Yes, he says where it comes from, but my point is that Poshard doesn't even show evidence of an ability to summarize or synthsize. Again, if Gerald Nelms thinks this is exactly what sudents should do in dissertations, he has pretty low standards. Those ten pages could and should have been summarized. But grad student Poshard was either too lazy or inept to do it. The dissertation is an embarassment, even without the plagiairsm!
    And as far as Nelms' affection for Poshard, he has obviously been co-opted, swept off his feet by the attentions of someone he percevies as powerful. I'm surprised Nelms doesn't know that just because someome is pleasant to you doesn't mean that person is honest or has integrity or is a good person. He has been fooled by a politician. After the initial infatuation with Poshard subsides, Nelms should go back and re-read his own handouts from his plagiarism workshops.

  • A few comments
  • Posted by non-tenured SIU faculty member at SIU on October 14, 2007 at 6:30pm EDT
  • Professor Nelms states - "I was simply asked to provide my impartial opinion on the allegations, and I did so with the assurance that I would not be under any pressure to not be impartial and objective."

    Here is something to consider - Perhaps Professor Nelms was asked to get involved precisely because he could be counted on to produce the "right" evaluation without any pressure at all. Even a cursory reading of Professor Nelm's previous work on plagiarism is enough to make clear that he is not likely to take a hard line / law and order stance on anything but the most blatant infractions. After all he was a major force in moving that "blue ribbon" panel to embrace the "unintended plagiarism" concept.

    I do not doubt that Professor Nelms provided a sincere, honest evaluation. I do not question his character even the least in this matter. I suspect he was tapped to do this evaluation in part because he could be counted on to sincerely excuse President Poshard. President Poshard was certainly not taking much of a risk by asking for Nelms' evaluation.

    Professor Nelms seems to sincerely believe that there is no academic crime in failing to actively ensure that the work you present as your own is your own. Rather, he seems to think that plagiarism only rises to a level that it involves academic integrity when it is intentional cheating.

    I personally believe that academic integrity with regard to plagiarism involves the fact that we have a duty to make clear to the reader which words and ideas are our own, and which belong to someone else. In my mind plagiarism involves a failure to carry out this duty. I think we should hold students to this high standard of academic integrity. In this context, intention is not very relevant. If words in the document are not yours, then you have at least not done your job of ensuring that this does not happen. And this should be counted as a case of academic dishonesty. (i.e. you were dishonest when you turned it in with your name on it, because by putting your name on it your are claiming that you have taken the necessary steps to ensure that you have not mixed in other peoples' words with your own.)

  • Posted by Ann Arc on October 15, 2007 at 5:15am EDT
  • If Professor Nelms bends over any further he is going to do a somersault.

  • Laughingstock
  • Posted by Silence Dogood on October 15, 2007 at 5:15am EDT
  • Is it any wonder that SIU has already been declared a laughingstock?

    http://www.insidehighered.com/views/blogs/university_diaries/southern_illinois_university_an_official_laughingstock

    And that it was predicted that Poshard would be cleared?

    http://www.insidehighered.com/views/blogs/university_diaries/plagiarism_yours_mine_and_ayres

  • Boilerplate
  • Posted by EB on October 15, 2007 at 11:10am EDT
  • Dr. Nelms: If you are unsure as to whether or not teaching statements, etc. are considered by some to be boilerplate, I suggest you look around the profession. One of my colleagues recently saw a teaching statement shared by 4 professors (with no citations). So in the current context, this might actually be common practice. Also, I don't understand why Poshard is expected to fix his thesis when the committee found other instances of "loose" citations from that era. If the others aren't expected to fix their work, then neither should Poshard. I'm not apologizing for Poshard, but this does not make sense to me.

  • What about Wendler?
  • Posted by Paladin on October 16, 2007 at 5:25am EDT
  • Some of these comments are all fine and good if you're talking about an institution with really, really low standards. SIUC fits that bill very well. However, where were the low standards in question when former Chancellor Walter Wendler was removed from his post? Wendler was attacked for using material that he wrote in his strategic plan for the University, Southern at 150. When it was time for Poshard to get rid of Wendler, what happened? Simple, the Southern Illinoisan, the local newspaper that has shown its extreme favoritism toward Poshard, published trumpeted up charges of plagiarism based on the fact that Wendler supposedly lifted passages from a report that he wrote at Texas A&M University.

