PENALTY FOR PLAGIARISM IN GSCI 1042 COURSE WORK

The penalty for plagiarism found in any work submitted for evaluation for the GSCI 1042 course is Failure ( grade of F ) for the course.

Plagiarism is an academic crime and requires detection, investigation, and a severe penalty. Plagiarism and other forms of cheating are not just an academic offence, they are also an offence against students who are ethical, honest, and work hard to achieve the grades they earn.

The College’s Academic Policy states: “The minimal consequence for submitting a plagiarized, purchased, contracted, or in any manner inappropriately negotiated or falsified assignment, test, essay, project, or any evaluated material will be a grade of zero on that material.” The word “minimal” indicates that a grade of zero is the least consequence for plagiarism. As well, the College’s academic policy states “The College may apply the full range of options, including suspension or expulsion, according to the procedures outlined in that document.”

I have implemented a penalty greater than the "minimal" penalty of a grade of zero for an assignment which contains plagiarized content because a grade of zero is not an adequate penalty for that academic offence/crime. Why should someone who plagiarizes the content of an assignment they submit receive a penalty no greater than if they had not handed in the assignment? When a person does not hand in an assignment there is no deception and the student receives zero for that assignment but, when a student hands in an assignment with plagiarized content, there is deception which, if undetected and un-penalized, would result in the student receiving credit for work which is not their own and the marks undeservingly received would contribute positively to their grade (as much as full marks, i.e. 10 out of 10, for that assignment). The plagiarizing student is gambling, betting that the professor will not detect the plagiarism or, if detected, will ignore it or assign a grade of zero as if the assignment had just not been submitted for evaluation.   The plagiarizing gambler should not receive the same penalty (zero) as an honest student who just didn't submit an assignment, the plagiarizer deserves a much greater penalty for their deception.

Graduates want and expect their diploma or degree to be valued and taken seriously by employers and other academic institutions. When a student cheats and receives credit for their unworthy work, they undermine the integrity of the diplomas and degrees of the academic institution they undeservingly graduate from.

When an undeserving graduate is in the workforce, they compete with legitimate graduates and may succeed in getting employment instead of the legitimate graduate or a position over/above them. Is that fair, no it isn't, that's one major reason why I try to detect plagiarism and cheating and severely penalize it, to prevent students who plagiarize and cheat from receiving credit for dishonesty and their potentially competing with ethical and honest students and graduates for further education and training, bursaries, scholarships and jobs.

When plagiarists and cheaters get jobs, their work continues to reflect their corrupt values and, when their cheating behaviours are discovered, it negatively affects the opinion of employers regarding the diplomas and degrees of the academic institution the plagiarist or cheater graduated from. An employer who loses confidence in a person who has a diploma or degree from a particular academic institution will usually not hire anyone else who has graduated from that academic institution.

Plagiarist and cheating type behaviour was expressed in the document content falsification actions of Stan Koebel and Frank Koebel when they were municipal employees entrusted with testing and disinfecting the water supply for the Ontario Town of Walkerton. Stan and Frank Koebel did not do their job and falsified the content of the water inspection documents to state that they had inspected and purified the water the people of the Town of Walkerton drank. The Koebels caused 7 people to die and hundreds to become seriously ill, some for the rest of their lives, and great expense (tens of millions of dollars) to the Ontario taxpayers for healthcare, the Walkerton Inquiry, investigation, lawsuits, court costs, and financial settlements. The following are some of the criminal charges brought against the Koebel brothers:

"

· forgery for falsifying the Daily Operating Sheet for Well 7 for May 2000

· using the false Daily Operating Sheet for Well 7 for May 2000 as if it were real

"

Source: http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/walkerton/a/walkertoncharge.htm

As well, the dishonest and unethical behaviour of plagiarists and cheaters does not just occur in academic institutions and the workplace, it occurs elsewhere such as in politics (as is now being revealed through the Liberal government Sponsorship Program investigation by Justice Gomery: http://www.gomery.ca/en/index.asp) which affects society in general.

As you see, plagiarism and cheating negatively affects us all. Consequently, I think it is in all of our best interests to ensure that those who plagiarize and cheat are not given the opportunity to detrimentally affect society.

The following numbered sections are excerpts from the College’s academic policy regarding plagiarism and cheating ( http://www.gbrownc.on.ca/Admin/VPAcad/policies/index.html ):

“

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY

George Brown College believes that the development of self-discipline and acceptable standards of academic honesty are fundamental aspects of the learning process. Individuals and groups must uphold the principles of academic integrity.

The establishment and maintenance of effective discipline is seen as the responsibility of College administration, faculty members, and students. Disciplinary action will be taken in response to acts of academic dishonesty.

