Plagiarism in Colleges in USA

Copyright 2000 by Ronald B. Standler

Table of Contents

Introduction

1. Reputations in academia are made on the basis of creating new knowledge: discoveries of new facts, new ways of looking at previously known facts, original analysis of old ideas, .... A plagiarist receives credit for expression or analysis that was improperly taken from someone else. In this view, the plagiarist commits fraud, by claiming the work of other people as the plagiarist's own work.
   
   Respect for these academic values is also reflected in licensing for professions (particularly law and medicine), employment on the basis of academic credentials, and esteem from one's colleagues.
   
   
2. Laws in civilized societies regard expression as property of its author. This is not only the law of the USA, but also the law of more than 130 different nations that have ratified the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Plagiarism – either by verbatim copying or paraphrasing – is infringement of a copyright, a kind of tort.
   
   
3. A fundamental goal of education is to produce students who can evaluate ideas – both analysis and synthesis – and who can produce significant original thoughts. Plagiarism is simply repeating words or thoughts of other people, without adding anything new. Therefore, submitting a plagiarized paper – in addition to the wrongful conduct – does not demonstrate the level of understanding and skill that an educated person is reasonably expected to have.

1. Plagiarism

indicia of a quotation

1. provide a citation, either in the text or in a footnote, and
2. either enclose their words inside quotation marks or put their words in a block of indented, single-spaced text.

ideas too?

paraphrasing without a citation is plagiarism

Suppose one reads a book by Smith and encounters the short sentence:

If the solution turns pink, it is worthless, and should be discarded.

I believe it is plagiarism to paraphrase this sentence as:

When the liquid becomes light red, it is spoiled, and should be poured down the sink.

Note that most of the words have been changed, yet the sentence – in a very real way – has been copied. As will be noted later in this essay, copying, even with "original" alterations, can be copyright infringement. That is why I believe that such copying is also plagiarism. However, to prove this kind of plagiarism, one needs to prove that the alleged plagiarist had the work in mind – if not actually next to the computer or typewriter keyboard – when he/she paraphrased it.

The proper way to avoid such plagiarism is to cite the source in the text, or in a footnote, as in:

Smith [citation/footnote number] has reported that when the liquid becomes light red, it is spoiled, and should be poured down the sink.

No quotation marks are needed, because these are not Smith's exact words, but only a paraphrase. But a citation to Smith is still required.

Note that the short sentence by Smith is just a terse, contrived example for this essay, not an actual instance from plagiarized text. In most cases of this type of plagiarism, many sentences – probably whole paragraphs – will have been paraphrased.

fine points of paraphrasing

2. Sources for plagiarized text

1. copied paragraphs from various scholarly journals or books in the library, or
   
   
2. removed an old term paper from the files in his fraternity and copied some, or all, of it.

3. The Law of Plagiarism

copyright law

• Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1930) ("It is of course essential to any protection of literary property ... that the right cannot be limited literally to the text, else a plagiarist would escape by immaterial variations.").
  
  
• Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49, 56 (2d Cir. 1936) ("... no plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate.").
  
  
• A Columbia Pictures' promotional poster for a movie infringed the copyright of an illustration on the cover of a New Yorker magazine, although the details in the movie poster had been changed from the magazine cover (only the words "Hudson River" were the same in both items). The judge ruled that the movie poster was "substantially similar" to the magazine cover. Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures, 663 F.Supp. 706 (1987).

trademark and unfair competition law

fraud

statutes about sale of term papers, etc.

1. California Education Code §§ 66400 – 66405
   
2. Colorado § 23-4-101 – 106
   
3. Connecticut § 53-392a – e
   
4. Florida § 877.17
   
5. Illinois ch. 110, § 5/0.01 – 5/1
   
6. Maine 17-A § 705
   
7. Massachusetts ch. 271, § 50
   
8. Nevada 207.320
   
9. New Jersey 18A:2-3
   
10. New York Education Law § 213-b
    
11. North Carolina § 14-118.2
    
12. Pennsylvania title 18, § 7324
    
13. Virginia § 18.2-505
    
14. Washington 28B.10.580 – 584
    

1. "irreparable future injury"
2. "no adequate remedy at law" (i.e., award of money would be inadequate or difficult to calculate).

