You Are A Member Of Your University’s Student Judicial Board ✓ Solved

You are a member of your university's student judicial board

You are a member of your university's student judicial board hearing a plagiarism case. The student handbook states plagiarism is a serious offense resulting in expulsion. The accused admits copying from Wikipedia but says she was never told to use formal citation or quotation marks. Do you vote to expel the student?

Paper For Above Instructions

Executive summary

As a member of the student judicial board charged with adjudicating an alleged plagiarism case, I would not immediately vote to expel the student. Instead, I would apply a proportional, evidence-based sanction after a full review that respects institutional policy, procedural fairness, and educational remediation goals. Expulsion is appropriate for deliberate, repeated, or egregious misconduct when notice and due process have been satisfied; but when a student admits copying and cites a lack of instruction in citation practice, a remedial sanction that holds the student accountable while prioritizing learning and fairness is preferable (ICAI, 2014; WPA, 2003).

Principles guiding the decision

Three principles should guide adjudication: due process and fairness, proportionality, and educational remediation. Institutional policies and professional standards emphasize both accountability and the need to teach academic integrity rather than solely to punish (ICAI, 2014; Bretag, 2016). Procedural fairness requires verifying evidence, clarifying intent, and checking whether the student had adequate notice and training regarding citation rules (Park, 2003; Howard, 1995).

Assessment of facts and evidence

First, verify the extent and nature of the copying: how much text was copied verbatim from Wikipedia, whether entire sections were used, and whether the work represented original analysis or mere assembly of copied text. The degree of verbatim copying and the presence of paraphrasing or any attribution will influence sanction severity (Sutherland-Smith, 2008).

Second, investigate notice and instruction: review the syllabus, assignment guidelines, and institutional orientation materials to determine whether citation expectations were communicated. Institutions are responsible for making expectations clear; if those expectations were not plainly stated, that mitigates culpability (WPA, 2003; Bretag, 2016).

Third, consider the student’s history and intent. A first-time student who admits the act and explains a lack of instruction is different from a repeat offender or someone who deliberately obscured sources. Ignorance of rules is not a complete defense, but evidence of good faith and lack of intent to deceive should influence the sanction (Roig, 1997; Park, 2003).

Relevant literature and policy context

Scholarly work shows that many student plagiarism cases stem from confusion about citation practices, especially with online sources such as Wikipedia (Park, 2003; Sutherland-Smith, 2008). Institutions that combine clear policy with proactive instruction reduce inadvertent plagiarism (WPA, 2003). The International Center for Academic Integrity emphasizes restorative and educative approaches that foster integrity while ensuring sanctions are consistent and transparent (ICAI, 2014).

Howard’s influential critique of the “academic death penalty” cautions against automatic expulsion for all plagiarism cases and advocates for careful assessment of intent and the educational mission of universities (Howard, 1995). The Handbook of Academic Integrity similarly recommends tiered responses and emphasizes prevention through teaching (Bretag, 2016).

Recommended adjudication process and sanction

1. Fact-finding: Confirm the extent of plagiarism (size, percentage, and specific passages) and document evidence (submitted paper, sources used, metadata) before voting.

2. Hearing and explanation: Provide the student with an opportunity to explain, present mitigating circumstances, and show any evidence of prior instruction or lack thereof (procedural fairness) (ICAI, 2014).

3. Policy interpretation: Determine whether the handbook’s language about expulsion is mandatory or advisory and whether mitigating factors permit alternative sanctions. Policies often allow discretion for first offenses and for cases involving confusion rather than deception (WPA, 2003).

4. Proportional sanction: If this is a first offense, the evidence shows copying from Wikipedia, and the student credibly lacked instruction, impose an educationally focused but consequential sanction rather than expulsion. Recommended sanctions could include: a failing grade for the assignment (or course), mandatory completion of an academic integrity workshop and citation training, supervised re-submission or alternative assignment, probation on the student record, and a formal warning that future violations will result in harsher penalties (Bretag, 2016; Roig, 1997).

5. Documentation and follow-up: Document the decision and require the student to demonstrate mastery of citation practices. Provide instructors and departments with guidance to prevent similar cases, including clearer assignment prompts and in-class instruction on source use (WPA, 2003; Sutherland-Smith, 2008).

Rationale for not expelling in this case

Expulsion is a legitimate sanction for clear, willful, and serious breaches of academic integrity—especially repeated offenses or cases involving fabrication or sale of work. However, automatic expulsion for a student who admits copying Wikipedia and claims a lack of instruction would likely fail the proportionality and fairness tests unless the copying was extensive and evidently deceptive (Howard, 1995; Park, 2003).

Universities have an obligation to teach citation and research skills; when policies are not clearly communicated or instruction is absent, a purely punitive response misses an opportunity to educate and may be legally and ethically questionable (WPA, 2003). Furthermore, restorative measures reduce recidivism and reinforce long-term academic integrity better than maximal punishment alone (ICAI, 2014).

Conclusion and final vote

Based on the evidence described, institutional obligations, and the academic integrity literature, I would not vote to expel the student at this time. Instead I would vote for a sanction that includes a failing grade for the assignment (or course, if policy warrants), mandatory academic integrity instruction, probation, and clear documentation of the offense on record. If subsequent review reveals deliberate, wide-ranging plagiarism or prior offenses, escalation to expulsion would then be justified. This approach balances responsibility, fairness, and education while upholding the institution’s integrity standards (Bretag, 2016; ICAI, 2014).

References

  • Council of Writing Program Administrators (WPA). (2003). Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices. Retrieved from https://wpacouncil.org
  • International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI). (2014). The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity. Retrieved from https://academicintegrity.org
  • American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington, DC: APA.
  • Park, C. (2003). In other (people's) words: plagiarism by university students — literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 471–488.
  • Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(7), 788–806.
  • Bretag, T. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer.
  • Sutherland-Smith, W. (2008). Plagiarism, the Internet and Student Learning: Improving Academic Integrity. Routledge.
  • Roig, M. (1997). Can undergraduate students determine whether text has been plagiarized? Journal of Research in Writing, Ethics & Behavior, 7(2), 136–150.
  • University of Oxford. (2018). Academic Integrity Policy. Retrieved from https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/integrity
  • Harvard College Writing Program. (2019). Plagiarism: What It is and How to Avoid It. Retrieved from https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/pages/avoiding-plagiarism

Related Assignments