MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
April 20, 2007
Present: Gary McCall, Mike Spivey, Mark Martin, Debbie Chee, Bill Kupinse, John
Finney, Chris Kline, Brad Tomhave, Wade Hands, Greta Austin, Ken Clark, Seth
Weinberger, Kevin David, Melissa Bass, Alison Tracy Hale, Jack Roundy
1. Minutes: The April 6 minutes were approved as submitted.
2. Announcements: Kline thanked the committee for its service and especially
lauded John Finney for years of meritorious contributions on the occasion of his final
ASC committee meeting.
3. Petitions Committee (PC) Actions: Tomhave provided the following report of PC
actions since our last meeting.
Date
4/11/07
4/18/07
Year-to-date
Approved
3 (2 PPT + 1 R)
6 (1 PPT + 1 R)
169 (48 PPT + 38 R)
Denied
1
0
41
No Action
0
0
1
Total
4
6
211
Tomhave also announced that he would be soliciting summer PC members in the
coming weeks. Finally, he also noted that Clevenger is expected to nominate her
student member replacement for next year, and said he would contact her about this.
4. Hearing Board Update: Finney reported that an unexpected academic dishonesty
charge has recently arisen. On April 30 the board will meet to consider the case.
5. Academic Honesty: Weinberger and Austin brought revised language for the
Logger (attached), inviting committee input on its disposition. Martin reported that
Spivey has also supplied some proposed language. Spivey was ambivalent about
whether his proposed computer science and mathematics language should be spliced
into the text or given a separate section. Weinberger thought that we might not want
all of the subcommittee’s proposed language in the policy statement—illustrative and
support materials could be linked online, while the policy text could remain more
concise.
Kupinse and Chee liked the link idea. Weinberger said he thought the only downside
to relegating some of our material to links would be the possibility that students might
not follow the links. Chee thought if we were clever about making the links userfriendly, students would follow them. Weinberger said he thought our next decision
was to determine what are the “bare bones” of the policy, and therefore essential to
include in the Logger, and what elements could be linked. Tracy Hale wondered
whether any links we include would not also therefore be part of the policy.
Finney said he thought we would continue to have a hard copy of the Logger, and that
it should include the same text that we offer online. Our new material ought to be in
it, he thought. So in that sense, the new materials should be thought of as part of the
policy, even if illustrative. He argued that we ought first to think of arranging things
in the hard copy Logger, then adapt the web accordingly. Kupinse wondered if it
would it be helpful to use web links to other sources (like Princeton’s material) without
including them in our policy. Weinberger and Kupinse agreed that the problems with
linking to off-campus sites were 1) that we have no control over linked sources (as they
change and/or disappear), and 2) that those sources may not be entirely consistent
with our policy.
Finney argued that what is most important is the policy itself. In the 80’s, we began to
include examples to explicate that policy. In our current digital environment,
academic honesty issues have become more complicated, and accordingly we are
adding more illustrative material, though we are not making substantive changes to
the policy. He argued that we need to keep the policy front and center, then indicate
what is illustrative. Tracy Hale argued that we should be careful our posted policy
does not stand in for or contradict specific guidelines within disciplines. But she
thought we could safely promulgate a general policy with various examples. Chee
thought we could field test a web presentation with a subset of our student body to see
how students use it and whether they find it helpful. Weinberger interjected that he
didn’t want us to lose the idea that we can use the plagiarism test as a teaching tool.
Kline suggested that since we are so near to the end of term, we might all take the
subcommittee materials away from this meeting, read them carefully over the summer,
then decide what we would like to test out with our students in the coming fall.
Roundy suggested that we ask Barb Weist, Puget Sound web manager, to create a test
site which could be accessed by committee members and any students we wish to
involve in our try-out, without full deployment to the full community until we feel
confident in our changes. Kline concurred, suggesting that committee members try it
out with their students in the fall.
Chee and Kline offered to work on a test site in the summer. Martin wondered if we
could get students to try out the plagiarism test before next fall. Chee doubted that
this could be done before then, given how close we are to the end of this academic
year. Weinberger argued that if we are to adopt the plagiarism test, it must be
adapted to online use. Once this is done, McCall argued (much to Tomhave’s dismay),
we should make students take the test before they are allowed to register for classes.