4. Cases Against Plagiarists in Colleges

student-plagiarists

  As this court has noted in prior hearings and conferences, Princeton might have viewed the matter of the penalty with a greater measure of humanity and magnanimity, with a greater recognition of the human frailities [sic] of students under stress, as the university apparently has done in many cases in the past.

  This court cannot mandate compassion, however, and will not, nor should not, engraft its own views on Princeton's disciplinary processes, so long as the standard of good faith and fair dealing has been met and the contract between the student and the university has not otherwise been breached.

Napolitano v. Princeton Univ., 453 A.2d 279, 283 (N.J.Super.Ch.Div. 1982).

[Napolitano] did not meet with Professor Molloy to seek approval of her topic until December 16, 1981, the last day of classes before Christmas recess. She was one of the last, if not the last, to seek such approval from Professor Molloy.

Napolitano v. Princeton Univ., 453 A.2d 263, 267 (N.J.Super. 1982).

The term paper was due not later than 13 Jan 1982. In other words, any stress from waiting until the end of the semester to begin the term paper was solely Napolitano's decision, for which she should bear full responsibility.

The appellate court also noted that

... everyone involved in this action regarded plaintiff as a somewhat gifted[,] if not unusual student[,] of high achievement. ... Under those circumstances[,] should not the community of Princeton University have been entitled to expect more of plaintiff?

Id. at 278. The appellate court did not answer its rhetorical question, which may have been intended as a gentle rebuke of the judge of the trial court, who felt Princeton was too severe.

  The academic departments of the University have varying requirements for the acknowledgment of sources, but certain fundamental principles apply to all levels of work. In order to prevent any misunderstanding, students are expected to study and comply with the following basic requirements.

  Quotations. Any quotations, however small, must be placed in quotation marks or clearly indented beyond the regular margin. Any quotation must be accompanied (either within the text or in a footnote) by a precise indication of the source—identifying the author, title, place and date of publication (where relevant), and page numbers. Any sentence or phrase which is not the original work of the student must be acknowledged.

  Paraphrasing. Any material which is paraphrased or summarized must also be specifically acknowledged in a footnote or in the text. A thorough rewording or rearrangement of an author's text does not relieve one of this responsibility. Occasionally, students maintain that they have read a source long before they wrote their papers and have unwittingly duplicated some of its phrases or ideas. This is not a valid excuse. The student is responsible for taking adequate notes so that debts of phrasing may be acknowledged where they are due.

  Ideas and Facts. Any ideas or facts which are borrowed should be specifically acknowledged in a footnote or in the text, even if the idea or fact has been further elaborated by the student. Some ideas, facts, formulae, and other kinds of information which are widely known and considered to be in the "public domain" of common knowledge do not always require citation. The criteria for common knowledge vary among disciplines; students in doubt should consult a member of the faculty.

  Occasionally, a student in preparing an essay has consulted an essay or body of notes on a similar subject by another student. If the student has done so, he or she must state the fact and indicate clearly the nature and extent of his or her obligation. The name and class of the author of an essay or notes which are consulted should be given, and the student should be prepared to show the work consulted to the instructor, if requested to do so.

  Footnotes and Bibliography. All the sources which have been consulted in the preparation of an essay or report should be listed in a bibliography, unless specific guidelines (from the academic department or instructor) request that only works cited be so included. However, the mere listing of a source in a bibliography shall not be considered a "proper acknowledgment" for specific use of that source within the essay or report.

....

  With regard to essays, laboratory reports, or any other written work submitted to fulfill an official academic requirement, the following are considered academic fraud:

  Plagiarism. The deliberate use of any outside source without proper acknowledgment. "Outside source" means any work, published or unpublished, by any person other than the student.

....

