Plagiarism occurs at every educational institution (Harvard College reports, for example, that in 2006–7 it required 24 students to withdraw for academic dishonesty), but incidents vary in seriousness and in circumstance. Many students have at some point in their careers obliviously or lazily incorporated a few phrases from a source, or simply absorbed a basic idea from a source that should probably have been cited. In such cases, the plagiarized material represents an insignificant contribution to the paper in question. When more substantial sections are involved, occasionally a student has been confused about the rules of acknowledgment. At the other end of the scale is the student who cold-bloodedly plagiarizes entire sections or a whole paper because he or she doesn’t care about the course and is unwilling to give it any time.
That accurately describes most if not all of what we see here.
There are mistakes and errors some of which may technically qualify as plagiarism under Harvard’s broad definition. (“Plagiarism is defined as the act of either intentionally OR unintentionally submitting work that was written by someone else.”)
But the “plagiarized” material represents an insignificant contribution to the papers in question.
Further, the book contemplates that before a student is suspensed or permanently expelled, the Board must find that the student “knowingly misused sources.” (my emphasis) State of mind matters.
"The Harvard Corporation has stood by President Gay, even as scandal has mounted. The New York Post reports that when it first raised the plagiarism accusations with Harvard, the response was not a comment on the evidence, but a 15-page letter from Harvard’s defamation lawyer. Instead of standing up for Harvard’s motto, Veritas (“truth”), the corporation has hunkered down.
I have no idea how as a teacher at Harvard today I could look an undergraduate in the eye and hold forth about why plagiarism is a violation of the values inherent in the academic enterprise. They would laugh, openly or secretly, at the corruption and double standards. And I would not blame them for doing so…
President Gay is in a tough spot. The Harvard Corporation deserves to be in a much tougher spot, because it has betrayed the values that the university once cherished and that it still proclaims. In both cases, the remedy indicated is the one we senior tutors applied to many a student years ago: fess up, withdraw, and reflect."
Writing a term paper for an undergraduate class that’s due in two weeks and worth 30% of the final grade is not the same as writing a journal article that documents the result of serious, years-long, doctoral/professional-level research. This Harvard plagiarism guide is intended for the former, not the latter. Plagiarism in the latter, as a poster said upthread, is a cardinal sin, a big no-no that gets one blacklisted from journals and makes them a laughingstock in their professional circle.
You would think an institution like Harvard will be able to find someone who doesn’t plagiarize and isn’t a laughingstock as President.
The black woman from Vanderbilt University she plagiarized was not impressed and thinks she should be fired.
Again, even if it was not unethical (which I think it was), it was very sloppy. Harvard students would be held to a higher standard, right? But she’s not?
You should have quoted this from that pub that speaks directly to state of mind: “From the viewpoint of the university, the gradual line-crossing is no more acceptable than the sudden line-crossing. In both cases, the student is aware that what he or she is doing is wrong and chooses to continue…”
If you are claiming lack of awareness and intentionality on Gay’s part, that means that a doctoral candidate (and subsequently a professor) was more ignorant of basic citation and academic honesty practices/duties than even a Harvard first-year is expected to be.
A close reading of actual details of that doc and the details of Gay’s patterns and different flavors of plagiarism leads to a much harsher conclusion.
I quoted the passage that best fit Dr. Gay’s circumstance, based on what I know about the quality of her work and after examining the snippets. Your quote refers to more severe cases, not the situation which best fits Dr. Gay.
The manual is directed at undergrads, and especially beginning college writers.
What you quoted is appropriate for a first-year undergrad who doesn’t have a full grasp on the importance and need for citations, and has made a careless mistake or two.
Dr. Gay’s circumstance, even back in 1997, was someone who should have known far better.
Also from the same Atlantic article, which was written by a former resident dean at Harvard. Part of the duties of resident dean included receiving initial complaints of plagiarism from faculty for students in their house. This is therefore a firsthand observation on how students who plagiarized were treated:
Harvard then took plagiarism seriously-and in one way still does, disciplining dozens of students every year for this gravest of academic sins. Even transgressions falling short of plagiarism could still constitute “misuse of sources,” for which a year’s probation and suspension from participation in extracurricular activities were the usual response.
Plagiarists, meanwhile— those who had lifted someone else’s language without quotation marks or citation—were bounced from the college for a year, during which time they were required to work at a nonacademic job (no year-long backpacking trip) and refrain from visiting Cambridge. They would be readmitted after submitting a statement that examined their original misdeed and reflected on it.
This reinforces what most of us already knew–that students who did this were severely punished. And this is why so many who were (or still are) in college are aghast at how leniently Claudine Gay is being treated.