    One question I would like to ask is, "how do you plagiarize yourself?" In other words, how can you steal an idea when that idea is your own? If Poshard did plagiarize, and the internal report done by the SIU committee conceded that he did, then shouldn't Wendler get some sort of break?

    After all, if Wendler were the President and Poshard were the Chancellor, we would be talking about Glenn Poshard's resignation right now. Wendler didn't cheat, Poshard did. That's using the standards set forward by one Gerald Nelms. Tony, I'd love to hear your $.02 on this?

  • Posted by Outside looking in on October 16, 2007 at 10:45am EDT
  • I simply can't believe the material I'm reading here that was posted by university professors, scholars who seem to so full of themselves they can't see past their own noses. I've never meet Gerald Nelms, but I would like to get to know him. He has taken a very clear, honest and thoughtful approach to the issue. Hardlines like Tony Williams have made up their minds and seem to make up things to fit their point of view. I pity their students.

  • Wendler's plagiarism
  • Posted by MS on October 16, 2007 at 11:00am EDT
  • Actually, the Texas A&M strategic document does not carry any authorship. Wendler claimed to have written it, and was supported in this by a crony, but there's no independent evidence that he wrote it. Even if he did, to have borrowed in its entirety the "gap" statement from Texas A&M Vision 2020 undermined the entire strategic plan. Southern at 150 (SIU's strategic plan) also contains a statement supposedly written by Poshard that is plagiarized from Vision 2020. So, the enterprise was substantially faked, as I assume a good number of these things are. Anyway, Poshard claims that Wendler's reassignment had nothing to do with the plaiarism issue.

  • Breaking My Promise
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 16, 2007 at 12:05pm EDT
  • Now that the discussion has moved from Poshard to Wendler, I have a funny tale to tell

    I once taught at a business school at which the Dean, a blustery old guy with no academic experience, included “Write a strategic plan for the School” in each year’s objectives for the upcoming academic year. Once, when a colleague asked the dean about the strategic plan he replied “We already have a strategic plan.” When my colleague asked to see it, the Dean just smiled, pointed a finger at his head, and said “It’s up here.”

    In any event, after living with this empty promise for four years, another colleague and I – on our own – decided one summer to knock off such a plan for the School, and we started by looking at a potpourri of strategic plans of other schools. After quite a bit of reading and analysis we decided to start from scratch, but we did use the format of the strategic plan of the School of Agriculture at Iowa State ... and when we were finished and presented the strategic plan to the faculty, we advertised that we liked the Iowa State format and adopted it.

    One faculty member – another blustery old guy with a Ph.D. and with one (unrefereed) publication – accused us of plagiarism. Needless to say his accusations went nowhere, but you get the point. Not only are there serious scholars out there who care about plagiarism like that of President Poshard, there are also more than a few loonies out there looking for opportunities to act on their professional jealousies.

    By the way, the dean was fond of telling just about anyone within earshot that the two personal “accomplishments” of which he was proudest were (1) many students – especially the athletes – gave him the high-five when they passed him the hall and (2) many of the international students called him Grand PaPa. Maybe you understand why I always wondered what he was pointing at when he said “It’s up here.”

  • Welcome to higher education in postmodern America
  • Posted by Fed up on October 17, 2007 at 3:15am EDT
  • The plagiarism scandals at SIU and OU are near textbook examples of corruption. The most obvious indication of this is the use of internal investigative and advisory committees; which has the appearance of foxes guarding the henhouse. Both universities are well aware of this mistake but make it nevertheless. Yet everyone knows it’s just common sense that schools with nothing to hide would welcome the opportunity for credible external review and judgment.

    There’s also a disturbing lack of good character shared by the leadership of these schools and Sen. Larry Craig (of ongoing sex-sting infamy). They simply won’t own up to their mistakes and resign for the greater good; and those having the authority to fire them, don’t. Such housecleaning used to be standard procedure for scandals. But this has now been replaced with immoral and unethical paralysis/gridlock where the very people presiding over scandals remain in power to make self-serving decisions (like forming internal committees) that worsen the scandals. Sustaining careers seems to have supplanted institutional integrity and nobody in a position to rectify this character flaw seems to care. In an earlier time, this situation would have been a notorious howler and heads would have rolled, but not anymore. Why? Corruption.