Kline wondered if we could require entering students to take the test before they come
to campus in the fall. Chee didn’t think that was practical. Kline said on second
thought that we should be teaching students about academic honesty as we are
bringing them into our community, not before. Austin said she intended to use the
plagiarism test in Prelude, and her commitment was quickly followed by those of
Weinberger, Bass, Tracy, Martin, McCall (and Taylor, in absentia, as a team-teacher).
As the meeting was winding down, Kline said she had delivered the ASC final report to
the Faculty Senate on April 16. She noted that she promised the ASC would continue
to review our new withdrawal policy in the coming academic year, and she reported on
a brief discussion of the registrar’s proposed mode of reflecting study abroad credit on
the transcript.
We adjourned at 8:52, and as this was the final ASC meeting of the year, a valedictory
photo was taken in honor of John Finney.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy
ACADEMIC HONESTY
The University as an Intellectual
Community
The University of Puget Sound is, first and foremost, an intellectual community. Every
college or university is an environment rich in intellectual, technological, and information
resources where students and faculty members come together to pursue their academic
interests. All of us are here to learn from each other and to teach each other, both in our
individual quests to mature as thinkers, scholars, and researchers, and in our collective
effort to advance and refine the body of human knowledge. All of us benefit from the free
exchange of ideas, theories, solutions, and interpretations. We test our own thoughts
informally among friends or in class, or more formally in papers and exams; we profit by
analyzing and evaluating the ideas of our classmates, friends, advisers, and teachers.
Trust is the central ethic of such an intellectual community, in several respects. Trust that
your ideas, no matter how new or unusual, will be respected and not ridiculed. Trust that
your ideas will be seriously considered and evaluated. Trust that you can express your
own ideas without fear that someone else will take credit for them. And, others need to be
able to trust that your words, data, and ideas are your own. The right to intellectual
ownership of original academic work is as important to the life of the university as the
right to own personal possessions.
However, our intellectual community is much greater than the current population of UPS
students, faculty, and staff. Such an intellectual community transcends both time and
space to embrace all of the contributors to human knowledge. We may find their theories
in textbooks, or their words in books of poetry, or their thoughts in library volumes or
journals, or their data on the World Wide Web. Through the work they have produced in
times past or are producing now across the globe, they share with us their intellectual
efforts, trusting that we will respect their rights of intellectual ownership. As we at the
University strive to build on their work, all of us -- from freshman to full professor -- are
obligated by the ethic of intellectual honesty to credit that work to its originator.
[Taken from Princeton’s Academic Integrity statement; language should be changed]
Honesty is an appropriate consideration in other ways as well, including but not limited
to the responsible, respectful use of library books; responsible conduct in examinations;
responsibility in meeting course assignments; the securing of legitimate signatures as
needed; the respectful use of computer accounts; the responsible use of the internet and
the world wide web, and behavior on study abroad programs which respects the rights
and safety of others.
The suspicion of dishonesty in the academic community is a serious matter because it
threatens the atmosphere of respect essential to learning. Academic dishonesty can take
many forms, including but not limited to the following: plagiarism, which is the
misrepresentation of someone else’s words, ideas, research, images, video clips, or
computer programs (including stacks, spreadsheet macros, command files, etc.) as one’s
own; submitting the same paper or computer program or portion thereof for credit in
Deleted: The University is a
community of faculty, students, and staff
engaged in the exchange of ideas
contributing to individual growth and
development. Essential to the successful
functioning of the academic community
is a shared sense of enthusiasm for
learning and respect for other persons.
The successful functioning of the
academic community also demands
honesty, which is the basis of respect for
both ideas and persons. In the academic
community there is an ongoing
assumption of honesty at all levels. In
particular, there is the expectation that
work will be independently thoughtful
and responsible as to its sources of
information and inspiration.
more than one course without prior permission; collaborating with other students on
papers or computer programming assignments and submitting them without instructor
permission; cheating on examinations; mistreatment of library materials; violation of
copyright laws (see the Copy Center’s handbook for a summary of copyright guidelines);
forgery; and misuse of academic computing facilities. In situations involving suspicion
of dishonesty, procedures and sanctions established for the Hearing Board (see below)
shall be followed.