I highlighted “were required to work at a nonacademic job”, which means that those who were punished had to work jobs like fast food, or bagger at a grocery store, as a time of penance and reflection for what they had done. What type of penance should Claudine Gay have to do to atone for her sins?
I see your point, but I think the core problem is still there and it’s very legit for Swain to complain about it. She may be using this for other purposes, but it doesn’t change the fact that the plagiarism may have happened.
This opinion sets out the crux of the issue: intent doesn’t matter. Sloppiness, inattentiveness, or laziness are not defenses.
“Here’s what Harvard tells its students. “Taking credit for anyone else’s work is stealing, and it is unacceptable in all academic situations, whether you do it intentionally or by accident.”” (my emphasis added).
“Harvard’s own material underscores this conclusion. “Plagiarism is defined as the act of either intentionally OR unintentionally submitting work that was written by someone else””.
Unbelievable. Why would you plagiarize someone’s acknowledgement? That is the only place you get to use your own words to show sincere gratitude to those important in your academic/life journey. You can easily write a non-fancy, non-flowery acknowledgement where you “boringly” thank everyone. Won’t take much time.
Looks like Gay wants a quality product in all her academic output but doesn’t want to put in the time.
So you cited and quoted a guidebook to impugn Dr. Gay, and now your position is that it doesn’t apply to Dr. Gay? Harvard disagrees.
When you write papers in college, your work is held to the same standards of citation as the work of your professors
Did what? No one is denying that those who knowingly and dishonestly try to pass off the work of others as their own are severely punished. But that isn’t what Gay did.
And Gay was held to the same standards, only more so. She was a student at Harvard. And at Stanford. Her work was reviewed, edited, graded, submitted, evaluated, critiqued, etc. It has been examined multiple times and at every stage. And none of those who passed her, signed off, accepted her papers, gave her suggestions, etc. ever even perceived a problem in what you see as an obviously fireable offense.
That is because she obviously wasn’t trying to pass off the work of someone else as her own.
You want to change the rules decades after the fact.
Are you really in a position to judge whether or not they did their jobs well?
These are extremely experienced, top notch academics who know how the process works and what is required. And they were in a much better position to judge in that they were looking at the entirety of her submitted paper, instead of the misleading, out-of-context snippets presented by the culture warriors out to ruin her career. And they also had familiarity with and access to the work she was allegedly copying. Some of them were the same people who she is alleged to have copied! Despite their intimate familiarity with their own work, the work of others, and review of hers, they found no reason to question her work.
And even if you were correct and they didn’t do their jobs well, why should she be fired because they didn’t do their jobs well? If there is a pattern in her work (I don’t think there is) then it was a pattern of writing in a manner which she (and those reviewing her) thought was totally acceptable. Yet now, thirty years later, after all the reviewers have repeatedly signed off on the quality of her work, you claim she should be fired for it?
The double standard at work (I hope) is that current students will not be subject to the same decades later second guessing and rewriting of what is allowed. She is being fired decades later for acting in a what was deemed by those reviewing to be a totally acceptable manner at the time she submitted her work.
The ex post facto pronouncement that what had been perfectly acceptable for all these years is suddenly a fireable offense is fundamentally unfair, and sets a dangerous precedent.
What she did wasn’t acceptable in the 1990s either. She got lucky and wasn’t caught then, but that doesnt give her a free pass for life on her academic misconduct. Yes, universities can and do pull degrees from those who lied on their applications or otherwise committed academic misconduct, years later. That is the risk one runs in such behavior; it can come back to bite you at any time.
Lots of people get away with cheating too. Those caught face consequences, even a long time later
By the way, I think there should be consequences for her advisor/reviewers as well. Either they were sloppy in their review or intentionally ignored it as they didnt want to deal with the drama.
It obviously was acceptable. She earned and was awarded a Ph.D., and received Harvard’s award for best Political Science dissertation. She earned a highly prestigious tenure track position at Stanford University, and was tenured soon after.
Moreover, the paper she published at the time (30 years ago) that now is being roundly criticized was written for a journal that did not require or include extensive citations and quotations in the articles it accepted!
Culture warriors are demanding she be fired for a paper without citations, despite that this was the standard for that particular publication! How disingenuous is that? But readers just gloss over this and assume that the claims of the culture warriors are legit.
Basic foundation of writing-quote and credit when you copy or paraphrase, anywhere. She shouldnt have received a BA without understanding that.
Gay isnt being sent to prison for a criminal offense. She should be removed from her position as an academic leader, hardly career ending for her.