IYCC for Geeks "Geeks making geeks smarter."

The argument is frequently made that assigning a student a failing grade and/or expelling the student is a sufficient deterrent to plagiarism. Game theory suggests that such a policy is no deterrent at all and that such policies make plagiarizing a winning strategy for ill prepared students.

The following analysis makes the assumption that the student cannot pass the course without plagiarizing. I believe the assumption to be reasonable because plagiarists spend at least as much effort plagiarizing as it would take to do legitimate work. In other words, plagiarists aren't strictly speaking lazy. In 5 of the 6 cases in my course, the plagiarists could have done less work and gotten a better grade had they simply done the work according to the directions in the syllabus. (For this analysis, I'll ignore intellectual laziness. Regurgitation of conventional wisdom is a well-tested path to tenure and subsequent promotion to faculty administration positions.)

The second assumption is that the course is required to graduate. Few students take courses unless they must, and those that do enjoy doing the work and score well.

The third assumption is that the actual incidence of penalties is uncertain, for two reasons. First, detection is uncertain. No search engine or software program can be 100% effective. In addition, a variety of gambits are available for evading detection, such as: rewording or rearranging the source, finding obscure sources, using fee-based services, or obtaining private assistance from lovers, sorority sisters, friends, etc. Second, the secretive nature of University proceedings and Honor Committees introduces additional variability in the outcomes. If the process is not transparent to the public, the attractive, glib, manipulative, connected, or rich student can influence the outcome and avoid penalties.

Assume two students who, as stated previously, cannot pass the course without plagiarizing. The first student nonetheless attempts to do the work without plagiarizing. The second student plagiarizes.

Which has the best strategy? Under these conditions, the plagiarist wins.

The first student turns in the work, receives an "F", and fails to graduate. Thus, we score the honest student with a zero return.

On the other hand, the plagiarist turns in a plagiarized work. If caught, the plagiarist presumptively receives an "F" and is expelled, subject to the plagiarist's ability to mitigate the penalties discussed below. Because the course was necessary to graduate anyway, expulsion no different than simply failing to graduate. Thus, the plagiarist is in no worse position than the first student.

However, because detection is uncertain, the plagiarist has the possibility of not only passing but receiving a good grade. Plagiarists usually can't tell a good essay from a bad one, so the expected outcomes would be distributed among the various possible letter grades. (I don't have any empirical evidence what the distribution would be, but my sense is that it would approximate a discrete uniform distribution.)

The plagiarist's expected outcome is:

• the summation, for each respective letter grade (A, B, C, D, or F), of
  • the probability the plagiarized work receives the respective letter grade,
  • multiplied by the value of the respective letter grade
• multiplied by the probability of escaping detection.

Thus, as long as the probability of escaping detection is non-zero, the plagiarist's expected outcome exceeds the first student's expected outcome.

The analysis can be further extended by factoring in the mitigating effects of the possibility that the secrecy of proceedings enables the plagiarist to attenuate or eliminate the effects of getting caught. Essentially, a secret process that allows for input by the student gives the student a "second bite at the apple" by enabling the student to affect the outcome. The formulaic expression of the mitigation is left as an exercise for tenured faculty who don't actually grade students work.

Thus, plagiarizing really does pay if the only penalties are altering the grade and/or expulsion. If the adjudication process is secret, the plagiarist gets an added bonus because the plagiarist has the opportunity to mitigate consequences.

Professor Orosco and I continue our debate on the ethical considerations of humiliation here.

In two postings, Orosco suggested that failing to privately counsel the plagarists before humiliating them deprives them of their dignity as responsible persons. Such an argument is an interesting echo of Kant's "Critique of Practical Reason". (It may also be a reference to the Church's continual advocacy of the dignity of the human person, but because he didn't make his argument in theological terms, I leave to another day that interesting and important discussion.)

