LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for CASLL-L Archives


CASLL-L Archives

CASLL-L Archives


CASLL-L@LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CASLL-L Home

CASLL-L Home

CASLL-L  May 2007

CASLL-L May 2007

Subject:

Re: Plagiarism is Fraud - Control, Integrity & Punishment

From:

MICHAEL RYAN <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CASLL/Inkshed <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 19 May 2007 08:16:47 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (52 lines)

The outsider's approach.
   
  Acknowledging that there has been no groundswell of approval for the establishment of a Plagiarism Ministry here in Ottawa – see earlier notes where I volunteered for the post – I believe my non-academic control-freak approach will add new light, if not new wisdom to the debate.  It is my opinion that some are “confusing” a teaching philosophy, approaches to writing, etc. with an obligation to institutional integrity.  I do not use obligation lightly.  I suspect that this is a mutual obligation that exists at a teaching unit level, college/university level and even larger level.  
   
  The control approach of an auditor is exemplified in going to the sources [the excerpts at the bottom of the page] which address the three questions that follow.  What are your obligations to your employer – the university?  How are these exercised?  What is the result?  This would be the criteria associated with a typical line of enquiry in a values and ethics audit.
   
  The obligations to the employer are shown for Carleton U in the collective agreement.  There is established a mutual goal of academic excellence.  It would be my contention that this excellence cannot be attained if the students who do not do their own work are rewarded equally with the students who do their own work.  Speficially, this woiuld question the integrity of an acaemic who could not distinguish one from the other.  Therefore, how do you deal with those who cheat?  The university lays out a policy and the professor is required to enforce it.  Not debate, nor interpret, but enforce.  If I am not seen to be pushing the limits here - then I have missed my guess.  It is what the professor is paid to do, and through her collective agrement has agreed to do.  When doubt exists, or when authenticity and originality are questionned, then the paper goes to the next level.  This is where my new Ministry in Ottawa could help, with a flat file database of millions, nay
 billions of essays to cross-refer to.  We would call it the LBC [Little Brother Computer - to avoid misgivings] and be sure to encrypt everything.  
   
  The results shows 100 of 10,000 students were found guilty of plagiarism last year.  Or, 9,900 were not cheating. 
   
   The process for plagiarism requires the professor to make the exercise official.  In essence “to write it up” for submission to the Dean.  At his point, the bureaucrats have a very straightforward exercise ahead of them of tracing textuality – provenance.  Once proven – failing grades and possible excommunication from the halls of academia follow.  But, a very big but, it is not the professor who makes the decision as to the crime and punishment.  It is the professor’s job to identify the potential abuse.  It is the bureaucrats’ task to document, apply natural justice concerns, etc….  The Dean’s Office finds there was, or was not, plagiarism.  
   
  Thus, plagiarism is the fraud of academia.  It is rated as a capital offence and is punishable in a similar manner.  Some believe all criminal matters could be expiated by education or other interventions.  I do not.  I believe the guilty should be suitably punished.  I believe Carleton has [on paper at least] an acceptable system to control fraud and to promote academic integrity.   These are not, IMO, in the real world, mutually exclusive concepts.
   
  A short point on why this may be so.  Risk.  Some people cannot succeed in university.  In order to acquire the trappings and the social capital, they will use all means at their disposal.  Plagiarism is one means to succeed.  Plagiarism minimizes the risk of  originality and excludes consideration of the requirement for hard work, talent and intelligence can be minimized.
   
  I realize I have glossed over the structural and “inkshedding” approaches to original writing that minimize the potential for such fraud and leave this to others that are much better qualified than I to discuss it.  
   
  I have included at the bottom of this electronic page, excerpts of the Carleton U collective agreement and website warnings for those who may care to peruse them.  
   
  Michael J. Ryan
  Soon to be Head of the Ministry of Truth 
  AKA Anti-plagiarism Department
   
   
  The parties recognize that the goal of the University is the attainment of the highest possible standards of academic excellence in the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge, to be achieved principally through teaching, scholarship/research and community service. The parties agree to cooperate in the promotion and enhancement of the University and to encourage a climate of freedom, responsibility and mutual respect in the pursuit of these goals. It is the purpose of this collective agreement to foster and continue the existing harmonious relations within the University community and to provide an amicable means for settling differences which may arise from time to time between the employer and the employees in the bargaining unit.  
   
  What the general academic website has to say of plagiarism:
  The Penalties for plagiarism.
  Plagiarism is considered a form of academic dishonesty, and is deeply resented by all
  professors. The Carleton procedure for dealing with evidence of this and other
  instructional offences is for professors to forward evidence to the Deans’ offices. The
  Associate Deans then hold interviews with students suspected of plagiarism and make a
  decision as to whether the allegations are to be sustained. If found guilty, students are
  given failing grades in either the piece of work concerned, or the whole course. In
  extremely serious cases, or for repeat offences, more severe penalties can be enacted by
  the University Senate. Letters of reprimand are also placed in student files. Over 100
  students last year were convicted of plagiarism, and most found it a traumatic experience.
  DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU!!
   


                -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
  [log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties,
         write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask]

For the list archives and information about the organization,
    its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to
              http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/
                 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011, Week 1
January 2011
December 2010
October 2010
April 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager