Documents Related to Plagiarism Policy

 

1.  San Joaquin Delta College Board Policy on Plagiarism

 

Board Policy 5500  Standards of Conduct

Reference:  Ed Code Section 66300

 

A.  Scope of Removal and Suspension   [Only the paragraph below appears in the student handbook. SMH]

 

2. Faculty members identifying cases of academic dishonesty may enter a failing grade for the assignment or exercise in question, enter a failing grade for the entire course after the last date to drop the class, impose other penalties in terms of grade, additional coursework, or other exercises, or refer the matter to the Vice President of Student Services with a recommendation for further action, including the possibility of suspension from the college. Faculty members referring a matter to the Vice President of Student Services should complete an Academic Dishonesty Report Form. Students shall be notified by certified mail that an Academic Dishonesty Report Form has been filed, and shall have the opportunity to review and/or respond within ten (10) days of receipt of notification.

 

AP 5500a   Definition of Academic Dishonesty [I couldn’t find this definition and explanation of academic dishonesty and plagiarism in the student handbook.  I think it should be included. SMH]

 

Academic dishonesty consists of any deliberate attempt to falsify, fabricate or otherwise tamper with data, information, records, or any other material that is relevant to the student’s participation in any course, laboratory, or other academic exercise or function. Most, although not all, such attempts fall into one or more of the following three categories:

 

1.      Plagiarism: Deliberately presenting work, words, ideas, theories, etc. derived in whole or in part from a source external to the student as though they are the student’s own efforts. Examples of plagiarism include, but are not limited to the following:

 

a.       Failing to use proper citations as acknowledgment of the true source of information included in a paper, written or oral examination, or any other academic exercise.

b.      Presenting any work completed in whole or in part by any individual or group other than the student, as though the work is the student’s own, in any academic exercise.

c.       Buying, selling, bartering, or in any other fashion obtaining or distributing material to be used fraudulently as part of any academic exercise.

 

2.   Cheating: Disseminating or receiving answers, data, or other information by any means other than those expressly permitted by the instructor as part of any academic exercise. Examples of cheating include, but are not limited to the following:

 

a.       Copying answers, data, or other information (or allowing others to do so) during an examination, quiz, laboratory experiment, or any other academic exercise in which the student is not expressly permitted to work jointly with others.

1

2

b.     Assuming another individual’s identity or allowing another person to do so on one’s own behalf for the purpose of fulfilling any academic requirement or in any way enhancing the student’s grade or academic standing.

c.     Using any device, implement, or other form of study aid during an examination, quiz, laboratory experiment, or any other academic exercise without the faculty member’s permission.

 

3.   Other Academic Misconduct: Falsifying or fabricating data, records, or any information relevant to the student’s participation in any course or academic exercise, or tampering with such information as collected or distributed by the faculty member. Examples of academic dishonesty include, but are not limited to the following:

 

a    Falsifying, or attempting to falsify, attendance records, graded exercises of any kind, or any information or document intended to excuse the student from participation in any academic exercise.

b.      Inventing, fabricating, or falsifying data as part of the completion of any academic exercise.

c.       Knowingly furnishing false information (or facilitating the furnishing or false information) to a faculty member.

 

The foregoing list of offenses is not intended to be fully exhaustive of all potential instances of academic dishonesty. Faculty and administrators may identify cases of academic dishonesty not herein contemplated.

 

AP 5530  Student Rights and Grievances

 

Reference:  Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972; Education Code Section 76224(a)

 

•     Course grades, to the extent permitted by Education Code Section 76224(a), which provides: “When grades are given for any course of instruction taught in a community college district, the grade given to each student shall be the grade determined by the instructor of the course and the determination of the student’s grade by the instructor, and in the absence of mistake, fraud, bad faith, or incompetence, shall be final.” Student concerns regarding the awarding of grades (except as a result of actions described above as grounds for student grievance), shall be resolved through petitions for a change of grade, AP 4231. Grade change petitions are available from the Vice President of Student Services.

 

2. The Academic Senate of California Community Colleges

 

Excerpts from “Promoting and Sustaining an Institutional Climate of Academic Integrity” (24-25), a report issued by The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges.  [Useful definitions? SMH]

 

Cheating is the copying of any test, quiz question, problem, or work done in a class that is not the student’s own work. It also includes giving or receiving unauthorized assistance during an examination whether intentional or not. Obtaining or distributing unauthorized information about

3

an exam before it is given is also cheating, as is using inappropriate or unallowable sources of information during an exam.

