MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
April 6, 2007
Present: Gary McCall, Mike Spivey, Mark Martin, Debbie Chee, Bill Kupinse, John
Finney, Rob Taylor, Chris Kline, Brad Tomhave, Wade Hands, Greta Austin, Ken
Clark, Seth Weinberger, Melissa Bass, Danya Clevenger, Jack Roundy
1. Minutes: The March 23rd minutes were approved as written.
2. Announcements: Kline commended Wade Hands on a recently published volume,
celebrated on Wednesday at 4 pm in CWLT. Kline also noted that Suzanne Barnett’s
Asia Symposium will be held next Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Austin
announced that on April 25 we will host a speaker from Afghanistan to talk about
Women in Islamic Law.
3. Petitions Committee (PC) Actions: Tomhave provided the following report of PC
actions since our last meeting.
Date
3/28/07
4/4/07
Year-to-date
Approved
2 (1 PPT)
3 (3 PPT)
160 (36 R + 45 PPT)
Denied
1
0
40
No Action
0
0
1
Total
3
3
201
4. Academic Honesty: Weinberger walked the committee through a series of
recommendations from the academic honesty subcommittee (Weinberger, Austin,
Martin—documents attached). He pointed out recommendations that will require
committee discussion, such whether to adopt the Amherst/Tufts quiz on academic
honesty, and how and when to administer it. He noted several policy language
changes, including an “intellectual community” text that the ASC would need to
develop (perhaps using models from other institutions). He noted the internet
plagiarism examples the subcommittee proposes for adoption. He pointed out the
subcommittee’s recommendation that we use Princeton’s “non-print and electronic
sources” document, with an added statement analogizing internet use with music
sharing and downloading. In the subcommittee’s behalf, he invited Spivey to
contribute text on plagiarism in mathematics. Martin shared a document he prepared
with material solicited from Spivey (also attached) addressing plagiarism in
mathematics and the sciences. Weinberger also noted the subcommittee’s ideas for
promulgating understanding of academic honesty during orientation, through the
booklet containing “Advice to New Students,” and other appropriate orientation
vehicles. He concluded by pointing out the subcommittee’s recommendation that ASC
discuss creating an honor code for the university.
Spivey acknowledged his contribution to the Martin document, but noted that it did
not constitute guidelines for practice. He agreed to provide more specific statement for
the subcommittee’s use.
Hands talked about how different faculty have differing views on copying and sharing
by students when they are working on homework problems, so in this area, we may
have to leave it to the individual faculty member to draw the rules for students in each
course. General rules may not be possible in these cases.
Kline raised the question of what we may usefully add to our academic handbook.
Austin followed with an observation that the handbook now appears on our web page.
Clevenger pointed out that students don’t receive hard-copy handbooks any more.
Finney concurred, saying the academic handbook is printed in small numbers only,
for faculty use. Our policy statements will be made available mainly on the web.
Martin, addressing what may be generalized in our academic honesty policy, noted
that in the subcommittee’s meetings, Austin kept coming back to “cite, cite, cite.”
This, the subcommittee thought, is a safe generalization, despite variances in faculty
approaches. The base question for students is: “Is this your work?” And this question
applies in every case. At the same time, Martin said, students are not reliably
sophisticated in applying this general principle to all contexts—a student who would
never dream of looking on another’s test might happily copy another’s lab report,
because he wouldn’t see the cases as parallel, or of equal importance.
McCall endorsed the notion of an honor code to address these issues. An honor code
should lay down the fundamental principle—regardless of perceived importance of
varying assignments, they should all be undertaken with integrity, and what is
claimed to be a student’s work should be that student’s work.
Kupinse took issue with the analogy that linked proper use of internet sources with
downloading music. Because many of our students regularly download music without
paying for it, and because they don’t think doing so is a problem, our use of the
analogy may cut against our goal of promoting the importance of academic honesty.