  Please note that, while not all academic infractions involve fraud, all are violations of the University's standards and will normally result in disciplinary penalties.

  Because of the importance of original work in the Princeton academic community, each student is required to attest to the originality of the submitted work and its compliance with University regulations:
Student Acknowledgment of Original Work

  At the end of an essay, laboratory report, or any other requirement, the student is to write the following sentence and sign his or her name: "This paper represents my own work in accordance with University regulations." [Emphasis in original]

Napolitano v. Princeton Univ., 453 A.2d 263, 265-266 (N.J.Super. 1982).

In an attorney disciplinary proceeding based on this conduct the Hearing Board found that the respondent had "knowingly plagiarized" the two published works and that this plagiarism constituted "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation" violating the Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(A)(4) (Illinois State Bar Association 1977). The Hearing Board recommended that the respondent be censured. The Review Board adopted the Hearing Board's findings of fact, but recommended in a closely divided vote that the respondent receive a suspension of six months.

In re Lamberis, 443 N.E.2d 549, 550 (Ill. 1982).

  The only factual finding that the respondent disputes is the Hearing Board's conclusion that he "knowingly plagiarized" the two published works. In reaching this finding the Board regarded as unworthy of belief respondent's explanation that his plagiarism was the result of academic laziness and did not reflect an intentional effort to deceive his thesis examiners. The Hearing Board found:

"Respondent engaged in conduct which clearly constituted plagiarism. Objectively considered, the facts demonstrate nothing else. Subjectively, it is inconceivable to us that a person who has completed undergraduate school and law school would not know that representing extensively copied material as one's own work constitutes plagiarism. Respondent's deception is compounded by his lack of candor in claiming that his efforts were not an intentional effort to deceive. We cannot accept an assertion that would require that we find such a naivete or a lack of intelligence on his part."

  We agree with the Board's conclusions; given respondent's extensive academic background and the extent of the verbatim copying, any other finding would be untenable.

Id. at 550-551.

The Illinois Supreme Court spoke about the necessity of punishing plagiarists.

  In cases of this type, fairness and justice require that discipline be imposed only "to protect members of the public, to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and to safeguard the administration of justice from reproach." (In re Nowak (1976), 62 Ill.2d 279, 283, 342 N.E.2d 25.) In this case, sanctions are appropriate and required because both the extent of the appropriated material and the purpose for which it was used evidence the respondent's complete disregard for values that are most fundamental in the legal profession.

  The extent of the respondent's plagiarism displays an extreme cynicism towards the property rights of others. He incorporated verbatim the work of other authors as a substantial portion of his thesis and obtained no permission for this use. Moreover, this conduct amounted to at least a technical infringement of the publishers' federally protected copyrights. This fraudulent conversion of other people's property is similar to conduct that Illinois and other States have held warrants discipline.

Id. at 551-552.

The court held that Lamberis violated a provision in the Code of Professional Responsibility for attorneys. The court continued:

The respondent violated this provision when he plagiarized the two sources. The essence of plagiarism is deceit. In this case, the deceit is aggravated by the level on which it occurred. Academic forums have a long and well-known tradition of evaluating each individual on his own performance. The respondent attempted to exploit this tradition to his own benefit; the purpose of his deceitful conduct was to obtain a valuable consideration, an advanced law degree, that would have undoubtedly improved his prospects for employment, reputation and advancement in the legal profession.

Id. at 552.

... whether or not the University can be estopped in this case by the conduct of Dr. Frost.

  The conduct of Dr. Frost in this matter is, to say the least, unusual and to say the most, astonishing. He, in fact, told the Appellant to do exactly what the Appellant did and present the result as a doctoral dissertation. He sought other employment following the allegations in this case.

  In view of the unmistakable dictates of the "Guide to the Preparation of Theses and Dissertations", it would be ludicrous to argue that Dr. Frost as agent of the University of Tennessee possessed the express authority to authorize Mr. Faulkner to plagiarize in his dissertation. Appellant must rely, as in fact he does, upon "apparent authority" and "agency by estoppel". [citation omitted]

Id. at *4.

