Learning, Teaching and Leadership

We are at the end of the first week of January 2024 and so far, the media (at least in North America) has made plagiarism a topic of the year. Claudine Gay, the (now former) President of Harvard University resigned on January 2. Her case has been written about extensively in the news and I won’t repeat all the details here. I will highlight one point that is relevant for this post. Writing for the New Yorker, Emma Green highlights that “what ultimately brought Gay down wasn’t the furor over her testimony. It was accusations of plagiarism in her scholarly work, which has focused in part on Black political participation.” I’ve given media commentary on this case here and here.

One of the people who campaigned against Gay on social media was William Ackman, a billionaire hedge fund manager. Next thing we hear in the media is that Ackman’s wife, Neri Oxman, a former M.I.T. professor, has been accused of plagiarism. Ackman counters by saying that he will ensure that all professors at M.I.T., including its president, will have all their work reviewed for plagiarism and he will fund the efforts to do so.

What is Plagiarism?

Before I go any further, let’s back for a moment and talk about what plagiarism actually is. In my book, Plagiarism in Higher Education: Tackling Tough Topic in Higher Education, I explore the historical and contemporary understandings of plagiarism. I’ve also researched academic misconduct and integrity policies. In one study, I conducted an in-depth comparative analysis of the definitions of plagiarism at twenty (20) different universities. From my research, I can say with certainty that there is no singular or universally accepted definition of plagiarism. Some universities say plagiarism is only about copying text without attribution, whereas others might go further including the plagiarism of ideas, computer code, or musical composition.

We all think we are talking about the same thing when we say the word, “plagiarism”, but that isn’t necessarily the case. What most people can agree on is that copy-and-paste without attribution is generally viewed as being unacceptable, regardless if it is intentional or just sloppy scholarship. What we do about plagiarism when we find it is another matter about which there is no consensus.

The Weaponization of Plagiarism

Jonathan Bailey hit the nail on the head earlier this week when he said that plagiarism has been weaponized. Plagiarism investigations post-graduation are less about student success than they are about discrediting and causing harm to the person being investigated. I have yet to see a plagiarism investigation conducted after someone has graduated that is not a search-and-destroy mission. Side note: Phill Dawson has a great chapter on surveillance and the weaponization of academic integrity in his book, Defending Assessment Security in a Digital World. If you haven’t already read Phill’s book, I highly recommend it.

Plagiarism allegations can be shrouded in moral righteousness, but as Ackerman has recently shown, someone with enough resources and motivation can take plagiarism investigations to a whole new level. Scrutinizing the work of the professoriate at scale for plagiarism would be unprecedented. If Ackerman follows through, it could mean that every university president and professor in the United States and beyond could have their academic work from their student days scrutinized like never before.

What’s the Difference Between Student Plagiarism and Professional Plagiarism?

This could no doubt be a topic of great debate, but for me, the answer is pretty straightforward. Students are still learning. It is our job as educators to ensure students have every opportunity to learn. There’s oodles of research to show that first-year university students are more likely to cheat and commit plagiarism than senior students. First-year students need more support to learn writing, citing, and referencing skills to help them be successful as they move through their post-secondary programs.

As students advance through their academic programs we expect them to build their knowledge, skills, and competencies. By the time someone graduates, we, as an academic community and a society, expect that they have the skills and knowledge they need to be able to engage in professional work. That’s the basic idea behind graduation: you have successfully completed your academic program and you are now qualified to work in your chosen field.

As a result, we hold professors and administrators to higher academic and professional standards than students. Presumably, professors have already learned the foundations of their field of study, as well as basic understandings of academic and research integrity. In other words, by the time someone is a professor, they should know better.

Post-Facto Plagiarism Allegations and Investigations 

A retroactive investigation into a person’s academic work while they were a student is often an exercise in discrediting someone in their current professional role. Pointing fingers after the fact is rarely helpful. Addressing allegations of student academic misconduct is the responsibility of the educational institution. Failing to do so reflects poorly on the institution, as much as on the student (or alum) who allegedly engaged in misconduct. There have been cases in which universities have rescinded degrees after graduation upon a finding of academic misconduct proven long after convocation. I recall one such case from my own university some years ago. In other words, there is a lot at stake.

I am not suggesting that post-graduation cases of plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct should be ignored or swept under the rug. I am saying that if an allegation of misconduct is not brought forward or investigated until after graduation, the opportunity for student learning has been lost, and the consequences can be devastating for the individual whose work comes under scrutiny. 

Where Are all the Graduate Supervisors?

In the cases of Claudine Gay and Neri Oxman, the allegations of plagiarism focused, at least in part, on their graduate theses. As a plagiarism scholar who is also a professor and a graduate supervisor, I cannot help but ask myself: What about the academic advisors who supervised these dissertations? Why is no one talking to them?

