Plagiarism at Harvard

[secundem_artem]

I don't have the attention span to read the never ending bun fights between Marshie and Wahoo, so I'll just paste in a a quote from John McWhirter in today's NY Times.  The longer article makes the point that setting up an argument by restating, with minor changes, generally accepted information is not the same "plagiarism" as claiming someone's original ideas as one's own.

So..... it seems there may be cases of PLAGIARISM as well as cases of plagiarism.  From what i can tell, Gay's transgressions appear to be in the 2nd group.  I'd argue that the whole situation is about 25% about academic honesty and about 75% about Fuck Harvard.

That said, I love schadenfreude. 

McWhirter's prose (properly with citations acknowledged) is below.

I find this passage at the start of one of the chapters: "In recent years researchers in artificial intelligence have unveiled systems that seem to 'write' without any human involvement. The best of these churn out remarkably convincing prose."

This is a simple statement of fact, provided as background for the meat of the chapter. It's not a notable idea, and it's not written with meaningful style. But if that sentence were to appear in a book of mine, even decades later, precisely as written or with just a couple of words changed, I'd be guilty of plagiarism. However, I'd be fine if I just reworded the thought minimally as: "Artificial intelligence researchers have recently developed algorithms that seem to 'write' by themselves, with the most advanced of them easily generating text that is uncannily similar to what a human would write."

A few phrases flipped and a few words changed, but the precise same content — so what purpose would my minimal rewording have served? It would seem to be a kind of politesse at best, prioritizing form over content.

[dismalist]

Once again, McWorther in all honor, but I think he's wrong here. His error may be discipline dependent. For his example, instead of rewriting

"In recent years researchers in artificial intelligence have unveiled systems that seem to 'write' without any human involvement. The best of these churn out remarkably convincing prose."

by changing a few words, I would write: According to Smith [1776] and others¹, "in recent years ... ".

What we seem to have are two conventions clashing. I'm fairly certain that the Poli Sci convention is close to the Econ convention. I can't speak to conventions in Letters.

If I am wrong about two distinct existing conventions, and there is just one then McWorter is just playing with words, wishing there were two conventions. Useful definitions depend on existing conventions.

[Wahoo Redux]

I don't have the attention span to read the never ending bun fights between Marshie and Wahoo

Sometimes we agree.

[marshwiggle]

I don't have the attention span to read the never ending bun fights between Marshie and Wahoo,

One of the reasons I enjoy having these discussions is that Wahoo, who I think I'm safe in thinking would identify as progressive, is willing to point out when even progressives go too far. I respect that.

I'll just paste in a a quote from John McWhirter in today's NY Times.  The longer article makes the point that setting up an argument by restating, with minor changes, generally accepted information is not the same "plagiarism" as claiming someone's original ideas as one's own.

So..... it seems there may be cases of PLAGIARISM as well as cases of plagiarism.  From what i can tell, Gay's transgressions appear to be in the 2nd group. 

I like John McWhorter, but as I've said I can't begin to take these "gradations" of plagiarism seriously unless and until people want to say how they apply to everyone, from first year students to PhD candidates and professionals.

Any serious attempt to be consistent about it I'll be glad to entertain.

[Langue_doc]

Freshmen comp students are drilled on what constitutes plagiarism. Here is a typical example of exercises students are given to decide whether or not a sentence or phrase in considered to be plagiarized:

Exercise 3: Summarizing, Paraphrasing, Quoting, and Citing

Instructors should explain the proper use of summary, paraphrase, quotation, and citation before assigning the following exercise.

The passage below, taken from George Trevelyan's England in the Age of Wycliffe, 1368–1520, discusses the Peasant's Rising of 1381. The sentences that follow it use the passage as a source. Determine whether the sentences use and cite the material in the passage properly or whether they constitute plagiarism, and rewrite the sentences where necessary. All notation symbols refer to the footnote at the bottom of the exercise.

The demand for personal freedom, which had been the chief cause of revolt, was for the moment crushed. The Parliament of November gratefully confirmed the King's repeal of the liberating charters. A unanimous vote of county and town members together contradicted all rumours that the emancipation of the serfs was seriously considered by Parliament. The Rising had failed. But the process of manumission, which had been going on for so long, continued steadily during succeeding generations. Under the Tudors the last remains of serfage were swept away, and in James the First's reign it became a legal maxim that every Englishman was free. It must remain a matter of opinion whether this process was accelerated or retarded by the Peasants' Rising; it is impossible to apply hard facts to the solution of such a problem. (George Macaulay Trevelyan, England in the Age of Wycliffe, 1368-1520 (1899; reprint, New York: Harper and Row, 1963), 253.)