The court reviewed the facts and the law, then concluded:

  The record in this case discloses no act of the University of Tennessee that could possibly be construed as providing authority for Dr. Frost to waive the prohibition against plagiarism, and clearly, Mr. Faulkner either knew or certainly should have known that Dr. Frost possessed no such authority.

Id. at *5.

The court concluded that the University "is not estopped to rescind the doctoral degree of Mr. Faulkner." Finally, in summing up the whole case, the court remarked:

  Appellant appears before the bar of this Court pro se. If, in fact, his work since the Administrative Law hearing is pro se, Appellant is a person of remarkable intellect and ability. He does not appear to grasp the self-evident fact that he has not earned his doctorate. He continues to seek shelter under the shield of a professor who is more culpable in this case than is the Appellant. His confidence is ill-placed, and the regrettable failures of both Dr. Frost and the Appellant have borne bitter fruit.

Id. at *6.

Awarding degrees to inept students, or to students who have not earned them, will decrease the value of degrees in general. More specifically, it will hurt the reputation of the school and thereby impair its ability to attract other students willing to pay tuition, as well as its ability to raise money.

125 F.3d 346, 367.

professors who plagiarized

  John LaTourette, the current president of Northern Illinois University, who was the vice-president and provost of that university in 1981, acknowledged that plagiarism is "probably the most serious charge against a faculty member that one could imagine." The president of the university in 1981, William Monat, similarly acknowledged that plagiarism is "probably one of the greatest offenses that can occur in the academic community." Mr. Hanifi, himself, has written to others and admitted during his testimony that plagiarism involves "a complete lapse in professional judgment, moral sense and respect for academic ethics," "a most serious violation with dishonor, shame and guilt," "unethical conduct," "dishonorable and unprofessional conduct," and "dishonorable act and reprehensible and condemnable," "a violation of basic scholarly activity and serious misconduct," "a despicable act and a serious mistake." Mr. Hanifi acknowledged that the plagiarism is not erasable.

Id. at *2.

The court concluded that Hanifi had failed to prove that his resignation had been coerced. Note the court's final sentence about the bad character of a plagiarist:

  From a thorough review of the evidence in this case, we find that the Claimant has failed to prove that his resignation was involuntary, coerced or the product of duress. The testimony of Claimant and Respondent's witnesses is at loggerheads. To believe Claimant's testimony as to coercion, duress and involuntariness, we would have to disbelieve numerous other witnesses and find some grand conspiracy among the top officials at Northern Illinois University to injure Claimant, which would include mass perjury. Claimant has presented no compelling evidence to corroborate his testimony and therefore in light of the credible testimony disputing his claim, we find his testimony incredible. Frankly, we do not believe this admitted plagiarizer when he claims his will was overcome and he did not know what he was doing.

Id. at *6.

summary

failed to call this major breach of professional conduct to the Court's attention. The Court, however, cannot let it pass without condemnation. Plagiarism is unacceptable in any grammar school, college, or law school, and even in politics. It is wholly intolerable in the practice of law.

DeWilde v. Gannett Publishing, 797 F.Supp. 55, 56 (D.Maine 1992).

  Plaintiff had sought as additional relief an injunction against Princeton's giving notice of its plagiarism adjudication to any law school to which plaintiff had applied. The notoriety deriving from this case, however, marks plaintiff's record more permanently than anything that defendant might place upon her transcript. Therefore, her argument that there should be no such notification or notation is moot at this point.

Napolitano v. Princeton Univ., 453 A.2d 279, 284, n.5 (N.J.Super.Ch.Div. 1982).

5. Cases Against Commercial Sources

Do you have a term paper assignment that's a little too much work? Are you cramped for time with a nightmarish deadline closing in? Let us help you. We have a team of professional writers who can handle any subject. Our papers are custom made, and professionally typed. We offer the most economical work anywhere, at no sacrifice in quality or service to you.