Weinberger replied that he thought students are aware that unauthorized downloading
of music is illegal and unethical. Kupinse said he thought many of our students, even
if they are aware of the issues, still have unsettled views on the music downloading
question, and don’t think of it as a crime. Hands replied that our culture has pushed
this matter into a questionable space, and for that reason, he argued for a more “black
and white” analogy—for example, looking on another student’s test as a measure of
how seriously unethical internet plagiarism is. Weinberger conceded Kupinse’s and
Hands’ points, but argued that the “downloading” context of the music and internet
sources made for a more direct analogy. He thought abandoning the analogy
altogether might make more sense than substituting a less direct analogue. McCall
pointed out another complication, that free downloadable music is available; he
suggested that if we preserve the analogy, we should add specifics (he suggested
“unauthorized downloading of music”). Clevenger pointed out that in her experience
students do know that unauthorized downloading of music is wrong, but also know
that most of their peers have done it. In her view, the analogy will work, because it
hits home. Taylor, on the other hand, thought that the music analogy breaks down
very easily. Technology changes very rapidly, and this instance, already a gray area,
will change further as the technology landscape changes. Austin spoke in favor of
substituting Hands’ copying of a neighbor’s test for the analogy. Kline said our main
objective must be to communicate that while collaborative learning is encouraged in
the sense of “working through” what one learns, when the time comes to “demonstrate
your understanding,” a student must clearly undertake to present his or her own
work.
Bass asked how many of the expectations we have discussed are specific to individual
instructors, and how many of them can be generalized across campus. She reported
teaching some students who only cite what they quote, for example, and not
everything they borrow—she wondered if colleagues across campus had differing
standards from hers. Weinberger said he thought the “plagiarism in plain English”
document put forward a reasonable, general set of standards, useful for the full
campus. Martin wondered whether we should have a central clearinghouse for the
materials faculty use to address these questions.
As we think of our academic handbook, Kline asked, what might be the role of
illustrative materials to illuminate policy? Finney answered that the fact that the
Logger is online permits links, and links could be used illustratively. The ASC has to
approve changes in our policy text, but links would be easy to add and modify as
needed. Chee said she favored a link from our policy statements to a user-friendly
explanatory web page. ASC could approve both revised policy language and additional
materials to be used. Links could be clarifying.
Kline complimented subcommittee members on the good thinking they had already
done. Going forward, she asked if the subcommittee (with the help of additional
volunteers, perhaps?) could look into just what to include in the policy statement.
Finney offered to provide an electronic copy of the current policy for the group to revise
for ASC approval. The revised policy text could be the topic of our next meeting, Kline
thought, and we could then move on to consider additional materials to supplement
the policy (probably linked online). As a final step, we could then discuss steps to be
taken on campus to promulgate our revised academic honesty policy. Finney
suggested that the subcommittee bring proposals to our next meeting for how and
where to place the links to additional materials.
Martin noted the subcommittee recommendation that the “advice to incoming
students” document would be a good vehicle for promulgating our revised policy.
As we were wrapping up, Kline announced that she would soon be drafting the
committee’s annual report for presentation to the Faculty Senate on April 16.
We adjourned at 8:50.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy
Recommendations from ASC Subcommittee on Academic Honesty
April 6, 2007
Greta Austin
Mark Martin
Seth Weinberger
During the meeting of the ASC Subcommittee on Academic Honesty on March 29, 2007,
the subcommittee proposed several recommendations to make before the full ASC
regarding the academic honesty policy of UPS, particularly as it relates to honesty in the
electronic age. The recommendations are as follows:
1. Quiz on Academic Honesty
a. The subcommittee strongly believes that all freshmen and new faculty
should be required to take a quiz on academic honesty. The quiz is used at
several other institutions, including Amherst College and Tufts University.
Permission could likely be obtained from Tufts (the developer of the quiz)
for use at UPS.
b. The subcommittee would like the ASC to discuss what the appropriate
time for the quiz would be. Possibilities mentioned included during
Prelude or during a session of the freshmen seminars, and/or during new
faculty orientation. It was noted that there has been resistance to
implementing academic honesty education during Prelude, and the
committee should discuss what options are available for adding such
content.
2. Academic Honesty Policy Language
a. The subcommittee recommends adding a section on “Intellectual
Community,” similar to that found in Princeton University’s policy.
b. The subcommittee discussed changing the language regarding academic
honesty in the electronic age.
i. The subcommittee has forwarded two examples of the
inappropriate use of websites for consideration by the ASC.
ii. The subcommittee recommends including the Princeton Statement
on “Non-Print and Electronic Sources” including a statement
analogizing Internet use with music sharing and downloading
(forwarded to the committee).
c. The subcommittee discussed adding language concerning the use of
“common knowledge” to be added to the Princeton Statement on “When
to Cite Sources.”
i. The subcommittee has forwarded potential language on student
reluctance to cite and student awareness of plagiarism.
ii. The subcommittee has forwarded the document “Plagiarism in
Plain English” for consideration.
d. The subcommittee recommends adding language concerning the “grey
areas” of plagiarism. See Princeton’s section on “The Question of
Collaboration” and “Other Forms of Assistance.”
e. The subcommittee discussed the request from Spivey on the ASC to deal
with the problem of academic honesty in mathematics problems. The
subcommittee felt that it lacked the ability to discuss the problem, and
hoped that Spivey could draft some relevant language.