The events that followed the Peasant's Rising crushed the chief cause of the revolt: the demand for personal freedom.1 [Plagiarism. The sentence uses identical language to that found in the passage from Trevelyan: "chief cause of the revolt" and "the demand for personal freedom."]

Trevelyan found it difficult to determine the effect that the Peasant's Rising had on the development of freedom in England.1 [Correct. The sentence summarizes Trevelyan's idea and cites the source.]

Although freedom did not come all at once for England's serfs, George Trevelyan claims in England in the Age of Wycliffe, 1368–1520, that manumission "continued steadily during succeeding generations." [Incorrect citation. The writer may be trying to cite the source in the text, rather than in the notes, and fails to include the page number. But since the writer does place the borrowed material in quotation marks and attempts to cite Trevelyan, the sentence does not represent plagiarism.]

According to George Trevelyan, a vote confirming the King's repeal of the liberating charters "contradicted all rumours that the emancipation of the serfs was seriously considered by Parliament."1 [Plagiarism. Although the writer correctly cites the material in quotation marks, the phrase "confirming the King's repeal of the liberating charters" precisely tracks Trevelyan's language but remains unattributed.]

The idea that all Englishmen were born free did not become a common belief until the reign of James the First.1 [Correct. The sentence summarizes Trevelyan's claim and cites the source.]

Although the actions of the King and Parliament after the Peasant's Rising denied freedom to England's serfs, serfdom nevertheless continued to erode. By the reign of the Tudors, it had disappeared completely, and by the time of James the First, all Englishmen considered themselves free. The role played by the Peasant's Rising in this transition remains unclear. [Plagiarism. This is a good summary of Trevelyan's paragraph, but it fails to cite the source.]

The King of England reneged on his promises to the peasants, and in November 1381, Parliament confirmed the King's actions. [Correct. Since the sentence relies on Trevelyan only for factual material that is widely available elsewhere, the writer does not need to cite the source.]
1 George Macaulay Trevelyan, England in the Age of Wycliffe, 1368-1520 (1899; reprint, New York: Harper and Row, 1963), 253.

The so-called "duplicative language" is a new-fangled term, presumably designed to protect the egos and reputations of higher-ups who should know better.

[Wahoo Redux]

One of the reasons I enjoy having these discussions is that Wahoo, who I think I'm safe in thinking would identify as progressive

No.  "Progressive" is largely conservative jargon.  I don't know anyone who self-identifies that way.  I am a registered independent and moderate left-leaning.

Never heard of a "bun fight" before.  I love learning new things here.

[marshwiggle]

One of the reasons I enjoy having these discussions is that Wahoo, who I think I'm safe in thinking would identify as progressive

No.  "Progressive" is largely conservative jargon.  I don't know anyone who self-identifies that way.  I am a registered independent and moderate left-leaning.

I hear it all the time, especially in the media. Maybe there's a difference between Canadian and U.S. usage?

Never heard of a "bun fight" before.  I love learning new things here.

I think a "bun fight" is like in a high school cafeteria, where students are throwing buns at each other. (Either that or a conflict between Amish girls, or people with similar head coverings.)

[Wahoo Redux]

One of the reasons I enjoy having these discussions is that Wahoo, who I think I'm safe in thinking would identify as progressive

No.  "Progressive" is largely conservative jargon.  I don't know anyone who self-identifies that way.  I am a registered independent and moderate left-leaning.

I hear it all the time, especially in the media. Maybe there's a difference between Canadian and U.S. usage?

"Progressive" is used in American media, but again, it is a term found in rightwing media.

Never heard of a "bun fight" before.  I love learning new things here.

I think a "bun fight" is like in a high school cafeteria, where students are throwing buns at each other. (Either that or a conflict between Amish girls, or people with similar head coverings.)

[/quote]

I thought it was when bunnies fought with dandelions. 

[jimbogumbo]

Progressive as a label has a long history in the US, and for many decades was not a pejorative at all. That has changed both with the right wing media as well as (in many ways) mainstream media in the last 10-15 years.

[Wahoo Redux]

Now it is the chief diversity officer.

Harvard's Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer Sherri A. Charleston faced 40 allegations of plagiarism in an anonymous complaint filed with the University on Monday.

The complaint, first reported by the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday, alleged 28 instances of plagiarism in Charleston's doctoral dissertation at the University of Michigan and 12 allegations against a 2014 article in the Journal of Negro Education, co-authored with her husband LaVar J. Charleston and Michigan State University College of Education Dean Jerlando F.L. Jackson

[marshwiggle]

Now it is the chief diversity officer.

Harvard's Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer Sherri A. Charleston faced 40 allegations of plagiarism in an anonymous complaint filed with the University on Monday.