 

False Citation is falsely citing a source or attributing work to a source from which the referenced material was not obtained. A simple example of this would be footnoting a paragraph and citing a work that was never utilized.

 

False Data is the fabrication or alteration of data to deliberately mislead. For example, changing data to get better experiment results is academic fraud. Instructors and tutors in lab classes will often have strict guidelines for the completion of labs and assignments.

 

Intentional Deception is the submission of false documentation (absence excuse, proof of attendance, volunteer hours, etc.) or falsifying any official college record. A student who misrepresents facts in order to obtain exemptions from course requirements has committed an act of intentional deception.

 

The legal opinion below is in Appendix I of “Promoting and Sustaining an Institutional Climate of Academic Integrity,” a report issued by The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. It is online at http://www.asccc.org .

 

Chancellor’s Office Legal Opinions

 

Ralph Black, Assistant General Counsel for the CCC Chancellor’s Office, argues that giving a student an F or the semester for a single act of plagiarism is not legally justified under Title V. He also emphasizes the importance of due process for all students accused of plagiarism. This document is part of Appendix 1 of “Promoting and Sustaining an Institutional Climate of Academic Integrity.” SMH

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

 

California Community Colleges

Chancellor’s Office

1102 Q street

Sacramento, Ca  95814-6511

(916) 445-8752

http://www.cccco.edu

 

 

November 16, 1995

 

Lauraine Cook

Assistant Chancellor,

Educational Services

Kern Community College District

Office of Instructional Services

2100 Chester Avenue

Bakersfield, CA 93301-4099

4

Dear Ms. Cook:

 

I am writing in response to your letter of September 28, 1995, in which you requested our opinion as to whether an instructor may fail a student who is found guilty of plagiarism or cheating on one specific class assignment.

 

Normally, plagiarism or cheating would be considered a violation of the student code of conduct and would be handled through the procedures for student discipline.  However, it also seems apparent that a student found guilty of plagiarism or cheating has not demonstrated possession of the knowledge or skills which completion of an assignment is expected to represent.  Therefore, we begin from the premise that an instructor would be justified in giving a student a failing grade on a particular assignment or examination if the student were found to have plagiarized in preparing that assignment or cheated on the particular examination.

 

The question presented here is whether an instructor can go further and give a student an "F" grade for the entire course if the student plagiarized or cheated on one particular assignment or examination.  Of course, if the course grade is based entirely on performance on one assignment or final examination, then a student who plagiarizes or cheats on that assignment or examination should be given an "F" on that assignment or examination and will consequently fail the course.  However, it is our view that an instructor cannot automatically give a student an "F" grade for the entire course where the student is only known to have cheated or plagiarized with respect to one of several assignments that count toward the final grade.  We reach this conclusion for two reasons.

 

First, Title 5, Section 55002(a)(2)(A), states that grading policies must provide for "measurement of student performance in terms of the stated course objectives" and that the grade in a course is to be "based on demonstrated proficiency in subject matter."  If a student legitimately gets "A's on assignments which account for 90% of the grade in a course, then he or she has certainly demonstrated a high degree of proficiency in the subject matter even if plagiarism or cheating is discovered in connection with one assignment worth 10% of the grade.

 

Second, we believe plagiarism and cheating are best handled as disciplinary problems because of due process considerations.  Plagiarism and cheating are serious allegations and, especially where a student is to be penalized for such conduct, he or she is probably entitled to some level of due process.  At a minimum this should include the right to know the evidence on which the charges are based and the opportunity to present countervailing evidence or testimony.  The student disciplinary process provides a mechanism for ensuring that these procedural requirements have been met.  If faculty members were allowed to give a student a failing grade in a course for cheating or plagiarism on a particular assignment there would be considerable risk that these due process safeguards might not be uniformly provided.

 

I hope this information is helpful.  If you have any questions you may call me at (916) 327-5692.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Ralph Black

Assistant General Counsel

cc:        Tom Nussbaum

5

Below is the section of Title V cited by Ralph Black in his opinion. You can find the full text of Title V on the site of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges: http://www.asccc.org . On the left side of the homepage, find “Local Senates” and scroll down to “Codes and Regulations”. SMH

 

55002A. Standards and Criteria for Courses and Classes:  Grading Policy.

