Slashdot Mirror
Online Plagiarist Sues University
raistphrk writes "The Reg reports that an English student at the University of Kent has sued the university after the university caught him ripping his papers off the Internet and kicked him out of the English program. I guess the stakes are now being raised for universities that use services to check for plagiarized papers."
No it isn't. Read the article.
The basis for the suit is: "I've been plagarizing for 3.9 years, and right as I was about to graduate, you told me I couldn't. You shouldn't be allowed to kick someone out for plagarism after they pay you for 4 years of education."
This is a very silly argument, but if the student can find some evidence that the administration had knowledge of the plagarism scheme, led him to believe he would graduate, he paid all his fees, and *then* they pulled the plug, that would probably be just as immoral as the plagarism itself.
Lets be honest with ourselves. Who plagarizes anymore and thinks its okay?
The usual rule is that you can only not re-use material you wrote for another reason if someone else owns the copyright (i.e. you sold it) or you have already been awarded course credit for it (on any course, even at another institution).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
There are two reasons.
1) Citations are useful for people doing research. If I read your paper, and I want to know more about a specific item, I will look at your references and get other related books. This is not applicable or useful in this case because the only purpose of the paper was to demonstrate the student's abilities, NOT to create a work that will be read and used by others.
2) To make a clear distinction between what is YOUR thinking and what thinking you BORROWED from someone else. This is the primary reason why plagarism is frowned upon; you're tricking the teacher into thinking you did work when all you did was copy someone else's. However, this isn't applicable here either, because the student actually did the work.
Really, this is just the product of a paranoid administration more obsessed with the letter of the law than the purpose.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
God damn it... read about the case before you go and think you know enough to judge.
1. She wasn't driving.
2. The car wasn't even moving when she spilled it.
3. She only sued after McDonalds offered her $800 to reimburse her for her $20,000 legal bills.
4. She didn't even end up with the $2.9 million or whatever everyone thinks, it was reduced on appeal to $480,000, then settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.
Now, you still may disagree with the ruling, and that's okay, but it is *not* a clear cut case and you can't just spout out about someone being stupid enough to put the cup between her legs while driving. There are good arguments for why McDonalds shouldn't have to pay, but you brought up a whole... ZERO of them.
Great story, but unfortunately it's a hoax.
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
Why is it that this comes up so much and why is it that I have to explain it so often?
The "McDonald's Case" as it's called was only one in a series of cases in which courts had repeatedly ruled that McDonald's coffee was being served too hot.
The company had been ordered by the courts numerous times to serve coffee at a lower temperature but refused to do so. When this woman sued the court decided to actualy make the company take notice.
The huge judgement awarded against the McDonald's Corporation was largely a way for the court to punish McDonald's for its repeated failure to comply with previous decisions.
Now, does the stupid woman need the huge quantity of money? Of course not. Those funds would be better awarded to a burn unit at a local hospital or some other worthy cause. Unfortuantely the US legal system does not make provisions for judgements like that, and punitive damages must be awarded to a plaintiff.
The amount has to be huge because the McDonald's corporation isn't going to give a shit if you award $20,000. It needs to be a big enough judgement that the company has to declare it as an item on its SEC filings.
Of course the legal system shouldn't be the slot machine it is today. At the same time, billion dollar corporations should not be able to hold themselves above civil judgements by virtue of their excessive wealth.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
The student's argument only has merit if the University is selling the degree for the money. However, this is not the case. The money is for attending classes and for the educational services of the University. The money is NOT for grades or a degree. The student received the classes and the educational services, therefore the student was not deprived of anything he was entitled to for the tuition money spent. The degree is awarded for meeting the academic requirements of the University, not for paying tuition. The student, because he cheated, did not meet the academic requirements, and therefore is not entitled to a degree.