This material is intended to be used for research and reference purposes only.

State v. Saksniit, 332 N.Y.S.2d 343, 345 (1972).

1. We don't guarantee grades
2. We don't condone plagiarism
3. No refunds

  The termpapers are produced for defendants by free-lance writers who are college graduates with some expertise in the subject involved in the particular paper. The writers have signed a contract with defendants, promising 'to submit research and writing that is commencerate [sic] in quality with Work sufficient to be accepted in a Graduate Program at an accredited University.' Additionally–and ironically–each writer promises 'that all work he produces and submits will be original and the products of his own research and writing, and the final product will not be work prepared for him by others.'

Id. at 345-346.

"No person shall ... attempt to obtain by fraudulent means any diploma, certificate or other instrument purporting to confer any literary, scientific, professional or other degree ...."

N.Y. Education Law, §224(2).

A violation of the section is a misdemeanor and "any person who aids or abets another * * * to violate the provisions of this section" is "liable to the same penalties".

N.Y. Education Law, §224(3).

The court then declared:

  Any student who submits a 'ghost-written' termpaper as his own, cheats. There is, conceptually, little difference between the 'ghost-written' termpaper and the copied examination paper or the hiring of another to take an examination in place of a student. Any student, therefore, who submits as his own work a termpaper bought from defendants, gets credit for a course through fraud, and thereby attempts to obtain his diploma or degree by 'fraudulent means'.

State v. Saksniit, 332 N.Y.S.2d 343, 346 (1972).

  Defendants protest they did not know they were encouraging fraud. They point to their various disclaimers—'This material is intended to be used for research and reference purposes only;' 'We don't condone plagiarism.' Yet in the very same breath they boast of the grades their former termpapers have received. Their warning, 'We don't guarantee grades,' only accentuates their awareness that some students could be relying on defendants' termpapers for their grades.

Id. at 348.

After evaluating this defense, the judge stated:

... the court is convinced that defendants are engaged in the business of selling termpapers to students, thereby knowingly aiding and abetting them to attempt to obtain by fraudulent means a diploma, degree or certificate, in violation of Education Law, § 224 ....

  The complaint seeks a dissolution of the corporate defendant on the ground that the 'business activities of defendants,' have the 'direct capacity and tendency of subverting the process of learning and encouraging intellectual dishonesty and cheating,' and are therefore contrary to the 'public policy of this State in maintaining and preserving the integrity of the educational process.'

  'Education,' wrote James Madison, 'is the true foundation of civil liberty.' Assisting and promoting plagiarism—the most serious academic offense—strikes at the core of the educational process, and thus at the very heart of a free society. Doing a student's work for him not only deprives him of the valuable disciplines of the learning process, but tends to destroy his moral fibre by lending credence to the all too prevalent notion that anything, including a college degree, can be bought for a price.

Id. at 349.

Then the court makes an observation that is not necessary to its opinion, but shows the selling term papers is a particularly reprehensible activity.

  The damage which defendants' business does to the fabric of the scholastic community is dramatically made clear in a plea from a young college student who writes to the Attorney General urging action:

  I am in competition with many students for entrance into a medical school. Spaces are few and the many students make the competition fierce. Only one student will occupy a seat desired by many, and he will be the student with the best grades.

  The situation is tight enough as is, but what chance do I stand if my independent work (term papers) must compete not with those of my peers but with those of professionals—people with Masters and even Doctorates in the areas in which they write? I am subtly being blackmailed into using their immoral services.

  An ironic development is the distrust my instructors have developed toward and above-average term paper I submit.

  Sir—can your office do anything to relieve this injustice? I do not believe I am exaggerating if I claim that my future And my integrity are at stake.

Id. at 349-350.

