TL;DR: In a first-world society dominated by technology, univerisities are plagued with the increasing rate of plagiarism, and the popular tactic to approach academic fraud as an issue of morality may not be enough to combat it.

In the few years between 1993 and 1997, plagiarism increased 744%, and considering today’s technological advances from 1997, there is no question that plagiarism is growing more rampantly than ever. With just a simple Google search, thousands of sites pop up willing to accept money in exchange for a “professionally” written essay students can slap their name on and turn in. Additionally, technology is changing classroom dynamics, especially among universities, by creating a more collaborative atmosphere during exams and written assignments. Even Harvard University, although claimed to be the second best establishment for higher education in the United States, is a frequent target of the consequences of ever-advancing technology. Harvard recently experienced its largest scandal of plagiarism when 125 students were found collaborating on a single exam. Addressing this issue, the dean of undergraduate students recognizes the root of the cause: “The enabling role of technology is a big part of this picture. As Mr. Harris states, it is “the ease of sharing” that catalyzes acts of academic dishonesty that is more complex than writing answers on the back of hands.

Of course, some may disagree on the grounds that technology is making plagiarism easier; some argue that, as society progresses further into an electronic world, plagiarizing work becomes more difficult for anything can be googled. The ability to simply copy and paste text shifted from a useful tool to risky behavior as any professor can use a free online plagiarism checker that efficiently scans essays to detect not online word-for-word translations but also paraphrased, reworded, and rearranged texts. While it is true that sites like PlagiarismCheck make detecting academic dishonesty impressively simplistic, the argument does not hold true for the unauthorized collaboration that takes place in and out of the classroom. Without the use of technology, it would have been near impossible for over 120 students at Harvard to work together on one exam. Thus, in situations as such, the responsibility falls on the university’s community to catch prohibited collaboration without the feasibility of an online plagiarism checker.

Despite such argument, technology is undoubtedly altering the rules of plagiarism. Are universities effectively keeping up with the ever-changing dynamic of academic fraudulence?

Upon further research surrounding the scandal, I found that Harvard governs with an Honor Code similar to the legislation that I’ve experienced at university. Comparable to Harvard, Allegheny College operates under an Honor Code that classifies as “a student code, developed and upheld by the students themselves rather than imposed by the College administration. The College assumes that the integrity of each student and of the student body as a whole will be upheld. A primary responsibility of each student is the maintenance of honesty in one’s own academic work.” Under this definition, the responsibility to uphold academic integrity “of the entire College community” is fundamentally placed on the students. Directly in its policy, the Honor Code administration weakly “assumes” that students not only understand the code but acknowledge it under all academic circumstances. Allegheny also relies on its students to be the eyes that report Honor Code violations. With a heavily student-centered administration, it is to no surprise that the implementation of the Honor Code is inconsistent and faulty.

For example, according to Section 4 of Allegheny College’s policy, “A student, when submitting a test or paper, shall sign their full name in signature.” However, while initially appearing that the college itself universally applies this requirement, Section 4 continues to explain that “each professor may determine how their students will recognize the pledge.” The lack of an omnipresent rule requiring a signature creates a gray area among how the policy is upheld. From my educational experience at Allegheny, I have observed that each professor does in fact have his/her own implementation of the Honor Code policy. While some professors demand a signature for each test and paper, other instructors neglect the policy entirely. Thus, the gray area around the Honor Code creates an individual, subjective experience for each student concerning plagiarism. Not only does this policy disrupt a communal definition for submitting one’s own work but creates the dilemma where some students will get away with plagiarizing while others face consequences. If a student is found suspicious of academic dishonesty, the Faculty Handbook states that “the instructor may choose to withdraw the complaint or forward it to the Dean of Students Office.” While it is logical for the instructor to take part in the process of identifying plagiarism, the professor should not be the initial reliability to reprimand a student as it defeats both reliability and validity of the Honor Code; the Faculty Guide for the Honor Code, a document that should unambiguously require all professors to follow a strict plan in response to plagiarism, simply “encourages” instructors to inform students about their individualistic ruling against citations. There are endless opportunities for personal bias to corrupt both the student’s education about plagiarism and the consequences that would follow if suspicion of academic dishonesty arises.

As shown by Allegheny’s stated legislation, an Honor Code promotes the importance of intrinsic motivation and encourages academic honesty as an individual choice of morality without the threat of higher authority; however, is plagiarism a self-acknowledged and peer-reported act of dishonesty? Or, should school executive boards have more involvement to prevent and punish academic fraud?

Unlike Allegheny, China’s Ministry of Education responded to the extreme rise in academic fraud by enhancing its strict policy on plagiarism and increasing its punishments. Instead of individualizing the process of confronting academic dishonesty, Chinese education created a holistic legislation requiring universities to comply with its narrative of plagiaristic behavior. However, even after enforcing harsher punishments, students are still slipping through the system. When Peking University graduate Yu Yanru was caught plagiarizing and had her degree revoked, Yanru fought the revocation by bringing the college to court through loopholes in China’s nationwide academic degree legislation.

Analyzing Harvard’s scandal, Harvard president Drew Gilpin suggests that “there is work to be done to ensure that every student at Harvard understands” its community’s values of academic dishonesty. Concerning Allegheny College, not only increasing education about plagiarism is essential but also removing ambiguity from its Honor Code and implementing a universal ruling for all professors to enforce such Code. The foundation behind educating students about the school’s policy, implementing methodologies to prevent dishonesty, and punishing those that plagiarize should not be subjective; simply assuming that students will abide by a code ran by fellow classmates and relying on a professor’s individual interpretation of the Honor Code is not effective. At first glance, universities may assume that leniency inspires personal academic integrity. But on closer inspection, the various loopholes among an Honor Code lacking overarching authority depletes the credibility of its purpose. Students are not exclusively part of the college’s community but a member of the greater society, and once graduated, they are subjected to dishonesty punished by law rather than student-run administrations; a Stanford University study suggests that “cheating does not end at graduation.” As technology is increasing both the methodologies and detection of plagiarism, universities should adapt by strengthening policies currently disconnected from the greater community rather than weakening centralized authority. While China demonstrates the necessity to hone lenient policies, China’s Ministry of Education also emulates the dangers of a vague or subjective legislation. Although I agree with Susan D. Blum that “the two main approaches that institutions use to prevent [plagiarism] call for treating plagiarism either as morally wrong or as a crime,” I believe universities can implement both methods and find an effective balance between morality and criminality. If a simple letter grade is going to determine the rest of one’s educational and business career, why should those who cheat their way through the system get away with just a slap on the wrist?

Classroom flickr photo by Victor Björklund shared under a Creative Commons (BY) license