 

(A) Grading Policy. The course provides for measurement of student performance in terms of the stated course objectives and culminates in a formal, permanently recorded grade based upon uniform standards in accordance with Section 55758 of this Division. The grade is based on demonstrated proficiency in subject matter and the ability to demonstrate that proficiency, at least in part, by means of essays, or, in courses where the curriculum committee deems them to be appropriate, by problem solving exercises or skills demonstrations by students.

 

The opinion below is in Appendix I of “Promoting and Sustaining an Institutional Climate of Academic Integrity,” a report issued by The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. It is online at http://www.asccc.org . Below is Ralph Black’s legal opinion that an instructor cannot revoke a student’s right to withdraw from a class because of an act of plagiarism. He argues that such authority is inconsistent with Title V, section 55758. SMH

 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

California Community Colleges

Chancellor’s Office

1102 Q street

Sacramento, Ca  95814-6511

(916) 445-8752

http://www.cccco.edu

 

 

November 5, 2003

 

 

Charles C. Spence, Chancellor

Contra Costa Community College District

500 Court Street

Martinez, CA 94553

 

Re:  Legal Opinion L 03-24

 

Dear Chancellor Spence:

 

I'm writing in response to your letter of July 16, 2003, in which you asked for our opinion about the legality of proposed changes to the policy on student withdrawal from courses for the Contra Costa Community College District (District).  I apologize for the delay in responding, but your  inquiry raised important policy issues which we needed to explore before rendering an opinion.

 

6

As we understand it, the proposal is to add the following statement to the policy on withdrawal:

 

"The student's option to withdraw from a class may be revoked at the discretion of the instructor in cases of egregious academic dishonesty (e.g. cheating, plagiarism etc.) and a grade of F may be recorded."

 

Title 5, section 55758 defines the symbols which may be used to annotate a student's academic record and sets forth the rules governing the use of those symbols.  One of the nonevaluative symbols authorized in section 55758 is the "W" which denotes a student's decision to withdraw from a course.  A district need not allow for withdrawal, but if it does so, it must adopt a policy consistent with the requirements of section 55758.  Among other things, section 55758 requires that district withdrawal policies must be consistent with the following:

 

 

"Withdrawal from a class or classes shall be authorized through the last day of the fourteenth week of instruction (or 75% of a term, whichever is less).  The governing board, however, may establish a final withdrawal date which prohibits withdrawal after a designated point in time between the end of the fourth week of instruction (or 30% of a term, whichever is less) and the last day of the fourteenth week of instruction (or 75% of a term, whichever is less). . . .

 

Withdrawal between the end of the fourth week (or such time as established by the district) and the last day of the fourteenth week of instruction (or 75% of a term, whichever is less) shall be authorized after informing the appropriate faculty. 

 

Withdrawal after the end of the fourteenth week (or 75% of a term, whichever is less) when the district has authorized such withdrawal in extenuating circumstances, after consultation with appropriate faculty, shall be recorded as a 'W.'"

 

We believe that the proposed addition to your District's withdrawal policy is not permitted by section 55758.  It would give a faculty member the discretion to prevent a student from withdrawing from a class in cases of "egregious academic dishonesty."  However, section 55758 is careful to define the degree of interaction a student must have with a faculty member in connection with the decision to withdraw, and it does not seem to contemplate giving faculty the power to block withdrawal prior to the end of the fourteenth week of instruction (or 75% of the term) or such shorter period as the district may establish.  Prior to the end of the fourth week of instruction (or 30% of the term) or such shorter period as the district may establish, withdrawal "shall be authorized" without even informing the faculty member.  Between then and the end of the fourteenth week of instruction (or 75% of the term) or such shorter period as the district may establish, withdrawal "shall be authorized after informing the appropriate faculty."  Only after the fourteenth week (or 75% of the term) or such shorter period as the district may establish, is a student required to petition for withdrawal, demonstrate extenuating circumstances, and consult with the faculty.

 

Certainly, it would seem that, if a student has been found to have cheated or engaged in plagiarism, he or she would be unable to demonstrate extenuating circumstances (verified cases of accident,

7

illness, or other circumstances beyond the control of the student) that would justify withdrawal after the ordinary withdrawal deadline.  Therefore, a student who has cheated or engaged in plagiarism could be barred from withdrawing from a class after the fourteenth week of instruction or 75% of the term or such shorter period as the district may establish.  In such a case, the student would then have recorded on his or her transcript whatever grade is appropriate under the District's grading policy or some nonevaluative symbol other than a "W."