The following is a portion of my response:

"[C]ounseling" these grown-ups would have been immoral. Failing to treat them as adults by rehashing the wrongness of deceit and suspending its consequences robs all the students of their dignity as autonomous persons subject to moral law.

Kant's "Critique of Practical Reason" speaks directly to the necessity of humiliation as a precondition to justifiable self-esteem:

But self-conceit reason strikes down altogether, since all claims to self-esteem which precede agreement with the moral law are vain and unjustifiable, for the certainty of a state of mind that coincides with this law is the first condition of personal worth (as we shall presently show more clearly), and prior to this conformity any pretension to worth is false and unlawful. Now the propensity to self-esteem is one of the inclinations which the moral law checks, inasmuch as that esteem rests only on morality. Therefore the moral law breaks down self-conceit. But as this law is something positive in itself, namely, the form of an intellectual causality, that is, of freedom, it must be an object of respect; for, by opposing the subjective antagonism of the inclinations, it weakens self-conceit; and since it even breaks down, that is, humiliates, this conceit, it is an object of the highest respect and, consequently, is the foundation of a positive feeling which is not of empirical origin, but is known a priori. Therefore respect for the moral law is a feeling which is produced by an intellectual cause, and this feeling is the only one that we know quite a priori and the necessity of which we can perceive. . . .

The negative effect on feeling (unpleasantness) is pathological, like every influence on feeling and like every feeling generally. But as an effect of the consciousness of the moral law, and consequently in relation to a supersensible cause, namely, the subject of pure practical reason which is the supreme lawgiver, this feeling of a rational being affected by inclinations is called humiliation (intellectual self-depreciation); but with reference to the positive source of this humiliation, the law, it is respect for it. There is indeed no feeling for this law; but inasmuch as it removes the resistance out of the way, this removal of an obstacle is, in the judgement of reason, esteemed equivalent to a positive help to its causality. Therefore this feeling may also be called a feeling of respect for the moral law, and for both reasons together a moral feeling.

Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Practical Reason, Chapter 3 (T.K. Abbott, trans.)

Michael J. Faris takes up the theme and counters (in part):

However, you seem to be using humiliation to mean something differently — not a relation to moral law, but a public shaming.

Shaming works differently from guilt (the latter of which I see arising out of Kantian humiliation). According to Sartre, shame is a feeling that comes from outside oneself, from another person or public, and is a judgment about the personhood of someone. That is, if you are shamed, you are deemed inadequate as a person.

Shaming, to me, is not pedagogically sound. It rests on judgment of personhood (dignity) rather than on judgment of actions. If you truly believe Kant's theory of morality, then it seems you would help students "realize" a prior moral law through reason, addressing their transgressions, not through counseling, but through rational discourse, rather than through public humiliation (of the modern, shaming sense).

To which, I respond:

Although Mr. Faris' semantical distinction between humiliation and shame seems strained to me (I don't think there is a real difference), he is on to something that bears considering.

Mr. Faris correctly puts his finger on two issues, both of which are important. First, humiliation serves the moral law through the inward negative feeling brought about by a candid comparison of one's actions to the moral law. Second, "shaming" (in the sense Mr. Faris appears to use the word) admittedly carries a less clear moral foundation.

I do not agree with Mr. Faris that shaming ipso facto is pedagogically unsound. In this case, shame is morally and pedagogically compelling. The problem here is that students simply do not believe that plagiarism is wrong or even taken seriously by the University, despite continual admonishments in every class and my own inimitably emphatic, repeated, and direct statements. Shame has the salutatory effect of allowing the actor to see him or herself as others do, enabling the actor to learn from the community. Thus, humiliation and shame, in this case at least, are and should be coincident.

In my own personal life, I know this to be true, and I suspect it's true in others' lives as well. All of us, myself included, are guilty of actions that don't conform to morality. Sometimes, I am able to recognize inwardly that I have transgressed and feel the pain of inward humiliation. Unfortunately, there have been other times when I could not or would not face my own wrongs and shame is the only reasonable antidote.