    Meanwhile, there’s the usual media hubbub until the public quickly grows tired of watching the academy fret and dissemble endlessly over the clear-cut corruption in its midst, while doing nothing meaningful and decisive to eradicate it. This ignominious spectacle is no doubt fostering growing public suspicion that university libraries across the country are contaminated with widespread plagiarism. Given the feckless precedents being set by SIU and OU, innocent until proven guilty will not matter in the court of public opinion. And, sooner or later, all of higher education will suffer considerably as a result.

  • The Lesson From All of This
  • Posted by Christopher Turner , The Lesson From All of This at Southern Illinois University Carbondale on October 17, 2007 at 1:55pm EDT
  • After the OJ Simpson verdict debacle, some claimed the jurisprudence system was "broken". A musician I know in New Orleans responded: "The system is not broken. You have money and power, you break the law, you pay the best attorneys, and you get away with murder: the system is working just fine." The lesson students here at Carbondale should take away from this is that human culture is full of injustice and diception, even at the institutional level. This is the way corrupted power works in the real world. If the collective faculty here were not concerned about drawing attention to themselves and had the collective "guts", they would call for a walkout. After a few days of this, the man would be fired. Poshard puts his own interests above the image of the University: just the kind of individual that should not be its representative. The acid test may be to see if enrollment, which has been dropping or flat at best, takes a significant nose dive. I have been plagiarized already in my field of archaeoastronomy, and it is a very unpleasant feeling to experience. There is no "plagiarism" court per se to deal with these issues. The outcome of justice in these cases rests with the peers in the respective disciplines, and these members are often in confederation, perhaps particularly in the field of archaeology.

  • Poshard's dissertation available
  • Posted by non-tenured SIU faculty member at SIU on October 18, 2007 at 3:50am EDT
  • Professor Nelms states that - "I would suggest reading the dissertation itself, but it’s going to be unavailable until revisions have been made to bring the mis-citations into line with current citation conventions."

    I will point out that the dissertation is still available at the Lovejoy Library on the Edwardsville campus. The copy at the Edwardsville campus will not be changed.

    Also those wanting to read it online may find it, in its entirety, on the Chicago Sun Times website. This story contains links to the Dissertation.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/education/536587,CST-NWS-GLENN31.article

    You can read it and decide for yourself what you think of Professor Nelm's assesment: "I was very impressed with Glen Poshard’s dissertation."

    Just for fun, and not that it is particularly relevant to the Plagiarism issue, I would draw your attention to the self serving nature of some of the apparently unsupported conclusions of the dissertation.

    On page 104, for example, Poshard begins his conclusion section with the following:

    Quote:

    Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions are stated in relation to the research questions:
    1. It can be concluded that increase emphasis by the Gifted Area Service Center staff during the past three years in providing opportunities for local district inservice contributed to a substantial increase in the number of educators involved in inservice training in 1983.

    END QUOTE

    I think that Poshard ran the Gifted Area Service Center at that time. So this conclusion amounts to him patting himself (and his staff) on the back. This wouldn't be a problem, except that, as far as I can tell nothing in the body of the dissertation really supports this conclusion. For one thing all of the comparison data were from six years prior, not three. So there is no way to know when the increases took place, nor that it resulted from a three year old program. Incidentally this "increased emphasis" that is supposed to have had a positive effect is not described anywhere in the body of the dissertation.

    This pattern repeats itself throughout the conclusion. The pattern seems to be, find an area that has improved from 1977 - 1983 and then claim that the efforts of the Gifted Area Service Center contributed to this increase.

    I did notice that he does not blame his own Gifted Area Service Center for any area that declined.

    For whatever that is all worth (perhaps not very much)

  • Not alone
  • Posted by Sami on May 23, 2008 at 3:15pm EDT
  • What a surprise!! One of the professor in the same school put his name on a paper published by his student, where the paper is totally taken from the student’s thesis.