Poshard has reacted to the allegations openly and with acceptance of their seriousness, and he has aggressively sought their public dismissal.
A different blog refers to the SAME actions in the following manner:
Poshard and his supporters have so far offered a shockingly weak defense, and have done so under the pretense of addressing this problem in a forthright and cooperative manner.
The blog (correctly) predicts Poshard will survive:
Is it likely to play out this way? I doubt it. The process seems already to be muddled and confused. There is no clear precedent. The matter is being smothered by committees. Past instances of plagiarism by administration officials have been ignored. Poshard’s strategy seems to be to defend his character and motives without offering any real defense of his dissertation, and that might work. If he’s determined not to resign, and he isn’t bothered by the bad publicity (or subjected to any real pressure by those who are), then the only opinions that matter are those of the University’s Board of Trustees. Poshard seems confident that they won’t turn on him. He may be right about that.
An interesting sideshow to the Poshard plagiarism matter originates in an opinion piece in the Southern Illinoisan by an SIU professor W.D. Wallis.
Wallis purports to address the issues of the function of a doctoral committee and why plagiarism is important: Clearly some Southern Illinoisan readers and even some SIU students, faculty and administrators do not understand the role of a doctoral committee, the importance of a doctoral dissertation, and why plagiarism is important. Wallis fails in his objectives.
Wallis argues that the thesis committee has NO responsibility to detect copying of the words of others: When they recommend a degree, they are saying that this person deserves a degree on the basis of the evidence presented. If the evidence is fraudulent, then action is up to the University, not the committee. If the thesis committee, made up mostly of people who have some familiarity with the topic of the thesis (i.e., chemistry professors will comprise the bulk of the committee for a student offerring a dissertation in chemistry) can't spot "word-for-word" copying from texts of relevance to the thesis, then such members have no reason for being on the committee. One might as well have everyday folks if the technical people don't know the technology.
Wallis fails miserably in explaining "why plagiarism is important." For HIS authority, Wallis goes to a website, www.plagiarism.com. One notes the text: Plagiarism.org is the educational arm of iParadigms LLC. iParadigms is the marketer of turnitin software used to detect plagiarism. Thus, rather than going to an academic site for his authority on plagiarism, Wallis goes to the educational "arm" of a commercial vendor of plagiarism detection software. BUT Wallis does not even quote the site appropriately.
The plagiarism.com site has the following text:
But can words and ideas really be stolen?
According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file).
All of the following are considered plagiarism:
turning in someone else's work as your own
copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
IPBiz points out that the website is saying that "words and ideas" can be "stolen" according to U.S. law. The website is very clearly referring to copyright law. IPBiz notes that the website then shifts gears to things which are considered plagiarism, WITHOUT linking to U.S. law. As IPBiz and others have repeatedly noted, copyright infringement and plagiarism are entirely DISTINCT concepts.
Wallis, however, cites plagiarism.com for the following proposition:
A student sometimes cheats in a dissertation by stealing somebody else's work. This is called plagiarism. Under U.S. law, this includes "copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit, failing to put a quotation in quotation marks, (and) changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit" (from www.Plagiarism.org).
Wallis did not accurately cite the plagiarism.com page, which did NOT link "U.S. law" to "plagiarism."
To try to weasel out of his predicament, Wallis wrote the following: I did not cite text from US law. As stated in the article, I am quoting from www.Plagiarism.org. One assumes that this is a summary of the law. IPBiz notes that Wallis did not actually "quote" what plagiarism.org said, which separately was not intended as "a summary of the law."
Of the remarks by Wallis --I did not cite text from US law. As stated in the article, I am quoting from www.Plagiarism.org. One assumes that this is a summary of the law.--
#1. the quoted words "copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit, failing to put a quotation in quotation marks, (and) changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit" do appear at plagiarism.org as examples of plagiarism.
#2. Plagiarism.org includes the words "U.S. law" in the following way: But can words and ideas really be stolen? According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, (...)
#3. Plagiarism.org did not summarize U.S. law on copyright infringement.
#4. Plagiarism.org did not state that plagiarism was copyright infringement.
#5. Plagiarism and copyright infringement are distinct, non-coextensive concepts.
#6. Plagiarism.org is the educational arm of iParadigms LLC, the vendor of turnitin software.
Of the Daily Iowan editorial, one notes few are talking about the Belichick matter anymore, but the Poshard matter just roils along.