The court continued:

  The legislature of our state has enacted laws to prevent fraud in obtaining degrees or diplomas (Educ.Law, §224), and to guard the sanctity of the scholastic examinations (id., §225). It has thus declared it to be the public policy of this state that the integrity of the educational process should be protected and preserved. Whenever 'our courts are called upon to scrutinize a (business) * * * which is clearly repugnant to sound morality and civic honesty, they need not look for a well fitting definition of public policy ....' [citation omitted]

  The business defendants are conducting is morally wrong. It subverts the learning process and encourages intellectual dishonesty and cheating. It is directly opposed to the declared public policy of our State. It exceeds the purposes for which the corporate defendant was formed as set forth in its certificates of incorporation and is ultra vires. [citation omitted]

Id. at 350.

"Ultra vires" is an act by a corporation that exceeds its authority under the articles of incorporation filed with the state.

His basic defense is that the Education Law prohibits the rendering of Assistance for hire, and his products were not "assistance" but rather publications entitled to First Amendment protection. He argues that his papers bear the same status as an encyclopedia article or bibliography, and that the warning on his catalogue of approximately 5000 subjects for sale¹ and the "conditions of sale"² signed by the purchasing student, are sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to his good faith.

¹   Our Company operates as a publisher and distributor of educational source material. It is not, and never has been, a writer of term papers or other academic work. The material we provide is intended to provide the reader with background and source material on a given topic, and not as a substitute for the reader's own original research and writing. We do not support or condone plagiarism or academic fraud of any nature.

²   I further agree and warrant that I shall not plagiarize of submit all, or any part of said material as my own in fulfillment of the requirements for a degree, diploma, certificate, courses of study, nor permit any other person or persons to do so.

Id. at 419.

The court continues:

  These arguments are plainly specious. The papers purchased by the Attorney General's agents and annexed to the motion are plainly designed to deceive and would have no other utility in the world of scholarship. Carefully tailored for submission as undergraduate work and keyed to the assignments in specific undergraduate and graduate courses, they were sold for that express purpose by defendant and his agents. These materials do not fall within the exception to the Education Law ( Sec. 213-b, subd. 4) provided for copyrighted materials.

  The fact that the papers sold by defendant (at $3.50 per page) could conceivably be put to a lawful use by a student of Aristotle or Shakespeare does not make the statute interdicting them unconstitutional. A gaming device which Could be played for sheer entertainment may be outlawed if the purpose to which it is put is gambling [citations deleted] These typewritten papers, in a format designed for direct submission, and taken together with defendant's seductive sales literature [footnote deleted], are full proof of unlawful intended use.

  Nor is defendant saved by the pious disavowals of plagiaristic intent which the paper buyer ritualistically signs. This procedure is patently tongue-in-cheek, and executed with an obvious wink. Precisely the same subterfuge was easily brushed aside by the court in State of New York v. Saksniit, 69 Misc.2d 554, 332 N.Y.S.2d 343, a similar cheating mill case in which this very defendant is a named subordinate offender. Such a sanctimonious charade stands on the same footing as the closing paragraphs in Fanny Hill .... Undeniably Cleland's heroine, after dozens of erotic bordello adventures, purports in the final paragraphs of her narrative to discover the true value of domestic tranquility. That belated appreciation did not serve to convert this work into a moral tract, nor render is suitable for 18th Century Anglican curates in their parish rounds.

  There is no genuine issue of fact. The People are now entitled to a permanent injunction.

Id. 419-420.

1. The Massachusetts criminal statute, ch. 271 §50 that makes the sale of term papers a misdemeanor gave no private right of action to BU. Id. at 74-76.
2. BU was not engaged in "trade or commerce" when its agents purchased term papers from defendants in a sting operation, thus BU could not bring a claim under Massachusetts statute ch. 93A §11 that prohibits unfair or deceptive business practices. Id. at 76-77.
3. BU was not likely to meet the US$ 75,000 per defendant threshold for suing in federal court on various other claims under state law (e.g., tortious interference with university-student relationships, fraud, aiding and abetting fraud). Id. at 77.

6. My Suggestions for Policy

1. inform every student during a required orientation lecture, and also in the college handbook, of the definition of plagiarism and the range of punishments.
   