3. Public Discussion of Academic Honesty
a. The subcommittee recommends that, during orientation, entering students
hear one or two presentations on the academic honesty policy as well as
the nature of the intellectual community of the University.
b. The subcommittee recommends that the “Advice to New Students”
booklet distributed during orientation include pieces on academic honesty,
such as a “mea culpa” as was published in The Trail.
c. The subcommittee recommends that the ASC discuss the creation of an
honor code for the University.
TO BE ADDED TO NON-PRINT AND ELECTRONIC SOURCES
While the Internet has made research much easier, it has also made plagiarism – both
intentional and accidental – easier as well. Even though a website may lack an
identifiable author and is widely and publicly available, that does not mean that the
information contained on that site is in the public domain. Borrowing from the Internet is
like downloading music. Just as downloading copied music files without purchasing
them is theft, using information from websites without citing them is plagiarism. If
others have made the effort to develop a website and disseminate information, their work
must be recognized when you use that information for your own purposes.
TO BE ADDED TO THE EXAMPLES OF PLAGIARISM
INAPPROPRIATE USES OF A WEBSITE:
I: Example in which language of website has been modified.
a) ORIGINAL:
Literally, the word hijab means "curtain". In the Qur’an the term hijab is not used as
a reference to women’s clothing; rather, it was the screen behind which the Muslims
were told to address the Prophet’s wives. (The term is also used to describe the
"screen" separating God from Moses, as he received divine revelation.) When the
Prophet’s wives went out, the screen consisted of a veil over their face. It does not
appear that covering the face was adopted by the other Muslim women at the time
since it was a special injunction for the Prophet’s wives as is clear in the verses
below:
And (as for the Prophet’s wives) when you ask for anything you want (or need), ask
them from behind a hijab (screen), that makes for greater purity of your hearts.
(33:53)
O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any of the (other) women: If you do fear
(God) be not too complaisant of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should
be moved with desire: but speak with a speech (that is) just. (33:32)
http://www.mwlusa.org/publications/positionpapers/hijab.html
b) PLAGIARIZED
The literal meaning of the word hijab is “curtain”; the Qur’an also describes the partition
or veil between God and Moses as a hijab. The Qur’an uses the term hijab to describe
not women’s clothing, but instead the screen or partition from behind which Muslims
must speak to the wives of the Prophets. (The Prophet’s wives used a veil to cover their
faces when they went outside in public. This requirement was apparently limited only to
the Prophet’s wives and did not apply to women in Medina in general (see, e.g., Q 33:32
and 33:53).
Explanation:
Although not every single sentence follows in the same order, the ideas are all the same.
The sentences have been carefully reworded and rephrased, but they clearly are based on
the Muslim Women’s League website.
II: Example where website is used verbatim.
a) Original website:
(http://www.cfr.org/publication/12717/alqaeda_in_the_islamic_maghreb_aka_salafi
st_group_for_preaching_and_combat.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpubl
ication_list%3Ftype%3Dbackgrounder)
Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (aka Salafist Group for Preaching and
Combat)
Author: Andrew Hansen
Introduction
Reports from North Africa point to a recent resurgence in terrorist activity by several
local Islamist movements, the most prominent of which is the Salafist Group for
Preaching and Combat (GSPC). An Algeria-based Sunni group that recently renamed
itself al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the organization has taken responsibility for a
number of terrorist attacks in the region, declared its intention to attack Western targets,
and sent a squad of jihadis to Iraq. Experts believe these actions suggest widening
ambitions within the group’s leadership, now pursuing a more global, sophisticated and
better-financed direction. Long categorized as part of a strictly domestic insurgency
against Algeria’s military government, GSPC claims to be the local franchise operation
for al-Qaeda, a worrying development for a region which has been relatively peaceful
since the bloody Algerian civil war of the 1990s drew to a close.
What is al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb?