Shame is appropriate, and even morally compelling, when wrongs are committed in public. Without a public condemnation, the entire community's sense of morality suffers. The collective conscience begins to erode, and eventually, even the meaning of morality disappears. Plagiarism in public is just such a case and must be publicly condemned.

This blog has posed a rather important question: "Should Students be Publicly Humiliated for Plagiarism?"

What follows is the response I posted there:

I'm a business owner in Laredo, Texas. I had never taught a college course before, and I never asked to teach. The department asked me to teach this course. I accepted because of my commitment to Laredo's future.

I worked hard on the syllabus, and everything in the syllabus was deliberate. Specifically, the language about dishonesty was based on moral and pedagogical principles. The department chairman, Dr. Balaji Janamanchi, reviewed the syllabus with me line-by-line, and I made a few changes in response to his comments.

I was surprised by how common and blatant plagiarism turned out to be. Six students in one class is an extraordinarily high number. I thought and prayed about what to do for about a week before following through on my promise. I decided I had only one moral choice. I am certain it was right.

My decision was guided by two factors: What is good for the students themselves? and What is good for other students?

What is good for the students themselves?

I am cognizant of the extraordinary moral difficulty involved when deciding what is in another's best interests. Nonetheless, I am convinced that public disclosure, including the concomitant humiliation, is in the interests of the student because it is the best way to teach the student about the consequences of dishonesty and discourage the student from plagiarizing again. Humiliation is inextricably part of a well-formed conscience.

The Vice President-elect, Senator Joseph Biden, is perhaps the most well-known plagiarizer in recent history. Biden was caught plagiarizing while at Syracuse Law School. The school gave him an F, required him to retake the course, and subsequently treated the incident as confidential. See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5DD173BF934A2575AC0A...

Unfortunately, Biden didn't learn his lesson at law school. He continued to plagiarize for another 20 years. During the 1988 presidential campaign, Senator Biden's career of plagiarizing came to light, and he was forced to end his presidential bid. (For details of Mr. Biden's plagiarism career, see, e.g., http://www.the-idler.com/IDLER-02/1-23.html, http://www.slate.com/id/2198597/, and http://www.slate.com/id/2198543/.)

It is my belief that the Syracuse incident left a subtle and subliminal message in Biden's mind: plagiarism is not a deal breaker. Consequently, he continued to plagiarize. Unfortunately for the Senator, the facts came to public light at the worst possible time: when he was running for President.

I believe that had the Syracuse incident been available publicly, Mr. Biden would have actually learned his lesson and would not have plagiarized later. Twenty years later, if the incident had come up at all, the Senator would have plausibly and convincingly maintained that the incident was a youthful mistake.

There is yet another reason for publicity in such cases: unjustly accused students are protected, for two reasons. One, a professor will be more careful before blowing the whistle. I myself knew that posting the students' names would be appropriately subject to intense public scrutiny. Therefore, I construed every ambiguity in the students' favor. Two, public disclosure ensures that subsequent determinations by the university are founded on evidence and dispensed fairly.

What is good for other students?

On the second question, four reasons convince me: deterrents, fairness, predictability, and preparedness for life.

Deterrents -- Only if everyone knows that violations of plagiarism will be exposed and punished will the penalties for plagiarism be an effective deterrent. (As a lawyer once told me after hearing of another lawyer's disbarment, "I'm damn sure not going to do THAT again!") In fact, one of the six students had not plagiarized (to my knowledge) until the week before I announced my findings. Had I announced the plagiarism earlier, it is possible that student would not have plagiarized at all.

Fairness -- Honest students should have, in fairness, the knowledge that their legitimate work is valued more than a plagiarizer's illegitimate work. In my course, the students were required to post their essays on a public website for all to see. Thus, anyone in the world could have detected the plagiarism. Had another student noticed the plagiarism but saw no action, the honest student would reasonably believe that the process is unfair.