 

However, as discussed above, we do not think a district may grant faculty the power to preclude withdrawal prior to the end of the period during which withdrawal is allowed without extenuating circumstances. 

 

Of course, this means that the District might achieve something like its intended objective by shortening the time period during which students may withdraw without demonstrating extenuating circumstances, but this would have the result that students not guilty of cheating would also have their freedom to withdraw somewhat circumscribed.

 

I hope this information is helpful.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Ralph Black

General Counsel

 

 

Promoting and Sustaining an Institutional Climate of Academic Integrity |

Appendix III: Honor Code/Honor Council from Santa Monica College

 

1. Mission Statement: Santa Monica College is committed to the academic, social, and ethical development of our students. We strive to create a learning environment that is challenging and supportive of the community at-large. We are committed to upholding fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, civility, and community. In recognition of this effort we hereby establish this Honor Code and Honor Council.

 

2. Principles

General principles guiding the Honor Code and Honor Council include the following:

 

a. Honesty: means fairness and straightforwardness of conduct; implies a refusal to lie, steal, or deceive in any way.

b. Integrity: implies that one is true to a trust; one adheres to a code of moral values.

c. Social Responsibility: is demonstrated by adherence to policies of the institution, departments, labs, libraries and individual classes.

d. Respect and Civility: implies that one will conduct oneself in a courteous and respectful manner in our communications and actions toward members of the campus community.

 

 

 

8

3. Student Honor Statement

As testament to their commitment and readiness to join the Santa Monica College academic community, all students are expected to uphold the Honor Code. At the time of admission students will certify the following statement:

 

In the pursuit of the high ideals and rigorous standards of academic life, I commit myself to respect and uphold the Santa Monica College Honor Code, Code of Academic Conduct, and Student Conduct Code. I will conduct myself honorably as a responsible member of the SMC community in all endeavors I pursue.

 

At the direction of a faculty member or testing officer, students may be requested to affirm or re-affirm their commitment to the Honor Code as they participate in any given examination, paper submission, or any other academic exercise.

 

4. Honor Council Responsibilities and Membership

a. Membership

Honor Council membership is extended to up to 15 members of the college community who are committed to upholding the Mission and Principles of the Honor Code. The Honor Council Chair will be elected annually by a simple majority of the membership. The Chair will work closely with the Office of Student Judicial Affairs.

 

from Promoting and Sustaining an Institutional Climate of Academic Integrity |

Appendix III: Honor Code/Honor Council from Santa Monica College

 

Santa Monica Community College District

Honor Code/Honor Council

b. Responsibilities

The Honor Council has the following responsibilities and authority:

 

i. To advise and confer with faculty members, administrators, staff, and students on matters pertaining to academic integrity;

ii. To create and conduct educational programming designed to promote academic integrity;

iii. To establish operational procedures in consultation with the Joint Academic Senate Student Affairs Committee and the supervising administrator;

iv. To collect and disseminate statistics pertaining to Honor Code violations;

v. To issue an annual report to the Joint Academic Senate Student Affairs Committee and campus community on academic integrity standards, policies, and procedures, including recommendations for appropriate changes.

vi. Other responsibilities as agreed upon with the Joint Academic Senate Student Affairs Committee.

vii. To uphold students accused of violating the Honor Code rights to due process via the implementation of an Honor Council Hearing Board.

 

 

9

1. The Honor Code relies upon the definitions of academic dishonest behaviors stipulated in Administrative Regulation 4411—Code of Academic Conduct—Section 3.

 

viii. To appoint from its members three faculty and three students to an Honor Council Hearing Board to adjudicate cases of alleged violations of the Honor Code. The Hearing Board will be chaired by an academic administrator appointed by the Superintendent/ President (or designee).