Plagiarism
A faculty member or the Hearing Board may make a judgment that plagiarism has
occurred on grounds other than a comparison of the student’s work with the original
material. Internal stylistic evidence, comparison of the work that is suspect with other
written work by the same student, the student’s inability to answer questions on what he
or she has written, may all support a judgment of plagiarism.
The following discussion of plagiarism, designed to diminish misunderstanding of this
serious breach of academic honesty, is adapted (with permission) from Sydney and
Elizabeth Cowen, Writing, New York, John Wiley and sons, 1980, pp. 470-472.
To plagiarize means to take someone else’s words and/or ideas and put them into writing
as though they were yours. Some people deliberately steal other writers’ works, but
much plagiarism in students’ research papers occurs through carelessness, uncertainty, or
ignorance.
When to Cite Sources
You will discover that different academic disciplines have different rules and protocols
concerning citation -- when and how to cite sources. For example, some disciplines use
more traditional footnote form and others use numerical markers in the text; some require
complete bibliographic information on all works consulted and others append only a "List
of Works Cited." As you decide on a concentration and begin advanced work in your
department, you will need to learn the particular protocols for your discipline. At the end
of this booklet, you will find a brief sampling of more commonly used bibliographic
formats.
The five basic rules described below apply to all disciplines and should guide your own
citation practice. Even more fundamental, however, is this general rule: when in doubt
whether or not to cite a source, do it. You will certainly never find yourself in trouble if
you acknowledge a source when it is not absolutely necessary; it is always preferable to
err on the side of caution and completeness. Better still, if you are unsure about whether
or not to cite a source, ask your professor or preceptor for guidance before submitting the
paper.
1. Direct Quotation. Any verbatim use of the text of a source, no matter how large or
small the quotation, must be clearly acknowledged. Direct quotations must be placed in
quotation marks or, if longer than three lines, clearly indented beyond the regular margin.
The quotation must be accompanied, either within the text or in a footnote, by a precise
indication of the source, identifying the author, title, and page numbers. Even if you use
Deleted:
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt, First
line: 0 pt
only a short phrase, or even one key word, you must use quotation marks in order to set
off the borrowed language from your own, and cite the source.
2. Paraphrase. If you restate another person’s thoughts or ideas in your own words, you
are paraphrasing. Paraphrasing does not relieve you of the responsibility to cite your
source. You should never paraphrase in the effort to disguise someone else’s ideas as
your own. If another author’s idea is particularly well put, quote it verbatim and use
quotation marks to distinguish his or her words from your own. Paraphrase your source if
you can restate the idea more clearly or simply, or if you want to place the idea in the
flow of your own thoughts. If you paraphrase your source, you do not need to use
quotation marks. However, you still do need to cite the source, either in your text or a
footnote. You may even want to acknowledge your source in your own text ("Albert
Einstein believed that…"). In such cases, you still need a footnote.
3. Summary. Summarizing is a looser form of paraphrasing. Typically, you may not
follow your source as closely, rephrasing the actual sentences, but instead you may
condense and rearrange the ideas in your source. Summarizing the ideas, arguments, or
conclusions you find in your sources is perfectly acceptable; in fact, summary is an
important tool of the scholar. Once again, however, it is vital to acknowledge your source
-- perhaps with a footnote at the end of your paragraph. Taking good notes while doing
your research will help you keep straight which ideas belong to which author, which is
especially important if you are reviewing a series of interpretations or ideas on your
subject.
4. Facts, Information, and Data. Often you will want to use facts or information you
have found in your sources to support your own argument. Certainly, if the information
can be found exclusively in the source you use, you must clearly acknowledge that
source. For example, if you use data from a particular scientific experiment conducted
and reported by a researcher, you must cite your source, probably a scientific journal or a
Web site. Or if you use a piece of information discovered by another scholar in the course
of his or her own research, you must acknowledge your source. Or perhaps you may find
two conflicting pieces of information in your reading -- for example, two different
estimates of the casualties in a natural catastrophe. Again, in such cases, be sure to cite
your sources.
Information, however, is different from an idea. Whereas you must always acknowledge
use of other people’s ideas (their conclusions or interpretations based on available
information), you may not always have to acknowledge the source of information itself.
You do not have to cite a source for a fact or a piece of information that is generally
known and accepted -- for example, that Woodrow Wilson served as president of both
Princeton University and the United States, or that Avogadro’s number is 6.02 x 1023.