Predictability -- By failing publicly to follow through on ubiquitous warnings about plagiarism, universities have convinced students that the purported indignation against deceit is itself deceitful and that the entire process is capricious. TAMIU's actions in this case have confirmed my suspicions that such a perception is entirely justified.

Preparedness for life -- In the real world, deceitful actions have consequences, and those consequences are often public. Borrowers lose credit ratings, employees get fired, spouses divorce, businesses fail, political careers end, and professionals go to jail. Acts of moral turpitude rightly carry public and humiliating consequences in real life, and students need to be prepared.

In closing, I submit that education died when educators came to believe that greater self-esteem leads to greater learning. In fact, the causality is backwards: self-esteem is the result of learning, not the cause.

Happy Trails,

Loye Young
Isaac & Young Computer Company
Laredo, Texas
http://www.iycc.net

In response to the article on InsideHigherEd.com, and the many comments it engendered, I posted this morning the following comment on the InsideHigherEd.com site:

I’ve followed with great interest the comments posted to this article, and I’ve been amused at the extrapolations some have made from the available data. I have a few comments and clarifications that may be helpful to the community.

It’s not surprising that TAMIU faculty who cannot or will not read the law are protecting students who cannot or will not read the syllabus. FERPA is simply not an issue here, and it’s not even a close case. DOE regulations and the court decisions construing with the Act are clear. In fact, the department chair had previously asked me to analyze FERPA in the context of my course, and my written analysis was distributed to everyone up the chain of command, including President Ray Keck and Provost Pablo Arenaz. No official from the University, the Texas A&M System, or the State of Texas has expressed to me any fault with my analysis or its conclusions.

Students have no privacy rights with respect to content the students themselves post publicly online. The students were warned in advance of the public nature of the coursework and the consequences of plagiarism and were given an opportunity to drop the course without penalty. In fact, the students’ act of publishing their work on a public website was itself written consent. To date, no student has raised privacy concerns to me (though one has raised ex post embarrassment concerns).

Further, no “educational record” was ever created. I never recorded any grade. I simply did what I said in the syllabus I would do, stated my intention to follow University policy, and noted that the students have appeal rights.

All students had and still have the opportunity to respond, privately and publicly. Out of the six, only two have contacted me. One student admitted guilt but argued the infraction was not worthy of a failing grade. The other claimed she did not know she was supposed to cite her sources, a claim I find specious and in bad faith.

I personally read each plagiarized essay and made my own determinations, and statements to the contrary are simply false and ill-informed. After I first discovered a plagiarized essay, I had my staff search the Web and flag for me postings that were possible plagiarism violations. I reviewed each case and construed every ambiguity in favor of the student. I approved some essays my staff flagged, either because the student had sufficiently cited the source material or because I thought it was too close a case to warrant a failing grade.

On a moral and pedagogical level, public disclosure is appropriate. Humiliation is a healthy part of a well-informed conscience and is singularly effective for correcting deceptive behavior and preventing recurrence. Those who practice deceit fear detection and notoriety above all else. Only the emotional pain of disclosure can reform deceit. My firm belief is that Syracuse did Joseph Biden no favor by keeping his plagiarism confidential. I believe that had the faculty done exactly as it did, but publicized its determinations, Biden would not have plagiarized for another 20 years and would not have ended his 1988 Presidential bid.

The debate among faculty inside TAMIU has degenerated from “Why can’t Johnny read and write?” to “Should Johnny read and write at all, and if so, should we grade it?” When reviewing the course syllabus with me, the department chair himself told me explicitly, “We have to baby students because they are not ready for college level work.”

