![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
major_clangerYou might have seen this story about how a student thrown out of the University of Kent for plagiarism is apparently going to sue the university on the grounds that it should have detected and dealt with his offence earlier.
I think it's safe to say he has two hopes, and Bob Hope has snuffed it.
If Mr Gunn is actually suing - and I would be most interested to know if he has actually submitted a claim - then he will presumably be asking for what is termed equitable remedy. What this means is that he is asking the court to overrule an existing state of affairs (his being expelled for dishonesty) on the grounds that it is unreasonable and unfair.
This concept comes from the days when what we would now term civil law (when you sue someone) was administered by the Court of the King's Bench. The common law, as it was known, became very rigid and formalised, to the point that the court was often bound by procedure and precedent to find a particular sort of case in a particular way, irrespective of whether this outcome was 'fair'. To remedy this, a separate court was set up under the Chancellor to apply fair, or equitable principles to such disputes. This Court of Chancery developed and applied so-called Equity, a branch of law that complemented and where necessary overrode the common law.
Today these courts exist as the (at present) Queen's Bench Division and Chancery Division of the High Court, and both, together with lower courts such as the County Court, can apply both common law and equity. Equity still overrules common law though, so courts have the power to quash an otherwise legally correct decision if it is judged to be unfair.
However... there are some key principles of equity that are as old as the Court of Chancery itself, but which still apply. Foremost amongst these is "He who comes to Equity must do so with clean hands". In other words, the courts will not give you an equitable remedy to escape the consequences of your own dishonesty.
I therefore confidently assert that Mr Gunn's case will fail, if it is not struck out first as being frivolous and and abuse of the process of court. To be frank, I remain doubtful that it is actually going ahead: "I am suing X" often means "I am going to talk to a solicitor". Even should Mr Gunn find a lawyer daft enough to take instruction, he'll have to pay his own way as I cannot believe that he would get legal aid. Which means that if pigs fly and he does get his day in court, not only will he lose but he will get a hefty legal bill, both from his own lawyers and whichever of M'Learned Friends the university retain to defend this ludicrous case.
Mind you, if it does come to trial, it'll be one to watch. Even if only for entertainment value...
MC
I think it's safe to say he has two hopes, and Bob Hope has snuffed it.
If Mr Gunn is actually suing - and I would be most interested to know if he has actually submitted a claim - then he will presumably be asking for what is termed equitable remedy. What this means is that he is asking the court to overrule an existing state of affairs (his being expelled for dishonesty) on the grounds that it is unreasonable and unfair.
This concept comes from the days when what we would now term civil law (when you sue someone) was administered by the Court of the King's Bench. The common law, as it was known, became very rigid and formalised, to the point that the court was often bound by procedure and precedent to find a particular sort of case in a particular way, irrespective of whether this outcome was 'fair'. To remedy this, a separate court was set up under the Chancellor to apply fair, or equitable principles to such disputes. This Court of Chancery developed and applied so-called Equity, a branch of law that complemented and where necessary overrode the common law.
Today these courts exist as the (at present) Queen's Bench Division and Chancery Division of the High Court, and both, together with lower courts such as the County Court, can apply both common law and equity. Equity still overrules common law though, so courts have the power to quash an otherwise legally correct decision if it is judged to be unfair.
However... there are some key principles of equity that are as old as the Court of Chancery itself, but which still apply. Foremost amongst these is "He who comes to Equity must do so with clean hands". In other words, the courts will not give you an equitable remedy to escape the consequences of your own dishonesty.
I therefore confidently assert that Mr Gunn's case will fail, if it is not struck out first as being frivolous and and abuse of the process of court. To be frank, I remain doubtful that it is actually going ahead: "I am suing X" often means "I am going to talk to a solicitor". Even should Mr Gunn find a lawyer daft enough to take instruction, he'll have to pay his own way as I cannot believe that he would get legal aid. Which means that if pigs fly and he does get his day in court, not only will he lose but he will get a hefty legal bill, both from his own lawyers and whichever of M'Learned Friends the university retain to defend this ludicrous case.
Mind you, if it does come to trial, it'll be one to watch. Even if only for entertainment value...
MC
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-01 02:29 pm (UTC)My first reaction on reading this story was that it was a spoof (and being El Reg, I wouldn't put it past them).
However,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ias's recent experiences with students, and in particular their parents, has taught me that Wimslow Boy-like parents still exist. Unfortunately.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-01 02:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-01 03:10 pm (UTC)Amazing. At the risk of sounding middle-aged, I'm amazed at the attitude of some students now. The university regulations says that they're not allowed to do something. Not doing said something is a matter of common sense. They have the regulations forced down their throats for at least the first year of their university careers, until they have no excuse for not knowing the rules. And they still think that they can claim ignorance of the rules as a valid defence of their actions!
no subject
Date: 2004-06-01 04:40 pm (UTC)"I got away with plagiarising for three years. Therefore you should have let me off/pulled me up sooner."
no subject
Date: 2004-06-01 11:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-01 11:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-01 11:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-01 11:28 pm (UTC)Let's say that he was in the habit of cut-and-pasting his essays direct from websites. Let's also say that he thought this was "research", which makes him a bit of a twit, but not an unusual twit, unfortunately. Let's say that he would then pull the cut-and-pasted sections together and deliver his essays, which were, in fact, mostly not his writing.
This kind of plagiarism is very hard to spot unless you access the source material. It's entirely possible that it was only spotted when one of the people marking his essays stumbled across one of the websites he had used and recognised the turn of phrase - and that could have happened at any time. At that point, someone might have done some searching, rechecking, and discovered that all of his essays over the past three years were of that quality.
If the university made it clear from the very beginning that cut-and-pasting essays is not allowed*, because essays have to be written, and direct textual steals are not permitted, then they've done all they reasonably can do: you cannot search the internet on every phrase used in a student essay to make sure that the student hasn't been copying.
*Which I'm prepared to bet they did. I was told that, back when I was in uni, and that was 1988-1992.
I'm not saying the kid wasn't a wally...
Date: 2004-06-01 11:36 pm (UTC)Re: I'm not saying the kid wasn't a wally...
Date: 2004-06-01 11:42 pm (UTC)Not if the day before his exams was the day on which they established that the amount of plagiarism he'd been doing was sufficient to cost him his degree. That's what I'm saying. And that seems to me to be entirely plausible, because it's that exact kind of plagiarism that is very difficult to spot.
Re: I'm not saying the kid wasn't a wally...
Date: 2004-06-03 06:44 am (UTC)But they had told him that plagiarists would fail, every year, in the University regulations and departmental handbook, at study skills sessions. I'd be very surprised if the handbook did not explicitly state was plagiarism was. The departmental handbook is given to all students and they are expected to read it - they are told from day one that ignorance of the rules and procedures in the handbook is no defence.
As a poster said above, it is very likely they did not discover the extent of his plagiarism until the end of the year - Kent are trailing plagiarism detection software that is able to pick up stuff that your average academic can't. They are probably using the stuff provided through the JISC. Plagiarism using web sites is becoming more and more rife in all UK universities and all the academics I know are very clear to their students as to what is acceptable. I myself, as a mere librarian, give all students I teach a full rant on why acknowledging your sources is so important. Quote by all means, but make it clear you are quoting.
And he was an adult. Just a very stupid and dishonest one.
Joining the argument a little late...
Date: 2004-06-03 06:48 am (UTC)I'm seventeen, and I'm pretty amazed myself. So it isn't just the older generations who think that.