The group originated as an armed Islamist resistance movement to the secular Algerian
government. Its insurrection began after Algeria’s military regime canceled the second
round of parliamentary elections in 1992 after it became clear the Islamic Salvation
Front, a coalition of Islamist militants and moderates, might win and take power. The
GSPC declared its independence from another insurgent group, the Armed Islamic Group
(GIA) in 1998, believing the GIA’s brutal tactics were hurting the Islamist cause. The
GSPC gained support from the Algerian population by vowing to continue fighting while
avoiding the indiscriminate killing of civilians. The group has since surpassed the GIA in
influence and numbers to become the primary force for Islamism in Algeria, with the
majority of its members refusing government offers of amnesty after Algeria’s civil war
of the mid-1990s. According to a 2005 U.S. State Department report on terrorism, its
ranks have dwindled to only a few hundred from nearly 28,000 at the height of its power.
b) Plagiarized Text:
Reports from North Africa point to a recent resurgence in terrorist activity by several
local Islamist movements, the most prominent of which is the Salafist Group for
Preaching and Combat (GSPC). An Algeria-based Sunni group that recently renamed
itself al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the organization has taken responsibility for a
number of terrorist attacks in the region, declared its intention to attack Western targets,
and sent a squad of jihadis to Iraq. Experts believe these actions suggest widening
ambitions within the group’s leadership, now pursuing a more global, sophisticated and
better-financed direction. Long categorized as part of a strictly domestic insurgency
against Algeria’s military government, GSPC claims to be the local franchise operation
for al-Qaeda, a worrying development for a region which has been relatively peaceful
since the bloody Algerian civil war of the 1990s drew to a close.
The group originated as an armed Islamist resistance movement to the secular Algerian
government. Its insurrection began after Algeria’s military regime canceled the second
round of parliamentary elections in 1992 after it became clear the Islamic Salvation
Front, a coalition of Islamist militants and moderates, might win and take power. The
GSPC declared its independence from another insurgent group, the Armed Islamic Group
(GIA) in 1998, believing the GIA’s brutal tactics were hurting the Islamist cause. The
GSPC gained support from the Algerian population by vowing to continue fighting while
avoiding the indiscriminate killing of civilians. The group has since surpassed the GIA in
influence and numbers to become the primary force for Islamism in Algeria, with the
majority of its members refusing government offers of amnesty after Algeria’s civil war
of the mid-1990s. According to a 2005 U.S. State Department report on terrorism, its
ranks have dwindled to only a few hundred from nearly 28,000 at the height of its power.
Works Cited:
Hansen, Andrew, “Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” Council on Foreign Relations
Backgrounder, Feb. 26, 2007 (available at
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12717/alqaeda_in_the_islamic_maghreb_aka_salafist_gro
up_for_preaching_and_combat.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpublication_list%
3Ftype%3Dbackgrounder).
Explanation: Even though the source website is listed in the “Works Cited” page, the
text has been lifted word-for-word, and represents no original contribution. Furthermore,
since the text is identical to the source, the entire quote should be in block quote form to
indicate that the wording is taken from another source.
PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE PRINCETON STATEMENT ON WHEN TO
CITE SOURCES:
[language to be added to the second paragraph on p. 1]:
Some students may be reluctant to include many footnotes or citations. They may think
that including many citations makes their work look unoriginal. This is not true. Citing
one’s sources does many things. First, it allows others to see what material you have
used in order to arrive at your conclusions. Second, citing recognizes your intellectual
debts to those who have worked on the same topic before you. Third, providing
references enables other readers to check your statements and to find more information
on their own. When in doubt, you should cite more rather than less.
Some authors have suggested helpful ways to avoid plagiarism: “Be conscious of where
your eyes are as you put words on paper or on a screen. If your eyes are on your source
at the same moment your fingers are flying across the keyboard, you risk doing
something that weeks, months, even years later could result in your public humiliation.
Whenever you use a source extensively, compare your page with the original. If you
think that someone could run her finger along your sentences and find synonyms or
synonymous phrases for words in the original in roughly the same order try again. You
are least likely to plagiarize inadvertently if, as you write, you keep your eyes not on your
source but on the screen or on your own page, and you report what your source has to say
after those words have filtered through your own understanding of them.” 1
Wayne Booth, Gregory Colomb and Joseph Williams, The Craft of Research (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1995), 170.
1
Draft comments involved mathematics/science and academic honesty:
Issues involving academic honesty, of course, also exist in mathematics and the bench sciences. Some
aspects of a mathematics and science curriculum provide familiar problems to be addressed by professors
in this regard. There are also some unique issues in these disciplines that will challenge our commitment
toward greater awareness of academic honesty campus-wide. Not unexpectedly, professors will need to
tailor recommendations to “fit” the unique nature and construction of a given course.