Only in “The Wizard of Oz” can a diploma educate a scarecrow. Giving an illiterate student a college diploma is an artifice to the student and waste of taxpayers’ money. The effects of dumbing-down TAMIU shows. TAMIU is graduating functionally illiterate students. Many if not most of the graduates of the business college simply cannot or will not read and follow simple instructions, and they certainly cannot write simple declarative sentences. As a member of the Laredo business community, I am horrified that TAMIU graduates cannot spell, punctuate, or even capitalize correctly. They don’t know the difference between good and bad writing, and they don’t understand why good writing skills are relevant to their careers.

As a taxpayer and as an employer in Laredo, I am cheated of my tax dollars and deprived of an educated workforce from which to hire.

I stand by my actions, and I appreciate the many supportive public and private comments I’ve received. I also respect and welcome those who openly disagree with me. This is a conversation long overdue.

Happy Trails,

Loye Young
Isaac & Young Computer Company
Laredo, Texas
http://www.iycc.net

I was asked today about how the provisions of the TAMIU Honor Code affect the procedures I followed when disclosing the plagiarism in my course.

I followed the letter and spirit of the TAMIU Honor Code. Under the circumstances, the Honor Code required me to publish the students' names in accordance with the syllabus.

The TAMIU Honor Code is found in Appendix E of the Faculty Handbook, found here.

I direct your attention to the following portion of the Honor Code dealing with instructors' obligations:

Instructors (including adjuncts), administrators, and staff share in the responsibility and authority to challenge and make known acts that violate the TAMIU Honor Code.

Instructors are expected to take proactive steps to promote academic integrity including, but not limited to, adding language to their syllabi that describes prohibited academic behavior and the consequences of such activity, and having an open discussion about academic integrity with students in their courses early in the semester. Additionally, instructors are expected to enforce prohibitions against academic dishonesty as required by the TAMIU Faculty Handbook, Section 5.7 (page 81, 2007-2008 edition). Specifically, they are expected to enforce specified grade penalties for cheating or plagiarism, as outlined in their syllabi or as required by their department, college, or the Faculty Handbook(Section 5.7). When the grade penalty for a severe breach of the Honor Code leads to an automatic “F” in the course (as is likely to be the case for extensive or intentional plagiarism, cheating on an exam, etc.), faculty must report such cases to their chairs, deans, and the provost, who will in turn notify the Honors Council so that a record may be kept of the incident. Less severe breaches of the Honor Code may also be reported in the same manner and for the same reason.

Happy Trails,

Loye Young
Isaac & Young Computer Company
Laredo, Texas
http://www.iycc.net

The Laredo Morning Times ran a story this morning about plagiarism at TAMIU. In it, the University defended its recently weakened policy towards plagiarism and accused me of violating the law. The following is the response that I posted to LMT's website:

"The University's contention that I violated any law underscores just how deceitful the University has become. Before posting the students' names, I analyzed FERPA at the department chair's request. Being a former lawyer, I carefully read the Act and related regulations and submitted my written analysis to the University. To date, no one has expressed to me any fault in the analysis or with my conclusions.

"A statement of my intention to comply with TAMIU policy by automatically failing the students who publicly posted plagiarized work clearly is legal and should be supported by the University. To do otherwise further encourages cheating and makes a mockery of honest students' hard work.

"It should be pointed out that I am a businessman in Laredo and was asked to teach the course as a favor to the University. I agreed to help because I believe Laredo can become a world-class technology center. I spent much more time on the course than the $3,000 per semester that the University pays. I would never have accepted the invitation had I known how little the University cares about actually educating its students or how desperate the University is for revenue.

"Truly, the University has wasted my time and the time and money of its students."

Happy Trails,

Loye Young
Isaac & Young Computer Company
Laredo, Texas
http://www.iycc.net

To my students,

Effective immediately, I am no longer your instructor.

I wish all of you well. Every one of you are welcome to contact me if I can assist you now or in the future.

Happy Trails,

Loye Young

I have had to spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with the University over the plagiarism in the class. Consequently, I'm postponing the midterm, and I'm considering resigning.