Often, however, deciding which information requires citation and which does not is not
so straightforward. The concept of "common knowledge" can never be an objective
criterion for the obvious reason that what is commonly known will vary radically in
different places and times. Human understanding is constantly changing, as the tools by
which we can observe and comprehend the universe develop and as the beliefs that may
shape that understanding evolve. In medieval times, for example, it was an
incontrovertible fact that the Earth was at the center of the universe. What a Chinese
acupuncturist knows about human anatomy and health is remarkably different from what
an American-trained surgeon knows. And what Princeton concentrators in molecular
biology know today about the human genome would bewilder and astound Princeton
biology students of only two generations ago.
Although it is not worth belaboring this point further, it is definitely worth considering
some of the implications for properly acknowledging the sources of the information you
use in your own academic work. What is considered "knowledge" or "fact" for one group
may be only theory or opinion for another, as the recent controversy about teaching
evolution and creationism in the public schools reminds us. To complicate matters, each
discipline has its own evolving definitions, and its own tests, for what constitutes a "fact."
And to make matters worse, even within a discipline, experts often disagree.
The main point is that you may be unable to make informed decisions concerning what is
and what is not “common knowledge.” That will be less true as you get to know a topic
in depth, as you will for your senior thesis. But, especially in fields with which you are
less familiar, you must exercise caution. The belief that an idea or fact may be “common
knowledge” is no reason not to cite your source. It is certainly not a defense against the
charge of plagiarism, although many students offer that excuse during the disciplinary
process. Keeping in mind that your professor is the primary audience for your work, you
should ask your professor for guidance if you are uncertain. If you don’t have that
opportunity, fall back on the fundamental rule: when in doubt, cite. It is too risky to
make assumptions about what is expected or permissible.
5. Supplementary Information. Occasionally, especially in a longer research paper, you
may not be able to include all of the information or ideas from your research in the body
of your own paper. In such cases, you may want to insert a note offering supplementary
information rather than simply providing basic bibliographic information (author, title,
date and place of publication, and page numbers). In such footnotes or endnotes, you
might provide additional data to bolster your argument, or briefly present a alternative
idea that you found in one of your sources, or even list two of three additional articles on
some topic that your reader might find of interest. Such notes demonstrate the breadth
and depth of your research, and permit you to include germane, but not essential,
information or concepts without interrupting the flow of your own paper.
In all of these cases, proper citation requires that you indicate the source of any material
immediately after its use in your paper. For direct quotations, the footnote (which may be
a traditional footnote or the author’s name and page number in parenthesis) immediately
follows the closing quotation marks; for a specific piece of information, the footnote
should be placed as close as possible; for a paraphrase or a summary, the footnote may
come at the end of the sentence or paragraph.
Simply listing a source in your bibliography is not adequate acknowledgment for
specific use of that source in your paper. This point is extremely important and too
often misunderstood by students. If you list a source in your bibliography, but do not
properly place citations in the text of your paper, you can be charged with plagiarism. In
Committee on Discipline hearings, students who did not set off verbatim quotations with
quotation marks and footnotes, or who used ideas or information from a source without
proper citation in the paper itself, sometimes argue their innocence because the source is
listed in their bibliography. That puts the Committee in the difficult position of
determining whether the error was a mistake based on misunderstanding the rules of
citation or whether it was an intentional effort to deceive the reader. Either way, the
student will be found responsible for the act of plagiarism.
[Taken from Princeton’s Academic Integrity statement; language should be changed]
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. First,
footnotes or references allow 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
Deleted: Some simple rules will help
each student know how to avoid
plagiarism:¶
¶
1. Always put quotation marks around
any direct statement from someone else’s
work (or indent and single-space
extended quotations). Always give a
footnote, endnote, or other form of
citation for this quotation.¶
2. Cite any paraphrase of another
writer’s ideas or statements.¶
3. Cite any thoughts you got from a
specific source in your reading.¶
4. Cite any material, ideas, thoughts,
etc., you got from your reading that can’t
be described as general knowledge.¶
5. Cite any summary (even if in your
own words) of a discussion from one of
your sources.¶
6. Cite any charts, graphs, tables, etc.,
made by others or any you make with
others’ information.¶
7. Cite any computer algorithm you
incorporate into a computer program if
you did not write or create the algorithm
yourself.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt, First
line: 0 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Examples of Plagiarism
Example 1:
Original Version, Quoted Directly from Source:
Two plausible explanations exist for the Anasazi departure from a homeland where life
was full and complete: either life had ceased to be good and they were starved out, or
they were driven out by someone else. There are strong indications that a severe drought
extended over the plateau from 1276 to 1299, and quite possibly the Anasazi found
agriculture as they had come to depend on it impossible. There are subtle inconsistencies
1 Wayne Booth, Gregory Colomb and Joseph Williams, The Craft of Research (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1995), 170.