 

c. Honor Council Hearing Boards

i. A quorum for a Hearing Board will be established by two faculty and two students. The Chair may vote in the case of a tie. Members appointed to a hearing panel must notify the Honor Council Chair of potential conflicts of interest and are strongly encouraged to remove themselves from any such proceedings and deliberations. The Honor Council may remove any member on grounds of malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance by two-thirds vote of the membership appointed.

ii. Given that this is an administrative, closed hearing and not open to the public, the student may bring legal counsel or other representatives, however, these individuals may not participate in the proceedings. Counsel participation will terminate the hearing. Students are required to notify the College of counsel/guest(s) presence to these proceedings within 48 hours of the scheduled hearing. Each party will have the right to present written statements, witnesses, if appropriate, and any other forms of evidence. Each party will have the right to question evidence and supportive documents.

 

iii. Any materials related to the hearing, including electronic recordings of the proceedings, may not be released to the student requesting the appeal or to any other individual or group. In accordance with the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) the student may submit a written request to the Dean of Student Judicial Affairs or designee to inspect and review these materials. The request must be made no less than one week in advance.

iv. The Hearing Board is empowered with the authority to:

1. Affirm or deny the alleged violation.

2. Where appropriate, educate the student and/or faculty on issues related to academic integrity. The Hearing Board may recommend sanctions commensurate with the violations, including, but not limited to: failure in assignment, test, course; reprimand, suspension, expulsion, and/ or transcript notation denoting Honor Code violation. The Hearing Board may also reverse instructor-imposed sanctions in the absence of substantive evidence of alleged academic violation. Substantive evidence may include or consist of instructor’s account of academic violation.

3. Consider requests for the removal of transcript notations associated with Honor Code violations.

5. Appeal of Honor Council Hearing Board Recommendation

a. Within two (2) business days after receiving the written decision of the Honor Council Hearing Board, the student or faculty member may request a review of the decision to the Superintendent/ President. A copy of said request shall be sent to the Honor Council Chair and the College Disciplinarian. The request will state in writing the grounds for review and will be based upon one or more of the following provisions:

i. The required procedures were not followed;

ii. There is insufficient evidence to support the Honor Council Hearing Board’s decision;

iii. The penalty imposed is inappropriate.

b. Superintendent/President Review

 

10

i. Within thirty (30) business days of receipt of the request for review, the Superintendent/ President will: (1) review the decision of the Honor Council Hearing Board and the basis upon which it was made. The Superintendent/President has the sole authority to:

1. Adopt the recommended disciplinary action;

2. Modify or reduce the discipline recommended; or

3. Reverse the discipline recommended.

ii. The decision of the Superintendent/President will be communicated to the student in writing, and a copy sent to the Honor Council Chair and College Disciplinarian. Said decision of the Superintendent/ President is final.           Adopted: 10/17/2006

 

“Promoting and Sustaining an Institutional Climate of Academic Integrity,” Appendix IV: Academic Honesty Policy from Riverside City College

 

Riverside City College has placed its academic honesty policy on student examination books as follows:

 

Academic Honesty Policy

 

Academic honesty and integrity are core values of the Riverside Community College District. Students are expected to perform their own work (except when collaboration is expressly permitted by the course instructor). Believing in and maintaining a climate of honesty is integral to ensuring fair grading for all students. Acts of academic dishonesty entail plagiarizing—using another’s words, ideas, data, or product without appropriate acknowledgment—and cheating—the intentional use of or attempted use of unauthorized material, information, or study aids on any academic exercise. Students who violate the standards of student conduct will be subject to disciplinary action, which could result in suspension or expulsion from the college.

 

We all share the responsibility to maintain an environment, which practices academic integrity. Instructors are only interested in what you know. These values are fundamental to the academic process. Good luck in your educational endeavors.

 

Office of the Vice Chancellor, Student Services

 

Office of the Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs

 

3. CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE

 

This section of the California Education Code is available at the website of the California Part-Time Faculty Association: http://www.cpfa.org/edcode.html . This section gives colleges and universities in California standing for suing term paper mills. SMH

 

SECTION 66400-66405

66400. No person shall prepare, offer to prepare, cause to be prepared, sell, or otherwise distribute any term paper, thesis, dissertation, or other written material for another person, for a fee or other compensation, with the knowledge, or under circumstances in which he should reasonably have

11

known, that such term paper, thesis, dissertation, or other written material is to be submitted by any other person for academic credit at any public or private college, university, or other institution of higher learning in this state.

 

66401. No person shall make or disseminate, with the intent to induce any other person to enter into any obligation relating thereto, any statement, written or oral, that he will prepare, cause to be prepared, sell, or otherwise distribute any term paper, thesis, dissertation, or other written material, for a fee or other compensation, for or on behalf of any person who has been assigned the written preparation of such term paper, thesis, dissertation, or other written material for academic credit at any public or private college, university, or other institution of higher learning in this state.

