Harvard University President Accused of Plagiarizing PhD Thesis

There is no definition of plagiarism in their one paragraph honor code (just as the other terms aren't defined). I provided a definition in post 238 from an academic source.

 

No, it was the first one that came up. But since you asked, here is the definition in the source you just linked:

Again, "deliberately" is a synonym for "with intent" in this instance.

 

Again, you are looking really hard for the word "intent" when it's no where to be found. I will post these quotes again since you are having trouble grasping this concept.

No "intent" in this explanation.

"Citation is important because it shows that you obtained information or ideas from another source, such as a textbook, website, or research article. By failing to cite, you are falsely portraying someone else's ideas as your own; this is considered plagiarism, which is a form of cheating."

And Harvard's Honor Code: Don't see "intent" anywhere as well.

 

I am not looking for the word "intent," just the idea of it. Tell me the difference between "deliberately" and "with intent" in this context. You provided the source that utilized the word "deliberately" when defining plagiarism (although both my source and your source seem to pull that definition from a common source).

 

I’ve heard different opinions.

 

Again, show me in the Harvard Code of Honor(only school that matters in this case) where "intent" is used to describe not attributing sources?

 

Interesting. If you google “does plagiarism require intent”, multiple academic sources specifically say it doesn’t require intent.

 

The one paragraph code of honor is not a legal document. It is a statement of intent. It does not define the term "plagiarism" at all. You have not provided a Harvard-specific definition of plagiarism.

 

The only source I could find on that seems to be UIUC's code, where they appear to be discussing intent in regards to permission to use another's work. I don't think there is a single body that would find, for example, the fact that two people wrote a similar sentence independently without knowledge of the other author, that this would constitute plagiarism.

 

Seems like I'm getting some mixed search results. BYU, for example, distinguishes between intentional plagiarism and inadvertent plagiarism, though it's critical of both.

Academic Honesty Policy

Intentional plagiarism is a form of intellectual theft that violates widely recognized principles of academic integrity as well as the Honor Code. Such plagiarism may subject the student to appropriate disciplinary action administered through the university Honor Code Office, in addition to academic sanctions that may be applied by an instructor. Inadvertent plagiarism, which may not be a violation of the Honor Code, is nevertheless a form of intellectual carelessness that is unacceptable in the academic community. Plagiarism of any kind is completely contrary to the established practices of higher education where all members of the university are expected to acknowledge the original intellectual work of others that is included in their own work. In some cases, plagiarism may also involve violations of copyright law.

Intentional Plagiarism—Intentional plagiarism is the deliberate act of representing the words, ideas, or data of another as one’s own without providing proper attribution to the author through quotation, reference, or footnote.

Inadvertent Plagiarism—Inadvertent plagiarism involves the inappropriate, but nondeliberate, use of another’s words, ideas, or data without proper attribution. Inadvertent plagiarism usually results from an ignorant failure to follow established rules for documenting sources or from simply not being sufficiently careful in research and writing. Although not a violation of the Honor Code, inadvertent plagiarism is a form of academic misconduct for which an instructor can impose appropriate academic sanctions. Students who are in doubt as to whether they are providing proper attribution have the responsibility to consult with their instructor and obtain guidance.

 

I eagerly await our friends who so despise plagiarism to demand this powerful person's resignation:
Gorsuch's writings borrow from other authors

 

What are the odds she stole it from someone else?

 

I think she’s most under fire for her “anti-semitism.” A lot of rich Jewish donors wanted her gone.

 

i would hope alot of others would too, being a anti-semite is not a good look these days, or any other for that

 

Except she's not an antisemite. She defended free expression principles while saying she personally found that sort of speech distasteful.

Still waiting for one of the people who wanted Gay's head on a pike to be outraged by Gorsuch's plagiarism.

 

1. Gay wasn’t forced out for plagiarizing. That was just a free gift with purchase to her critics after her disastrous Congressional testimony.

2. Given modern technology a lot of plagiarisers will be uncovered the next few decades.

3. I don’t think she’s truly anti-Semitic but she certainly blew a lay up when she offered up a contextual answer after being asked a simple question as to whether calling for the genocide of Jewish students was considered bullying at Harvard. The free speech angle is being overblown here, as speech that’s free constitutionally can still violate bullying standards. I can guarantee you if it was Hakeem Jeffries doing the questioning instead of Elise Stefanik (who I despise), and the question was “does calling for the lynching of blacks at Harvard constitute bullying under the Harvard behavioral code”?, the answer would not have been contextual. And that’s where she effed up.

 

Someone give me the cliff notes, I don’t have the time. Is it a boy or girl?

 

Not if you're a private university that has a free expression policy on par with the First Amendment. Targeted threats and harassment are punishable. General statements of political views should not be, no matter how terrible those views are. Let social consequences do the job.