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Bold
to the theory, however, that tend to impeach its universality, giving rise to the second
possibility. Wandering Shoshonean hunters—raiders by nature—had begun to roam the
plateau somewhat earlier, and given the fortresslike quality of most Anasazi pueblos and
cliff dwellings, it seems possible that these raiders had begun to make part, or most, of
their living by preying on the vulnerable fields of the agriculturists. If this was the case,
the Anasazi would in time be forced out. Whatever the answer, and it may be a
combination of both, the Anasazi departed to other regions.
-Donald C. Pike
Student Version 1:
Nobody really knows why the Anasazi, the cliff dwellers, left their homes, but two
possible reasons are given. The drought of 1276-1299 may have destroyed agriculture as
the Anasazi had come to depend upon it. The Shoshonean hunters, raiders by nature,
may have also begun preying on the vulnerable fields and crops of the Indians. No one
knows for sure, but these two explanations, perhaps even in combination, may explain the
abandoned cliff dwellings.
Remarks: The writer has clearly plagiarized. Here are the reasons this is true.
1. The writer uses information that is not common knowledge, information received
from reading the original paragraph, and yet not footnoted.
2. The writer uses many of the author’s exact words and phrases—steals them, in
fact—and does not mention that the words and phrases are not original. Even
though some of the words are the writer’s, credit is not given for the knowledge in
the paragraph itself nor for the author’s direct words.
Student Version 2:
Authorities often give two explanations for the departure of the Anasazi from their
homeland. Either they were starved out, or they were driven out. There was a drought
from 1276 to 1299, and it is possible that this drought affected the farming drastically.1
Also, there was a roaming band of raiders, the Shoshonean, who may have attacked the
Anasazi.2 Whatever the answer, and maybe it was a combination of both the drought and
the invaders, the Anasazi departed to other places.
Remarks: The student is still plagiarizing. Even though the two facts have been
footnoted, the writer is still passing off many of the author’s words as though they were
the writer’s own. Just footnoting the two facts does not give the student the license to use
the author’s phrases and words without giving credit.
Student Version 3:
Anybody who has ever seen or read about the Indian cliff dwellings is perplexed by the
question, why did the Anasazi leave? Their homes were very advanced in structure and
design. They had good farms. There are two explanations generally given. The Indians
may have left because of a severe drought that occurred in 1276-1299.1 They may also
have been forced out by the Shoshonean, a tribe of raiders.2 Nobody really knows for
sure. Whatever the reason—whether it was a drought, the invaders or a combination of
both—the Anasazi left their homes, and all that remains there now are the magnificent
cliff dwellings that fascinate and intrigue everybody who sees them.3
Remarks: Finally, the student has stopped plagiarizing. The first two sentences could be
considered general knowledge or conclusions the writer came to after a preliminary
general reading, therefore not attributable to any particular source. The two reasons given
by Donald Pike in the original paragraph have been clearly footnoted. Even the last
sentence has been footnoted because the writer had used Pike’s idea that the reason might
be a combination of both. Even though the writer’s original words were used in the last
paragraph, credit has been given to the author’s idea because the information was not
known until read.
Example Two: Use of Internet Websites
I: Example where website is used verbatim:
a) Original website:
(http://www.cfr.org/publication/12717/alqaeda_in_the_islamic_maghreb_aka_salafist_group_for_pre
aching_and_combat.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpublication_list%3Ftype%3Dbackgrou
nder)
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_group_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.
II: Example in which language of website has been paraphrased:
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.
Honest Use of the Internet and the World Wide Web
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. 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.
