In response to the Rigney v. Ichabod Crane School District case, how do you feel this restricts institutions such as USF from offering a variety of courses that may involve risks including injury or death? For example, USF offers diving courses to students. I am sure that liability waivers are required to be signed, but if someone is seriously injured during a USF sponsored dive trip, a lawsuit will surely follow.
Do you believe with the policy statement from the University of Sydney that there is a distinct difference between negligent plagiarism and dishonest plagiarism? If not, is plagiarism just plagiarism at any level?
Should all institutions mandate an ethics course as a basic requirement for an undergraduate degree program?
Higher Education institutions need to be aware of the risks involved in their courses. An ounce of prevention can go a long way in preventing liability and negligence lawsuits. Institutions need to involve Risk Management to determine potential issues that may arise. That being said, I don't think institutions should shy away from course offerings or off-campus educational experiences like Study Abroad for fear of being sued. This would be an injustice to the students.
I agree with the distinction between negligent plagiarism and dishonest plagiarism. It's about the intent and pre-meditation. Negligent plagiarism just shows that the student wasn't aware of correct citation practices. The student should be corrected, and, subsequently documented should the student try to use this excuse again.
It would be great if all students took an Ethics Course, but I can't see it as a mandate in a Public University. I wonder if there would be discussion of this violating the First Ammendment. Are we teaching students how they should act and think? Is this akin to establishing religion? (Just playing devil's advocate - or whichever demon in which you choose to believe. Ha!)
Here are my quick thoughts on the Rigney v. Ichabond case. I believe that the defendant was negligent for not packing the closet appropriately; therefore the waiver could not be enforced. However, if the plaintiff sprained an ankle during the aerobic class and there was no negligence than I can see this as a foreseeable event (i.e. spraining an ankle while exercising is pretty common) and the waiver could hold up in the court of law. Overall, I think legal waivers are good for pointing out the associated risks with the activity and may the waiver maybe enforceable if the defendant truly was not negligent; however, I don’t think liability waivers are a “get of jail free card” for everything. Institutions just need to try their best to make sure students are safe and rules are being followed for high risk activities/classes. The law suits will always come, but you can try to minimize your risk.
The discussion of a distinction between “negligent plagiarism” and “dishonest plagiarism” was very timely for me. I had had a conversation on this topic with one of our Asst. Deans on the day before I read this article. Our discussion was whether a student who had made the same “mistake” of plagiarism in 2 separate classes should be brought forward for a disciplinary hearing. Clearly delineating the difference between “negligent” and “dishonest” is more difficult than one might imagine; in this particular instance, we had a student with a number of issues including a learning disability that affects the student’s understanding of verbal instructions. Proving that this student was actively intending to commit plagiarism would have been difficult, so we worked out a resolution of putting our counseling instructions in writing and having this student work with the teaching-learning center and library staff to proof future papers and learn to accurately use quotes. I’m not sure that simply requiring an ethics course to be taken as part of the curriculum would be effective. However, many college curriculums do require students to take some type of humanities course(s), and ethics might be one of these courses. When students choose a course rather than being told they must take it, I think they often have a more open regard for the course and topics taught… One of our former (now deceased) adjunct faculty at PHCC was an amazing 75 year old instructor who helped students “learn to think”. I recall a student telling me after her first 3 class meetings with this teacher, “I hadn’t really thought about what being an “ethical” person meant. Now I’m finding examples of this type of behavior in everything I do.” Not bad for three weeks of class!
I agree with Matthew that liability waivers are good to have but should not be a "get out of jail free" card for institutions. This case was interesting in that, as described in the Pavela assessment of the topic, the defendant and the plaintiff had a responsibility to ensure the plaintiff's safety. Yes, there was negligence and hopefully that storage closet is now better organized. That is what I hope came from it all.
