Some recent high-profile stories about various university professors and leaders being accused committing acts of plagiarism have got me thinking recently. Although many of these accusations are driven by political "gotcha" campaigns rather than any actual interest in encouraging higher standards for professional conduct across the board, that fact doesn't offset the need to consider whether or not an "academic crime" was committed.
In fact, the phrase "academic crime" has been rolling around in my head. Having served on a jury, I am acutely aware that crime is a rather nebulous word and needs to be carefully defined in order to assess guilt or innocence. The same outcome is not always evidence of the same crime (e.g., manslaughter is a different crime from murder, though both result in the death of a human being), and the accusation of a particular crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before a person can be labelled "guilty." As a society, we have identified different categories of bad behavior, some of which rise to the level of being criminal behavior. But even within the ranks of criminal behavior, the appropriate punishment is based on the severity of the offense and the presence or absence of mitigating factors, not just the finding of guilt. And, finally, many lesser crimes have a statute of limitations, because we recognize that momentary lapses in judgment or behavior are not necessarily indicative of a continuing threat to society at large.
I think we need to adopt this kind of thinking for accusations of plagiarism. In other words, perhaps we should differentiate "misdemeanor" from "felony" plagiarism, and minor infractions from decades prior should be subject to a "statute of limitations" in terms of punishment. If someone's "paraphrase" of another author's work is a little too close to the original text, even though it is clear to the reader that it is the other author's ideas that are being discussed, that is plagiarism. But I see that as being rather far down the scale in terms of the severity of the offense. And if the plagiarism in question was committed in a paper written 20 years ago, by a now tenured professor who has been a "member in good standing" of the academic community in the intervening years, is seeking punishment (over and above an acknowledgment of sloppiness) really worth anybody's time?
On the other hand, if someone knowingly and deliberately presents another's work as their own, with an attempt to conceal the fact that they are not the originator of the idea being discussed, then that is a different story. Plagiarism of that sort, which has the added element of "criminal intent" rather than mere sloppiness, should be dealt with more harshly as it potentially speaks to an attitude which is antithetical to the ideals of the academic enterprise. As such, the statute of limitations for such behavior may need to involve a longer time frame than for more minor infractions.
Of course, there are other dimensions as well. Stealing a pencil is not as egregious a crime as stealing a car (though both are stealing), because the value of the pencil is less than that of a car. Analogously, plagiarizing "boilerplate" language that describes commonly known procedures or practices seems to be less severe (though it would still be a "crime") than plagiarizing core intellectual insights or arguments. Readers of the plagiarized "boilerplate" paper are unlikely to attribute any special intellectual merit to the plagiarizing author for that section, as they would have prior familiarity with those procedures and practices. The value of the plagiarized section in terms of increased academic status or likelihood of publication due to that section is relatively low.
On the other hand, an author who plagiarizes the intellectually novel or particularly eloquent sections of someone else's work, especially if they do so in such a way as to lead the reader to believe that the ideas are the author's own intellectual contribution, is likely to be rewarded in terms of increased chances of publication or greater academic acclaim (assuming they are not caught) than they would otherwise be. Thus, the value of this kind of plagiarism is relatively high.
Although this is just a rough sketch, I do think that there would be value in fleshing out some kind of "criminal codes" for plagiarism (if they do not already exist). This wouldn't be a perfect solution (what legal system is?), but perhaps it would help us better navigate what are sure to be choppy waters ahead now that higher education is becoming increasingly politicized.
No comments:
Post a Comment