PhD dissertations do not just get posted in an online public archive without scrutiny. There are multiple levels of reviews and revisions, as well as a rigorous examination at the end. At any respectable university, the thesis is examined, in writing, by oral defence, or both, by academics who have expertise related to the thesis. The graduate supervisor, and often others, sign off on the work. Sometimes, there is a signature page that becomes part of the front matter of a thesis before it is archived in the public record. The signatures from supervisors and examiners serve as a public attestation of quality of the approved thesis.

If you ask me, every person who signs off on a graduate student thesis bears some responsibility for its quality. This is not to say that we should absolve students of their responsibility to act with integrity, but I am saying that student plagiarism is as much a collective responsibility of the academic community as it is an individual one. Why are journalists not asking the graduate supervisors or professors for commentary about their former students? Surely, any graduate supervisor who believes in their former student’s work and its worth would be willing to stand up and defend not only the student, but their own competence as PhD supervisors — especially after they have supported the doctoral studies and signed off on the work?

Human Rights, Anyone?

In North America we have been obsessed with witch hunts for centuries. So far, 2024 is shaping up to be the year when plagiarism becomes the weapon of the right/righteous to prosecute and punish. The accused are publicly shamed and humiliated as investigations become the latest scandal for the media to cover.

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations states that even in criminal matters, “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.” (See Article 10). Yet, when it comes to public intellectuals and high-profile academics, members of the public and media act as judge and jury, and the right to a fair and impartial investigation gets thrown out the window in favour of a witch hunt.

Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, goes on to say, “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.” Somehow, public allegations of academic misconduct rarely allow for the presumption of innocence. Individuals who are publicly accused of plagiarism are presumed to be guilty and are forced to prove their own innocence. (Also sounds a bit like a witch hunt, right?) In other words, intellectuals subjected to public allegations of plagiarism are sometimes treated worse than common criminals.

And let’s not forget the first and most important part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” (Article 1). 

Those of us who regularly serve on academic and research misconduct panels know that following due process is an essential aspect of the work. Even when there are findings of misconduct and individuals are held responsible, we focus on the behaviour and not the person. Academic and research misconduct investigations and hearings, when done ethically, are often complex and difficult undertakings. Misconduct hearing members have a responsibility to proceed with care and caution, weighing multiple and sometimes conflicting details. We distinguish between a person’s actions and their value as a human being. Even when there is a finding of misconduct, we do not judge a person as being good or evil; we do our best to uphold human rights, which includes the right to dignity.

In public scandals about academic misconduct and plagiarism, individuals under scrutiny can be quickly stripped of their dignity, their reputation, and their livelihood. I am not suggesting that misconduct should not be investigated and addressed, but I am suggesting that when we, as a society, fail to uphold basic human rights when investigating plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct, we have lost our humanity. Upholding human rights should be a fundamental aspect of all misconduct investigations.

References

CBC News. (2018, September 19). Alberta judge upholds university’s right to rescind master’s degree over plagiarism. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-judge-university-plagiarism-masters-degree-1.4830594

Bill Ackman to check all MIT faculty members for plagiarism after wife Neri Oxman accused of copying parts of thesis. (2024, January 6). South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3247498/bill-ackman-check-all-mit-faculty-members-plagiarism-after-wife-neri-oxman-accused-copying-parts

Dawson, P. (2021). Defending assessment security in a digital world: Preventing e-cheating and supporting academic integrity in higher education. Routledge. 

Green, E. (2024, January 5). Why some academics are reluctant to call Claudine Gay a plagiairst. New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-some-academics-are-reluctant-to-call-claudine-gay-a-plagiarist

Haidar, E. H., & Kettles, C. E. (2024, January 3). Harvard President Claudine Gay Resigns, Shortest Tenure in University History. Harvard Crimson. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/1/3/claudine-gay-resign-harvard/

Hartocollis, A., & Betts, A. (2024, January 5). Wife of Investor Who Pushed for Harvard President’s Exit Is Accused of Plagiarism. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/us/plagiarism-bill-ackman-neri-oxman-claudine-gay-harvard.html

Mazer, J. P., & Hunt, S. K. (2012). Tracking plagiarism electronically: First-year students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty and reports of cheating behaviour in the basic communication course. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 8(2), 57-68. https://ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view/810/ 

McMutrie, B. (2024, January 4). A Brief Guide to How Colleges Adjudicate Plagiarism Cases. Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-brief-guide-to-how-colleges-adjudicate-plagiarism-cases

Romo, V. (2024, January 3). Claudine Gay’s resignation highlights the trouble with regulating academic writing. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/03/1222588885/harvard-president-claudine-gay-resigns-plagiarism

United Nations. (n.d.). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights 

____________________________

Share this post: Plagiarism Witch Hunts Cause Harm https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2024/01/07/plagiarism-witch-hunts-cause-harm/

This blog has had over 3 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, Editor-in-Chief, International Journal for Educational Integrity