Interestingly, what if this had happened to the instructor of the course vs. the student? A Workers Comp claim would be filed in some states. In that case, the employer (in this case the defendant institution) would take responsibility for covering the medical bills related to the injury. This just seems like "the right thing to do" and would have been a way to avoid legal dispute altogether. If we had more flexibility to do the right thing, perhaps we could avoid more law suits. I think there is a fear that if you do the right thing, you would be acting as though you are admitting negligence, and therefore result in tremendous financial judgments against you. It's really sad to me this is the case. Law sometimes gets in the way of people doing the right thing because fear of the law drives the decision-making vs. common sense and logic.
I also agree with Michelle that it would be a terrible disservice to the students if we did not offer courses that involved certain risks. If so, any class could have potential risks. It would be hard to discern the classes with "risk" vs. those without. I think avoiding liability through changing educational content or applied learning opportunities impedes our very purpose of teaching and learning. I think we should always consider the trade-off between liability reduction and decreased teaching and learning before we make a decision to not do, or perhaps do, something for fear of a law suit.
Cynthia - I think you make a great point about doing "what is right" v. "what legally must be done." In my opinion it would minimize the number of frivolous lawsuits.
Waivers may not be enforceable in a lawsuit for "blanket" protection, but as Matthew points out at least notifies participants of risks.
Finally, like Donna, I too am dealing with and struggle with not only the distinction between “negligent plagiarism” and “dishonest plagiarism” but with the faculty member's interpretation of the policy and potential outcomes. I believe (again) if we (the institution) do not follow our policies (regardless of personal thought) we open the institution up to potential litigation. If it is the process the faculty/staff do not like then the policy needs to be amended formally - it just can't be changed to meet the individual faculty member's style.
Thanks all for the comments. In regards to the negligent vs. dishonest plagiarism, Ken makes a great point that I agree with. If you set a template, standard, or policy, you can be setting yourself up for a liability if that is not applied exactly as stated. In regards to plagiarism, I would imagine that you would find many differences within the same institution as far as where the actual line where negligent becomes dishonest.
In response to the Rigney v. Ichabod Crane School District case, how do you feel this restricts institutions such as USF from offering a variety of courses that may involve risks including injury or death? For example, USF offers diving courses to students. I am sure that liability waivers are required to be signed, but if someone is seriously injured during a USF sponsored dive trip, a lawsuit will surely follow.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe with the policy statement from the University of Sydney that there is a distinct difference between negligent plagiarism and dishonest plagiarism? If not, is plagiarism just plagiarism at any level?
Should all institutions mandate an ethics course as a basic requirement for an undergraduate degree program?
Higher Education institutions need to be aware of the risks involved in their courses. An ounce of prevention can go a long way in preventing liability and negligence lawsuits. Institutions need to involve Risk Management to determine potential issues that may arise. That being said, I don't think institutions should shy away from course offerings or off-campus educational experiences like Study Abroad for fear of being sued. This would be an injustice to the students.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the distinction between negligent plagiarism and dishonest plagiarism. It's about the intent and pre-meditation. Negligent plagiarism just shows that the student wasn't aware of correct citation practices. The student should be corrected, and, subsequently documented should the student try to use this excuse again.
It would be great if all students took an Ethics Course, but I can't see it as a mandate in a Public University. I wonder if there would be discussion of this violating the First Ammendment. Are we teaching students how they should act and think? Is this akin to establishing religion? (Just playing devil's advocate - or whichever demon in which you choose to believe. Ha!)
Here are my quick thoughts on the Rigney v. Ichabond case. I believe that the defendant was negligent for not packing the closet appropriately; therefore the waiver could not be enforced. However, if the plaintiff sprained an ankle during the aerobic class and there was no negligence than I can see this as a foreseeable event (i.e. spraining an ankle while exercising is pretty common) and the waiver could hold up in the court of law. Overall, I think legal waivers are good for pointing out the associated risks with the activity and may the waiver maybe enforceable if the defendant truly was not negligent; however, I don’t think liability waivers are a “get of jail free card” for everything. Institutions just need to try their best to make sure students are safe and rules are being followed for high risk activities/classes. The law suits will always come, but you can try to minimize your risk.