   
2. make available to every professor tools for detecting plagiarism (e.g., one or more commercial services in the links section below).
   
   
3. periodically remind every professor of his/her duty to report suspected plagiarism or other misconduct by students. (Some specific suggestions for how to detect plagiarism are given later in this essay.)
   
   
4. use new topics for term papers or projects every semester. This requires more creativity by professors, but it defeats the utility of files in local fraternities for plagiarists or passing materials between successive years of students.
   
   
5. specially counsel foreign nationals that – regardless of the customs and practices in their native country – the college will strictly hold them to the American standard that plagiarism is forbidden. (My experience both in reading reported court cases in the USA, as well as in my ten years as a professor in the USA, is that immigrants or foreign nationals – both students and faculty – are involved in a disproportionately large number of cases of plagiarism in the USA. I do not want to say anything offensive to honest people in other cultures or other countries, but the pattern is apparent and we need to defeat the defense that "Plagiarism is accepted in my home country.")
   
   
6. design procedures for investigation and hearings to be minimally burdensome for professors, so that reporting misconduct does not mean that the professor is volunteering for significant extra work. Instead, the burden of extra work should fall mainly on administrators and staff, or – alternatively – on consultants hired by the college.

How to detect plagiarism

• "Writing style, language, vocabulary, tone, grammar, etc." is different from "what the student usually produces. It doesn't sound like the student."
  
  
• "Essays are printed out from the student's web browser."
  
  
• "Web addresses left at the top or bottom of the page. Many free essays have a tag line at the end of the essay that students often miss."
  
  
• "References to graphs, charts, or accompanying material that isn't there."
  
  
• "References to professors, classes or class numbers that are not taught at" the college.
  
  
• "Citations are to materials not owned by" local libraries to which students have access.
  
  
• Dead links, or inactive URLs, in student's page. This is a symptom that the page was prepared many months ago and is now stale.
  
  
• "All citations are to materials that are older than five years."
  
  
• Historical events are referred to in present tense.
  
  
• "Students can not identify citations or provide copies of the cited material."

7. Colleges may rescind degrees

1. Waliga v. Board of Trustees, 488 N.E.2d 850 (Ohio 1986)(Kent State University decided to rescind Waliga's B.A. degree, 17 years after it was awarded, because of 28 discrepancies in the grades on the official transcript and the handwritten reports submitted by the instructors in Waliga's classes.)
   There is not the slightest hint in the opinions available on WestLaw for how these discrepancies arose. The most comprehensive discussion is in an unpublished opinion: 1984 WL 6436, *1 (Ohio.App. 1984).
   
   
2. Crook v. Baker, 813 F.2d 88 (6thCir. 1987)(University of Michigan rescinded a M.Sc. degree in geology, because of fraud in that thesis.)
   
   
3. Hand v. Matchett, 957 F.2d 791 (10thCir. 1992)(New Mexico State University, by the Dean of the Graduate School, attempted to rescind a Ph.D. in counseling psychology that had been awarded to Hand for his dissertation that contained plagiarized material.)
   Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals held that, under New Mexico state statutes, only the Regents could award or rescind a degree, so the revocation was unlawful. The Court of Appeals cited Waliga and Crook and concluded, at 795, "The ability to revoke degrees obtained through fraudulent means is a necessary corollary to the Regent's power to confer those degrees." The Court of Appeals, at 795, stated that the University could withdraw Hand's Ph.D. degree, but the Regents must do the withdrawing.
   
   
4. Faulkner v. Univ. of Tennessee, 1994 WL 642765 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994)("The University of Tennessee is not estopped to rescind the doctoral degree of Mr. Faulkner." Mr. Faulkner "does not appear to grasp the self-evident fact that he has not earned his doctorate.")