The complaint, first reported by the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday, alleged 28 instances of plagiarism in Charleston's doctoral dissertation at the University of Michigan and 12 allegations against a 2014 article in the Journal of Negro Education, co-authored with her husband LaVar J. Charleston and Michigan State University College of Education Dean Jerlando F.L. Jackson

Curiouser and curiouser

The complaint also alleged that extensive passages in Sherri Charleston's 2009 Ph.D. dissertation lifted language from a 2005 book written by Rebecca J. Scott, a professor of history and law at the University of Michigan. Scott co-chaired Charleston's doctoral committee and advised Charleston on her dissertation.

Many passages describe or analyze historical events using phrases — and sometimes whole sentences — identical to those in Scott's book. In each case, Charleston cites Scott but does not quote the shared language.

That a lot of chutzpah; lifting passages for your dissertation from someone on your committee.

[Langue_doc]

These are the folks who require professors

January 30, 2024, 10:32:33 AM
to tell them about my deliberate efforts at Justice, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (JDEIB). I don't actively do anything other than try to treat folks fairly and not be an asshole.

See the JDEIB thread. It's perfectly legit to plagiraize as long as you use the right buzz words to virtue signal your anti-racist accomplishments.

[Parasaurolophus]

Now it is the chief diversity officer.

Harvard's Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer Sherri A. Charleston faced 40 allegations of plagiarism in an anonymous complaint filed with the University on Monday.

The complaint, first reported by the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday, alleged 28 instances of plagiarism in Charleston's doctoral dissertation at the University of Michigan and 12 allegations against a 2014 article in the Journal of Negro Education, co-authored with her husband LaVar J. Charleston and Michigan State University College of Education Dean Jerlando F.L. Jackson

Curiouser and curiouser

The complaint also alleged that extensive passages in Sherri Charleston's 2009 Ph.D. dissertation lifted language from a 2005 book written by Rebecca J. Scott, a professor of history and law at the University of Michigan. Scott co-chaired Charleston's doctoral committee and advised Charleston on her dissertation.

Many passages describe or analyze historical events using phrases — and sometimes whole sentences — identical to those in Scott's book. In each case, Charleston cites Scott but does not quote the shared language.

That a lot of chutzpah; lifting passages for your dissertation from someone on your committee.

I'm reasonably confident I would notice, were I the supervisor in question!

I dunno that this particular case warrants the same treatment as Gay's, since it doesn't seem to me that it's a leadership position (and if the sources are credited, just not appropriately quoted).

I'm mot going to investigate the details because it's not worth my time. But it seems to be absolutely both (1) something that shouldn't happen, and (2) part of a bad-faith witch hunt.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Now it is the chief diversity officer.

Harvard's Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer Sherri A. Charleston faced 40 allegations of plagiarism in an anonymous complaint filed with the University on Monday.

The complaint, first reported by the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday, alleged 28 instances of plagiarism in Charleston's doctoral dissertation at the University of Michigan and 12 allegations against a 2014 article in the Journal of Negro Education, co-authored with her husband LaVar J. Charleston and Michigan State University College of Education Dean Jerlando F.L. Jackson

Curiouser and curiouser

The complaint also alleged that extensive passages in Sherri Charleston's 2009 Ph.D. dissertation lifted language from a 2005 book written by Rebecca J. Scott, a professor of history and law at the University of Michigan. Scott co-chaired Charleston's doctoral committee and advised Charleston on her dissertation.

Many passages describe or analyze historical events using phrases — and sometimes whole sentences — identical to those in Scott's book. In each case, Charleston cites Scott but does not quote the shared language.

That a lot of chutzpah; lifting passages for your dissertation from someone on your committee.

I'm reasonably confident I would notice, were I the supervisor in question!

I dunno that this particular case warrants the same treatment as Gay's, since it doesn't seem to me that it's a leadership position (and if the sources are credited, just not appropriately quoted).

I'm mot going to investigate the details because it's not worth my time. But it seems to be absolutely both (1) something that shouldn't happen, and (2) part of a bad-faith witch hunt.

I doubt I would notice, honestly. I can barely remember the details of some of my articles, let alone the specific wording.

[apl68]

These are the folks who require professors

January 30, 2024, 10:32:33 AM
to tell them about my deliberate efforts at Justice, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (JDEIB). I don't actively do anything other than try to treat folks fairly and not be an asshole.

See the JDEIB thread. It's perfectly legit to plagiraize as long as you use the right buzz words to virtue signal your anti-racist accomplishments.

I really do wonder whether this branch of academia hasn't developed a tendency to let ideology trump academic standards.  I wish the fact that many of the charges being leveled are, as others have pointed out, being made in bad faith wasn't obscuring what may be a real story here.

Re "bun fights" (Which sounds like a specialized form of cafeteria food fight):  Years ago, on an entirely different forum, I heard this sort of thing referred to as "slap fights."