Contrary to a common misperception, the vast majority of material on the internet is not
in the public domain. Materials acquired from the internet must be properly cited. The
following URL on the University of Puget Sound library web site contains examples of
proper methods of citing web pages, electronic journals, newspaper articles, reference
works, electronic texts, listserv messages, and email messages:
http://library.ups.edu/research/guides/citeurls.htm. In addition, whenever one uses the
ideas, graphic images, pictures, video clips, or any other material from the internet, that
material must be properly cited. To fail to do so is to commit plagiarism. Faculty are
aware of the term paper sites on the web that tempt students with the promise of readymade papers, and documents obtained in this manner are surprisingly easy to trace.
Honesty in Computer Programming
Honesty is expected in completion of computer programming assignments, as in
completion of all other assignments. Nothing in this document is intended to discourage
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
students from working with colleagues or from consulting the computer science literature
in order to gain a deeper understanding of computer programming. Discussion of a
programming assignment, helping each other to understand the purpose and requirements
of the assignment, discussions on general design ideas, and mutual help on problems of
syntax, are all encouraged. But team efforts on detailed design, implementation, and
testing are permitted only when this team effort is a clearly stated part of the assignment.
If your instructor permits the use of algorithms found in the literature, those algorithms
should be cited in the same manner you would cite published material in a term paper.
Here are three activities which are violations of honesty standards in the completion of
computer programming assignments:
1. Team Efforts: Unless the instructor states otherwise, computer programming
assignments must be completed individually. Permitting work done by a group is
unfair to students who make individual efforts to complete the programming
assignment. Beyond consultation about the general design of a program and
discussions about syntax errors, consulting with your colleagues on a program
assignment is not permitted. In particular, team work on detailed design,
implementation, or testing is not permitted. Work is a team effort whenever persons
work individually to construct parts of a programming assignment, fitting them
together into one program, or whenever persons work together to write the
programming assignment as a group.
2. Copying a computer program is plagiarism and will be dealt with like all other
instances of plagiarism. Copying occurs whenever:
a. A copy of a program not your own which can be used to meet the requirements of
a programming assignment is found in your account. Computer accounts are not
private property. Computer accounts may be reviewed by faculty or by the
coordinator of Academic Computing.
b. An algorithm in a program submitted for a grade is copied without citation from
the literature. Unless otherwise specified by the instructor, such algorithms
should not be a part of your program.
c. Your program is a transformation of a program written by another person, created,
for example, from that program by changing variable names or interchanging
blocks of code.
3. Writing all or part of a program for another student, or submitting all or part of a
program for a grade written by another person, is not permitted.
The Spectrum of Plagiarism
While everyone would agree that copying another student’s term paper is plagiarism, and
that looking at another student’s exam is cheating, there are some more nuanced instances
where students might not be clear whether an act would be viewed as plagiarism. The
weight of the assignment does not determine whether it can be copied; rather it is whether
the work represent your own original effort. For example, replicating a pre-lab
assignment is plagiarism. On the other hand, working together on difficult problems can
yield similar results which would not be considered plagiarism. Students sometimes
offer other forms of mutual help to one another. Most fall into a “gray area” that requires
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
using your own good judgment. As always, it is better to be cautious. Discussing ideas
for paper topics with a classmate you know and trust is fine, and the exchange of ideas
will probably stimulate and benefit both of you. Proofreading a friend’s paper for
typographical and grammatical errors is also acceptable, even advisable (so long as the
professor permits it). Making a small suggestion if a point is not as clear as it could be is
also fine. Rewriting parts of the paper is not. Ask your instructor before comparing and
analyzing your laboratory data with your classmates. Avoid temptation by solving your
problem sets privately.
When in doubt, ask. Each professor has his or her own expectations and requirements.
Be sure you know what these are. Ultimately, the decision whether plagiarism has
occurred rests with each individual professor.
Response to Instances of Plagiarism and Other Acts of Academic Dishonesty
Introduction. Faculty are urged to review the definition of plagiarism with their classes,
noting the specific steps that will be taken by the faculty member if an instance of
plagiarism or other act of academic dishonesty is observed. (Throughout the remainder
of this section the term “academic dishonesty” is used to include plagiarism and other
acts of academic dishonesty).