    We consider it self-evident that a college or university acting through its board of trustees does have the inherent authority to revoke an improperly awarded degree where (1) good cause such as fraud, deceit, or error is shown, and (2) the degree-holder is afforded a fair hearing at which he can present evidence and protect his interest. Academic degrees are a university's certification to the world at large of the recipient's educational achievement and fulfillment of the institution's standards. To hold that a university may never withdraw a degree, effectively requires the university to continue making a false certification to the public at large of the accomplishment of persons who in fact lack the very qualifications that are certified. Such a holding would undermine public confidence in the integrity of degrees, call academic standards into question, and harm those who rely on the certification which the degree represents.

Waliga v. Board of Trustees, 488 N.E.2d 850, 852 (Ohio 1986).
Quoted with approval in: Hand v. Matchett, 957 F.2d 791, 794 (10thCir. 1992);
Crook v. Baker, 813 F.2d 88, 93 (6thCir. 1987);
Faulkner v. Univ. of Tennessee, 1994 WL 642765 at *6 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994).

double jeopardy ?

1. expelled by a college – or have their degree rescinded by a college –
2. sued in civil court by the owner of the copyright (e.g., the true author or his/her assignee) for copyright infringement,
3. tried in criminal court on charges of fraud, and
4. have a licensing board revoke or suspend their license to practice law, medicine, or some other profession.

1. the college protects its good reputation and the integrity of its degrees,
2. copyright law protects the owner of the copyright,
3. criminal law expresses the outrage of civilized society at evil acts,
4. the licensing board protects an innocent public who reasonably trusts professionals to be honest, ethical, and competent.

No plagiarism for ideas ?

1. to give credit to the person who supplied the information or who first made the discovery,
   
   
2. to relieve the writer from the responsibility for the accuracy or truth of the information,
   
   
3. to lead the reader to a source of more detailed or complete information, or
   
   
4. to give the reader a sense of the historical evolution of ideas in the field.

sloppy scholarship, making unsupported assertions

negligent misrepresentation about the scope of the author's work,

if the author had intent to deceive the reader: fraudulent misrepresentation about the scope of the author's work,

in some cases: a matter of academic style that is a judgment call for an author, supervisor, reviewer, or editor.

Self-Plagiarization

1. for students self-plagiarization is taking a term paper or essay that was written for one class and submitting substantial parts of that work for credit in a second class, without informing the instructor.
   
   
2. for professionals self-plagiarization is using part of one publication in a subsequent publication, without the indicia of a quotation or citation to a paraphrase of an earlier publication.

1. The number of scholarly publications is an important credential for authors in academia. Repeating the same publication inflates the number of publications, giving the plagiarist an undeserved good reputation.
   
   
2. Most scholarly journals only accept new material for publication. Repeating previously published text is a fraudulent misrepresentation by the author to the editor of the journal.
   
   
3. Publication of the same material more than once wastes space on library shelves, and wastes money in library budgets.
   
   
4. Moreover, someone doing a diligent search of the literature could order copies of two or three "different" scholarly papers, which, when read carefully, contain essentially the same information, thus wasting photocopy expense, interlibrary loan expense, etc.

Threat of Litigation Against
Reporters of Plagiarism

• the publicity of the litigation would harm the plagiarist's reputation more than any allegations that prompted the litigation,
• an ethical attorney would not file a groundless law suit on behalf of the plagiarist,
• the plagiarist probably is unable to afford the cost of litigation, while the university is likely to pay an attorney to defend a professor for any action arising from the professor's official duties.

1. It is never defamation to make a true statement, even if the statement damages the plagiarist's reputation.
2. There is a privilege for good-faith reports of misconduct to the proper authorities. Even if the authorities eventually conclude that there was neither plagiarism nor misconduct, good-faith reporting is not defamatory.
3. As mentioned above, judges have a low regard for plagiarists. A plagiarist has already damaged his/her own reputation by the act of plagiarization.
4. Plagiarists are tortfeasors, not victims.   The real victims are (a) the true author whose work was plagiarized, and (b) the professor who [almost] gave credit to the plagiarist for someone else's work.
5. One could threaten to counter-sue for malicious prosecution, including the value of one's time to respond to groundless accusations and reimbursement of attorney's fees.

Links to Other Webpages

Conclusion