 

66402. Any court of competent jurisdiction is hereby authorized to grant such relief as is necessary to enforce the provisions of this chapter, including the issuance of an injunction.

 

66403. Actions for injunction under the provisions of this chapter may be brought in the name of the people of the State of California upon their own complaint or upon the complaint of any person, or in the name of any public or private college, university, or other institution of higher learning, acting for the interest of itself, its students, or the general public.

 

66404. The provisions of this chapter are not exclusive. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to preempt or in any other way limit, diminish, or imply the absence of rights of any party, public or private, against any person in connection with any of the acts described in Section 66400 or Section 66401.

 

66405. As used in this chapter, "person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or association. As used in this chapter, "prepare" means to put into condition for intended use. "Prepare" does not include the mere typing or assembling of papers, nor the mere furnishing of information or research.

 

·        Case Law on Plagiarism

Excerpted from: Ronald B. Standler. “Plagiarism in Colleges in USA.” http://www.rbs2.com/plag.html. 14 April 2001. 9 September 2007.

 

3. The Law of Plagiarism

College rules for student conduct sometimes say that plagiarism is an academic offense, not a legal offense. That statement is not completely correct. Colleges certainly have the authority to punish plagiarists in various ways, including expulsion from the college or revoking a degree earned in part by plagiarism. But plagiarism is also a legal issue.

Copyright law

 

The owner of the copyright (i.e., in most cases, the true author) could sue the plagiarist in federal court for violation of the copyright. Any work created in the USA after 1 Mar 1989 is automatically protected by copyright, even if there is no copyright notice attached to the work. 17 USC §§ 102, 401, and 405.

12

See my separate essay on copyright law. It is important to note that the addition of original material by the plagiarist in no way excuses the act of plagiarism. The focus is on what the plagiarist did wrong, not what the plagiarist did right.

 

Trivial changes in copied text, in an attempt to avoid copyright infringement, are specifically prohibited by law in the USA:

 

 

 

 

4. Cases Against Plagiarists in Colleges

As long as term papers, theses, and dissertations are required of students – and as long as professionals submit articles to publishers – there has been, and will continue to be, isolated incidents of plagiarism. However, beginning in the mid-1980s, there has been a significant increase in the amount of litigation in courts in the USA concerning punishments imposed by colleges and licensing boards. Here is a quick review of the major cases, in chronological order:

Student-Plagiarists

 

In January 1982, Gabrielle Napolitano, then in her senior year at Princeton University, plagiarized the majority of her 12-page term paper in a Spanish class from a book in the library. While she did cite the book in five footnotes, she did not include citations in the text for some paraphrased material and she did not include the indicia of quotations for "numerous" verbatim quotations. The professor was familiar with the book and immediately recognized the plagiarism. The Princeton University Committee on Discipline in February 1982 unanimously found Napolitano had plagiarized and recommended punishment of delaying her bachelor's degree for one year. Napolitano sued and the judge recommended that Princeton give her a rehearing. The Committee on Discipline gave her a rehearing in May 1982 and again unanimously found her guilty of plagiarism and – with one abstention among the eight votes – again recommended that her degree be withheld for one year. The trial court held that the evidence supported Princeton's finding that Napolitano had plagiarized, and the appellate court affirmed. Napolitano v. Princeton Univ., 453 A.2d 279 (N.J.Super.Ch.Div. 1982), aff'd 453 A.2d 263 (N.J.Super. 1982).

 

      13

 

      The judge in the trial court felt that Princeton's punishment was too severe and he remarked: 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).

 

      The trial judge does not specifically say why he felt that Princeton's punishment was too severe, except for his cryptic remark about "human frailties of students under stress", alleged nonuniformity in penalties at Princeton for different plagiarists, and some irrelevant remarks about Napolitano's "previously spotless record", her cumulative grade point average of 3.7 out of 4.0, and her service to Princeton's athletic department after a knee injury in her first week of her first year prevented her from playing on the University's basketball team.

 

      As for the trial judge's allegations of stress, the appellate court noted that: [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 appellate court quoted extensively from the 1980 edition of the Rights, Rules, Responsibilities of Princeton University, in the section titled General Requirements for the Acknowledgment of Sources in Academic Work:

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.