1. If a faculty member has reason to suspect academic dishonesty, the following actions
are taken:
a. The faculty member may consult with the department chair, program director, or
the registrar regarding his/her suspicion of academic dishonesty.
b. The faculty member notifies the student that she or he suspects an instance of
academic dishonesty and that an appropriate response will be made.
c. The faculty member meets with the student as a part of the process of determining
if an instance of academic dishonesty has occurred. This meeting may at the
faculty member’s discretion include the department chair or program director. If
the student is not available on campus because the semester has ended or for other
reasons, the meeting can happen by phone, by mail, or by email. If the student is
unreachable, then the faculty member determines responsibility based on the
available evidence.
d. If the faculty member determines that an instance of academic dishonesty has
occurred, he or she submits to the Registrar an Academic Dishonesty Incident
Report (available from the Office of the Registrar), including reasonable
documentation and the recommended penalties to be imposed. The faculty
member must provide a copy of the form to the student. The Registrar informs
the faculty member if this is the student’s first offense or not.
e. If there has been no prior reported instance of academic dishonesty, the penalties
imposed by the faculty member conclude the case unless either the student or the
faculty member asks for a Hearing Board. If either asks for a Hearing Board, the
dean will meet with both parties to seek an appropriate resolution. The dean may
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
also consult with the chair or director of the department or school involved. If no
resolution is possible, a Hearing Board will be convened.
2. When step 1d is reached and if a previous act of academic dishonesty has been
reported to the Office of the Registrar, the following actions are taken:
a. The Registrar notifies the faculty member that at least one previous case has been
reported.
b. The Registrar asks that a Hearing Board be convened to consider the case and to
apply appropriate sanctions (see the next section). The faculty member’s
proposed sanctions are forwarded to the board; however, depending on the gravity
of the offense, the board may impose any of the sanctions described in Step 4 of
the Hearing Board procedures listed below.
3. Academic Dishonesty Incident Report forms are retained in a confidential file
maintained by the Registrar to provide a record of academic dishonesty for a Hearing
Board should a student be the subject of more than one report. Academic Dishonesty
Incident Reports are disposed of following a student’s graduation or four years
following a student’s last enrollment, provided a Hearing Board does not direct
otherwise. Contents of the Academic Dishonesty Report Forms and subsequent
Hearing Board actions are revealed only with the written consent of the student,
unless otherwise permitted or required by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act. No entry is made on the student’s permanent academic record of an instance of
academic dishonesty, unless so directed by a Hearing Board.
Hearing Board Procedures in Matters of Plagiarism and other Acts of Academic
Dishonesty
The Hearing Board functions as a fact-finding group so that it may determine an
appropriate resolution to the charge of academic dishonesty. Its hearings are informal,
and the parties directly involved are expected to participate. To make knowingly false
statements or to otherwise act with malicious intent within the provisions of Hearing
Board procedures shall constitute grounds for further charges of academic dishonesty.
1. If an academic dishonesty complaint has been referred to the Hearing Board, a
Hearing Board is convened to review the case.
2. The Hearing Board consists of: the academic dean (chair) and the dean of students, or
their designees; two faculty members selected by the chair of the Academic Standards
Committee; and two students selected by the chair of the Academic Standards
Committee in consultation with the president of the Associated Students. The parties
directly involved may have one other person present who is not an attorney. The
chair designates a secretary, responsible for recording the salient issues before the
board and the actions of the board.
3. The parties involved are asked to submit written statements and any written
statements submitted are circulated by the chair to the members of the Hearing Board.
All parties have the right to appear before the board, and may be asked to appear
before the board, but the hearing may proceed regardless of appearance or failure to
appear. The board reviews written statements submitted by the parties and any such
other relevant material which the chair of the board deems necessary. When all
presentations are complete, the board, in executive session, reaches its resolution of
the problem.
4. The Hearing Board may find the allegations not to be factual, or the Hearing Board
may impose sanctions. Sanctions include, but are not limited to, warning, reprimand,
grade penalty, removal from the course or major, probation, dismissal, suspension,
and/or expulsion. The conclusion is presented in writing to the parties directly
involved and to such other persons as need to know the results of the hearing. If
some action is to be taken, the chair of the board is responsible for requesting that the
action be performed and in ensuring that such action is taken. Upon completion of
the hearing, the chair maintains a file of relevant material for a period of at least two
years.
5. The decision of the Hearing Board is final.