ReplyDeleteThe discussion of a distinction between “negligent plagiarism” and “dishonest plagiarism” was very timely for me. I had had a conversation on this topic with one of our Asst. Deans on the day before I read this article. Our discussion was whether a student who had made the same “mistake” of plagiarism in 2 separate classes should be brought forward for a disciplinary hearing. Clearly delineating the difference between “negligent” and “dishonest” is more difficult than one might imagine; in this particular instance, we had a student with a number of issues including a learning disability that affects the student’s understanding of verbal instructions. Proving that this student was actively intending to commit plagiarism would have been difficult, so we worked out a resolution of putting our counseling instructions in writing and having this student work with the teaching-learning center and library staff to proof future papers and learn to accurately use quotes.
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure that simply requiring an ethics course to be taken as part of the curriculum would be effective. However, many college curriculums do require students to take some type of humanities course(s), and ethics might be one of these courses. When students choose a course rather than being told they must take it, I think they often have a more open regard for the course and topics taught… One of our former (now deceased) adjunct faculty at PHCC was an amazing 75 year old instructor who helped students “learn to think”. I recall a student telling me after her first 3 class meetings with this teacher, “I hadn’t really thought about what being an “ethical” person meant. Now I’m finding examples of this type of behavior in everything I do.” Not bad for three weeks of class!
I agree with Matthew that liability waivers are good to have but should not be a "get out of jail free" card for institutions. This case was interesting in that, as described in the Pavela assessment of the topic, the defendant and the plaintiff had a responsibility to ensure the plaintiff's safety. Yes, there was negligence and hopefully that storage closet is now better organized. That is what I hope came from it all.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, what if this had happened to the instructor of the course vs. the student? A Workers Comp claim would be filed in some states. In that case, the employer (in this case the defendant institution) would take responsibility for covering the medical bills related to the injury. This just seems like "the right thing to do" and would have been a way to avoid legal dispute altogether. If we had more flexibility to do the right thing, perhaps we could avoid more law suits. I think there is a fear that if you do the right thing, you would be acting as though you are admitting negligence, and therefore result in tremendous financial judgments against you. It's really sad to me this is the case. Law sometimes gets in the way of people doing the right thing because fear of the law drives the decision-making vs. common sense and logic.
I also agree with Michelle that it would be a terrible disservice to the students if we did not offer courses that involved certain risks. If so, any class could have potential risks. It would be hard to discern the classes with "risk" vs. those without. I think avoiding liability through changing educational content or applied learning opportunities impedes our very purpose of teaching and learning. I think we should always consider the trade-off between liability reduction and decreased teaching and learning before we make a decision to not do, or perhaps do, something for fear of a law suit.
Cynthia - I think you make a great point about doing "what is right" v. "what legally must be done." In my opinion it would minimize the number of frivolous lawsuits.
ReplyDeleteWaivers may not be enforceable in a lawsuit for "blanket" protection, but as Matthew points out at least notifies participants of risks.
Finally, like Donna, I too am dealing with and struggle with not only the distinction between “negligent plagiarism” and “dishonest plagiarism” but with the faculty member's interpretation of the policy and potential outcomes. I believe (again) if we (the institution) do not follow our policies (regardless of personal thought) we open the institution up to potential litigation. If it is the process the faculty/staff do not like then the policy needs to be amended formally - it just can't be changed to meet the individual faculty member's style.
Thanks all for the comments. In regards to the negligent vs. dishonest plagiarism, Ken makes a great point that I agree with. If you set a template, standard, or policy, you can be setting yourself up for a liability if that is not applied exactly as stated. In regards to plagiarism, I would imagine that you would find many differences within the same institution as far as where the actual line where negligent becomes dishonest.
ReplyDelete