Many courses in the sciences (and some mathematics courses) require students to write term papers and
essays. For these assignments, the same standards for authorship, referencing, and attribution exist as
required for any term paper written in a typical writing intensive course.
However, science courses can provide challenges when considering academic honesty issues. Some
laboratory courses have extensive laboratory reports or progress reports, which are subject to problems and
possible solutions similar to those discussed earlier. Other courses have data collection and analysis of one
form or another, which cannot be so easily evaluated. In some cases, there are a limited number of correct
solutions to a given problem, complicating efforts to enhance academic honesty policies. Of special
concern are group independent projects or “team efforts,” where the borders of authorship between students
can become blurred. Students are often unclear on such boundaries, and professors should try to establish
policy in this area where possible.
No one solution fits all classroom situations, in these disciplines as in others. There are clear-cut examples
of concern for academic honesty policy, and incidents that are less obvious. Tools and approaches (and
perhaps examples) will need to be provided to assist professors campus-wide in order to support awareness
of academic honesty issues across the curriculum.
Addendum: Some specific examples of honesty concerns in mathematics, provided by Michael Spivey, are
as follows (with many thanks):
1. After an exam, a professor allowed students to rework missed problems for partial credit. The students
were warned not to work together on these “reworked” problems, and treat the situation like an exam
(though unproctored). One student copied one another student’s work verbatim.
2. Two students had a mathematics project due. The night before, a third student assisted the first two to
find a solution to a question on that project on the Internet, which was paraphrased and turned in as their
own work by the two students.
3. There is often evidence of students working together on homework assignments. Some of this collusion
is acceptable, even desirable. But it can lead to academic honesty issues in practice (without guidance).
The goal should be for students complete assignments in their own words.
4. It is also possible, particularly in mathematics and physics, for students to turn in very similar solutions
to specific problems, because there are only a few “routes” to a correct answer. This complicates academic
honesty issues, to say the least!
Plagiarism in Plain English
The following is adapted, with permission, from the University of Washington, Asian Law Center:
It is essential for all students to understand what plagiarism is, because it is an extremely serious
academic offense.
What is plagiarism?
Plagiarism is the unattributed use of the words or ideas of another. Scholarship and research require
us to look at what previous researchers have done. Building on their work naturally requires using
their ideas. In some cases, a previous writer may have said something particularly well, and we will
want to use their exact words. There is nothing wrong with this; this is perfectly normal. What is
wrong is to pretend that these ideas and words are your own.
How do you pretend that these words and/or ideas are your own? 1. You fail to indicate the
source. 2. You do not indicate that the words in question are those of another, not your own.
•
•
•
•
•
When you quote somebody, use quotation marks, and follow the quotation with a footnote
indicating the source.
When you use someone’s idea or data without directly quoting the person, you obviously should
not use quotation marks, since the words are your own, but you should still use a footnote to
indicate the source.
You may not paraphrase another author. You need to put their ideas into your own words—but
you still must use a footnote to indicate the source.
You may use a footnote or an internal citation in parentheses (the Social Sciences method):
e.g. (Brasher 1993, 39). I don’t care how you attribute. What matters is that you do attribute
(“cite”) your sources.
When you use material from Internet sources, you must also footnote this. If you are
puzzled about how to do this, see the UPS library’s website:
http://library.ups.edu/research/guides/citeurls.htm.
Some students seem to think that footnoting everything creates a bad impression because it seems
that nothing comes from the author. On the contrary, accurate and complete citation adds strength
to your piece. It shows the amount of research you did and provides evidence for your assertions.
Please note also the difference between plagiarism and just writing a poor paper:
•
•
•
If your paper consists of 20,000 words directly quoted from another source, then provided
you have used quotation marks and identified the source, this is not plagiarism. It is, of
course, not a good paper and I could not give it a passing grade. But it is not dishonest, and
it is not grounds for disciplinary proceedings.
If your paper consists of 19,000 original words and 1,000 words that you have copied from
another source without any indication of their origin, this is dishonest and it is plagiarism.
If your paper consists of 20,000 words in which you have borrowed the structure, ideas
and/or phrasing from another source but have failed to credit the source by providing
references or footnotes within the body of the paper (and not just in a bibliography), this is
plagiarism.
Once again: You must attribute.