14

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).

 

 

15

Therefore, Napolitano not only plagiarized, but also submitted a false statement claiming as her own work quotations from the book without the indicia of quotations.

 

Note that Princeton's definition of plagiarism does not require an intent to deceive the reader. Napolitano v. Princeton Univ., 453 A.2d 279, 281 (N.J.Super.Ch.Div. 1982).

 

Anthony Lamberis, an attorney in Illinois, was enrolled in classes in an LL.M. program in Law at Northwestern University during 1970-71. In 1977, he submitted a thesis that was rejected as unsatisfactory. In 1978, he submitted a 93-page thesis, of which 47 pages were "substantially verbatim" from two sources that Lamberis did not cite. His professors detected the plagiarism in June 1979. Lamberis attempted to resign from the law school, but Northwestern University expelled him, then reported him to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

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.

 

16

  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.

 

The Illinois Supreme Court censured Lamberis. Note that Lamberis could have received a more substantial penalty: Two dissenting justices believed a suspension for three months was appropriate. The Disciplinary Review Board recommended a suspension from the practice of law for six months. The Administrator of the Disciplinary Program recommended disbarment of Lamberis.

 

The license of a physician to practice medicine in Massachusetts was revoked, because – as a student in 1978, two years prior to earning his M.D. degree – he submitted four plagiarized articles for publication. The Board of Registration in Medicine found in 1988 that this plagiarism demonstrated a "lack of good moral character which is required to practice medicine." The Supreme Court of Massachusetts affirmed this revocation. Alsabti v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 536 N.E.2d 357 (Mass. 1989). The actual situation is much worse than what the reported court opinion indicates. Alsabti is reported to have plagiarized as many as sixty articles and he claimed both a medical degree and a Ph.D., neither of which he had earned. William J. Broad, Would-Be Academician Pirates Papers, 208 Science 1438 (27 June 1980);   William Broad and Nicholas Wade, Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science, at pages 38-52 (1982).

 

Paul Haugh was suspended from a private high school for plagiarism. The high school notified colleges that had accepted Haugh of the plagiarism. Haugh then sued in federal district court alleging breach of contract and libel. Haugh "failed to offer any evidence whatsoever to refute the charge of plagiarism. Furthermore, they did not, either in their pleadings or in their proof, ever assert that the charges of plagiarism or of lying were untrue." Haugh v. Bullis School, 1990 WL 33945 at *1 (4thCir. 1990). The district court granted the school's motion for summary judgment. Haugh then filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court,

17

found the appeal to be both meritless and frivolous, and ordered Haugh to pay US$ 7136 in attorney's fees for the appeal to the school. Id. *1-*2.

 

Michael Hand "earned" a Ph.D. in counseling psychology at New Mexico State University in 1982. In the Fall of 1987 an anonymous tipster sent to the University a copy two scholarly sources that Hand had plagiarized in his dissertation. In April 1988, the University rescinded the Ph.D. it had awarded to Hand. Hand v. Matchett, 957 F.2d 791 (10thCir. 1992).

 

Faulkner was a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. His faculty advisor, Frost, apparently told Faulkner to copy significant amounts of material from research reports written by Frost into Faulkner's dissertation. It is noteworthy that Faulkner had not participated in the research described in Frost's reports that were copied into Faulkner's dissertation. Faulkner was awarded the Ph.D. degree in May 1990. Approximately one year later, the faculty voted 5 to 2 to begin procedures to revoke Faulkner's doctoral degree, because of Faulkner's plagiarism. Faulkner then argued that the University was estopped from rescinding his degree, because Frost – acting as an agent of the University – had told him to do the copying. Faulkner v. Univ. of Tennessee, 1994 WL 642765 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994)

 

The court considered ... 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

 

18

 

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.

 

The U.S. Government brought mail fraud and other criminal charges against Dr. Frost, Mr. Faulkner, and three others. The Government proved that Frost operated a scheme to take tuition money paid by government for education of government's employees, where the employees submitted dissertations consisting of plagiarized material. U.S. v. Frost, 125 F.3d 346 (6thCir. 1997), cert. denied,119 S.Ct. 40-41 (1998). The Court of Appeals noted that

 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.

 

Sanderson was an undergraduate student in his final year at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville who plagiarized a paper that he submitted both for the requirements o