Approved by Board of Governors Motion #03–05–04, 11 February 2004, Publication 2004 – 03 – 31 7 George Brown College – Academic Policies, Guidelines & Codes of Conduct – 2004-03 – Page 88

7.1 Offences Warranting Disciplinary Action

The following offences are considered to be acts of academic dishonesty warranting disciplinary action:

-forging, altering, or in any other way falsifying any document or evidence required for admission to the College, or circulating or making use of any such forged, altered, or falsified document, whether the record be in print or electronic form;

-the use or possession of an unauthorized aid or aids or use of unauthorized assistance in any academic examination or term test or in connection with any other form of academic work (e.g. cheating during a test or an examination or theft of an examination);

-the impersonation of, or the act of having another person impersonate, another student at any academic examination or term test or in connection with any other form of academic work;

-plagiarism, which is defined as -direct quotation from a text or paper without identification as to source, -submission of a work as one‘s own when it has been prepared by someone else, and -contraction for assignments or submission of reports that are not the work of the author.

-the submission, without the knowledge and approval of the instructor to whom it is submitted, of any academic work for which credit has previously been obtained or is being sought in another course or program of study in the College or elsewhere;

-the submission for credit of any academic work containing a purported statement of fact or reference to a source that has been concocted;

-engaging in any form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not herein otherwise described, in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage of any kind.

7.2 Consequences

The College is committed to academic integrity and will, without hesitation and without exception, penalize acts that demonstrate disregard for the standards governing honesty in academic performance. The minimal consequence for submitting a plagiarized, purchased, contracted, or in any manner inappropriately negotiated or falsified assignment, test, essay, project, or any evaluated material will be a grade of zero on that material.

If the College discovers that a student has knowingly provided illegal assistance to a fellow student in an examination or assignment, then that student will also receive a mandatory grade of zero on the examination or assignment in question. Incidents of academic dishonesty will be considered a major infraction under the terms prescribed in the College Policy on Student Discipline. The College may apply the full range of options, including suspension or expulsion, according to the procedures outlined in that document.

Approved by Board of Governors Motion #03–05–04, 11 February 2004, Publication 2004 – 03 – 31

”

It is the responsibility of each student to inform him/her self about plagiarism and how to avoid committing it.  Some further information about plagiarism may be found at: http://liad.gbrownc.on.ca/studentsuccess/sscrime.html

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/058528.php

Some examples of the use of content which are, and are not, considered to be plagiarism:

The Random House Handbook, 6th ed., by Frederick Crews (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992, pp. 181-183):

“Consider the following source and three ways that a student might be tempted to make use of it:

Source: The joker in the European pack was Italy. For a time hopes were entertained of her as a force against Germany, but these disappeared under Mussolini. In 1935 Italy made a belated attempt to participate in the scramble for Africa by invading Ethiopia. It was clearly a breach of the covenant of the League of Nations for one of its members to attack another. France and Great Britain, as great powers, Mediterranean powers, and African colonial powers, were bound to take the lead against Italy at the league. But they did so feebly and half-heartedly because they did not want to alienate a possible ally against Germany. The result was the worst possible: the league failed to check aggression, Ethiopia lost her independence, and Italy was alienated after all. (J. M. Roberts, History of the World (New York: Knopf, 1976), p. 845.)

Version A: Italy, one might say, was the joker in the European deck. When she invaded Ethiopia, it was clearly a breach of the covenant of the League of Nations; yet the efforts of England and France to take the lead against her were feeble and half-hearted. It appears that those great powers had no wish to alienate a possible ally against Hitler's rearmed Germany.

Comment: Clearly plagiarism. Though the facts cited are public knowledge, the stolen phrases aren't. Note that the writer's interweaving of his own words with the source's does not render him innocent of plagiarism.

Version B: Italy was the joker in the European deck. Under Mussolini in 1935, she made a belated attempt to participate in the scramble for Africa by invading Ethiopia. As J. M. Roberts points out, this violated the covenant of the League of Nations. ( J. M. Roberts, History of the World (New York: Knopf, 1976), p. 845.) But France and Britain, not wanting to alienate a possible ally against Germany, put up only feeble and half-hearted opposition to the Ethiopian adventure. The outcome, as Roberts observes, was "the worst possible: the league failed to check aggression, Ethiopia lost her independence, and Italy was alienated after all." (Roberts, p. 845.)

Comment: Still plagiarism. The two correct citations of Roberts serve as a kind of alibi for the appropriating of other, unacknowledged phrases. But the alibi has no force: some of Roberts' words are again being presented as the writer's.

Version C: Much has been written about German rearmament and militarism in the period 1933-1939. But Germany's dominance in Europe was by no means a foregone conclusion. The fact is that the balance of power might have been tipped against Hitler if one or two things had turned out differently. Take Italy's gravitation toward an alliance with Germany, for example. That alliance seemed so very far from inevitable that Britain and France actually muted their criticism of the Ethiopian invasion in the hope of remaining friends with Italy. They opposed the Italians in the League of Nations, as J. M. Roberts observes, "feebly and half-heartedly because they did not want to alienate a possible ally against Germany." (J. M. Roberts, History of the World (New York: Knopf, 1976), p. 845.) Suppose Italy, France, and Britain had retained a certain common interest. Would Hitler have been able to get away with his remarkable bluffing and bullying in the later thirties?

Comment: No plagiarism. The writer has been influenced by the public facts mentioned by Roberts, but he hasn't tried to pass off Roberts' conclusions as his own. The one clear borrowing is properly acknowledged.”