The department faculty has been consistently obstreperous and meddlesome in the conduct of the course. From the day I started teaching this class, I have received many pleas from University faculty to teach the class as it has always been taught in the past. Department faculty has explicitly told me that my course is too hard and that the students are not ready for college-level work. The stated concern is that if students drop the class or if they fail, the University would lose tuition funds and state funding.

Now, the Provost and other faculty are upset that I have publicly released the names of students caught plagiarizing.Apparently, the faculty believes it's better to keep such matters quiet and out of public view. In a twist of irony, I've even been accused of violating the law. (I've read the law, and I haven't violated it.)

I am amazed at such twisted thinking because the students themselves posted the essays on a publicly viewable site. It is my view that the students who are working hard to learn difficult material have the right to know and trust that cheating will be zealously exposed and punished.

I didn't apply for this job; the University asked me to teach it. As an adjunct, I'm not teaching to further my career or to make money. In fact, the time I've spent on the course far exceeds what I'm paid for it. I accepted the gig solely because I am dedicated to turning Laredo into a world-class technology center. I can't do that without a base of well-educated and well-trained young people in the community.

I'll keep you posted. In the meantime, turn in your projects, and spend the extra time working on your other classes.

Happy Trails,

Loye Young

I'm having problems setting up my created webpage on GoDaddy

http://www.mercomputer.com/

Does anybody know what I'm doing wrong?

In light of the many students who still have not yet turned in their assignments, I will release the instructions for the exam tomorrow.

In addition, I must give you a stern warning about academic honesty, especially now that you will be working on your midterm examination.

I have wasted much of today reading plagiarized essays. Six (6) students have already been caught and will receive an "F" for the course. The Dean of the College, the Chair of the Department, the Provost, and the Executive Director for Student Life have all been notified. The students may be subject to University disciplinary actions, and appeals to such a decision should be in conformance with University regulations.

As stated in the syllabus, "No form of dishonesty is acceptable. I will promptly and publicly fail and humiliate anyone caught lying, cheating, or stealing. That includes academic dishonesty, copyright violations, software piracy, or any other form of dishonesty." True to my word, the students caught so far are:

• Monica Soto
• Jose Palos
• Marla Resendez
• Dolores E. Schandua
• Alexis Solis
• Epifanio Sanchez

My staff has made a preliminary investigation of all essays and believes the most egregious violators have been found. However, I have not yet read all of the essays by all the other students, so it is possible that more will be found.

As I stated in the orientation meeting, the basic difference between plagiarizing and research is that research cites the origin of the information. Many of the essays I have read do not fully rise to the level of plagiarism because the author acknowledged the origin, but the author did not fully and properly cite the source of the information. This "gray area" will lead to a reduction in the score for the work, and depending on the circumstances an admonishment may also be in order. CITE YOUR SOURCE PROPERLY, SPECIFICALLY, AND FULLY. It should be readily apparent what information came from precisely what source.

From a practical matter, your own opinion or thoughts about a subject is really very meaningless unless you are able to back it up with references to authoritative sources. In addition, if you have written well, the reader will want to learn more about the subject, and links or citations to more information aids the reader (and makes you look smart).

Finally, plagiarism is manifestly unfair and disrespectful to your classmates. There are students taking the course who are working very, very hard to learn a subject that in many case is foreign to them. A plagiarizer is implicitly treating the honest, hard-working student as a dupe. Of course, the plagiarizer is the dupe or else would not need to plagiarize.

The midterm is going to be a difficult assignment. You will be expected to think, cite relevant resources, and write well. You will also be expected to demonstrate a command of all the information presented in the class so far. Above all, you are expected to do your own work and conduct yourself with honor. You are allowed, indeed expected, to marshall all the information at your disposal, but you shall not plagiarize, collaborate with another, or otherwise commit any act of dishonesty.

Happy Trails,

Loye Young