Plagiarism: A Case Study

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica (2016), “[p]lagiarism” is defined as “the act of taking the writings of another person and passing them off as one’s own”. In fact, plagiarism committed in academic society can be likened to fraudulent acts or larceny on the positive law. Just as the intention and the result of given criminal offence are simultaneously considered when discussing criminal acts such as certain forgery, so can the case[s] of plagiarism be approached based on two conflicting perspectives. In the light of ethics which is foundation for conduct regulation, one is categorized as deontological ethics and the other as teleological one. In other words, some people seem to think that results outweigh causes while others place a greater …show more content…
These two kinds of perspectives might be applied to plagiarism regulations. For example, academic Todd Pettigrew (2010) asserts that plagiarism is considered a kind of immoral crime, so that the intention of the person directly concerned should be addressed. On the other hand, the student Teitel (2011), in terms of teleological ethics, refutes this viewpoint and insists that plagiarism is sometimes defined as a technical error with no malicious intention but which stems from mere ignorance committed by academically immature student. Thus, in this case, implementation of the regulations should be flexible. Considering these two opposed viewpoints and then scrutinizing concrete provisions concerning plagiarism in university and college, the aims and characteristics of the codes already made would be easier to analyze in a more detailed …show more content…
Carefully analyzing each definition of plagiarism in Seneca College (“Appendix E”, n.d.), all the verbs used in each provision such as “[s]ubmit” and “[a]llow” are centered not on any intention but on concrete behavior which no doubt results in committing plagiarism. In line with that, when one student is alleged to have plagiarized, Academic Honesty Committee in the college requires the faculty or invigilator to communicate with the student and investigate whether there was “occurrence” of plagiarism or not (“Academic Honesty Report”, n.d.). The same point of view is applied to the penalty for plagiarism. Unlike the punishment of plagiarism in the University of Toronto, the penalties for those who have plagiarized in Seneca College are based on how many violations have been committed; as the number of plagiarism is increased from one to three, the degree of penalties proportionally mounts from zero grade on the work where the offense “occurred” to mandatory withdrawal (“9. Academic Honesty”, n.d.). Therefore, in general, Seneca College seems to consistently focus on teleological viewpoint on both definition of and penalty for