SIU plagiarism rule discussion thickens
Further to the proposed rules on plagiarism at Southern Illinois University (SIU), John Haller, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, wrote to the SIUDE on Dec. 8:
If one reads the draft policy and procedures, it should be clear that item No. 10 speaks to retaliation and states the following - "Retaliation against an individual who makes allegations or complaints of a violation of this policy, or who participates in an investigation, is prohibited. Retaliation is prohibited by university regulation, state a federal law and can lead to disciplinary action independent of the allegations."
The above statement is then followed by item No. 11, which addresses "frivolous or malicious charges": "It shall be a violation of this policy to allege, file or raise frivolous or malicious claims against members of the office of the president or the chancellors of SIUC or SIUE campuses. If a violation of this section is committed, the University may initiate any and all appropriate action, including but not limited to disciplinary action against an employee or civil action against a member of the public."
In a seeming non sequitur, Haller writes:
These protections for members of the SIU community against retaliation or frivolous and malicious charges are not unique to this policy or SIU. Many SIU policies and state laws contain similar prohibitions. For example, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 permits sanctions against litigators if they file a document with the court that is false or intended to harass. These types of protections encourage good faith allegations but protect individuals and their reputations and careers from false or improper allegations.
Court Rule 137 would seem to be about the filing of false charges but would not seem to relate to retaliation at all. Further, Rule 137 does not seem to protect a specific class, making it distinct from the SIU proposed rule which protects members of the office of the president or the chancellors of SIUC or SIUE campuses BUT NOT ANYONE ELSE.
One can also contemplate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FRCP 11(b)(3) requires the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Note also: FRCP 11(b)(4) requires also that the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonable based on a lack of information or belief. Sanctions for violations of FRCP 11(b) are discretionary.
-->Comment to SIUDE on Dec. 8-->
John Haller's text
-- These protections for members of the SIU community against retaliation or frivolous and malicious charges are not unique to this policy or SIU. Many SIU policies and state laws contain similar prohibitions. For example, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 permits sanctions against litigators if they file a document with the court that is false or intended to harass. These types of protections encourage good faith allegations but protect individuals and their reputations and careers from false or improper allegations. --
omits an important distinction between Rule 137 and the proposed SIU rule. Rule 137 applies to ALL litigants but the proposed SIU protects only -- members of the office of the president or the chancellors of SIUC or SIUE campuses --
Rule 137, which is analogous to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, creates a need for a certification along the following lines:
--As mandated by Supreme Court Rule 137, [_______], certifies that he has read the above pleading and that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.--
As a separate point, related to the point about "warranted by existing law," one notes that the prior report on the issue of plagiarism in Dr. Poshard's thesis, broke new ground in the general understanding of plagiarism and citation, and did not thoroughly discuss several factual matters. For example,
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/10/page-54-of-poshard-phd-thesis-real.html
If one reads the draft policy and procedures, it should be clear that item No. 10 speaks to retaliation and states the following - "Retaliation against an individual who makes allegations or complaints of a violation of this policy, or who participates in an investigation, is prohibited. Retaliation is prohibited by university regulation, state a federal law and can lead to disciplinary action independent of the allegations."
The above statement is then followed by item No. 11, which addresses "frivolous or malicious charges": "It shall be a violation of this policy to allege, file or raise frivolous or malicious claims against members of the office of the president or the chancellors of SIUC or SIUE campuses. If a violation of this section is committed, the University may initiate any and all appropriate action, including but not limited to disciplinary action against an employee or civil action against a member of the public."
In a seeming non sequitur, Haller writes:
These protections for members of the SIU community against retaliation or frivolous and malicious charges are not unique to this policy or SIU. Many SIU policies and state laws contain similar prohibitions. For example, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 permits sanctions against litigators if they file a document with the court that is false or intended to harass. These types of protections encourage good faith allegations but protect individuals and their reputations and careers from false or improper allegations.
Court Rule 137 would seem to be about the filing of false charges but would not seem to relate to retaliation at all. Further, Rule 137 does not seem to protect a specific class, making it distinct from the SIU proposed rule which protects members of the office of the president or the chancellors of SIUC or SIUE campuses BUT NOT ANYONE ELSE.
One can also contemplate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FRCP 11(b)(3) requires the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Note also: FRCP 11(b)(4) requires also that the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonable based on a lack of information or belief. Sanctions for violations of FRCP 11(b) are discretionary.
-->Comment to SIUDE on Dec. 8-->
John Haller's text
-- These protections for members of the SIU community against retaliation or frivolous and malicious charges are not unique to this policy or SIU. Many SIU policies and state laws contain similar prohibitions. For example, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 permits sanctions against litigators if they file a document with the court that is false or intended to harass. These types of protections encourage good faith allegations but protect individuals and their reputations and careers from false or improper allegations. --
omits an important distinction between Rule 137 and the proposed SIU rule. Rule 137 applies to ALL litigants but the proposed SIU protects only -- members of the office of the president or the chancellors of SIUC or SIUE campuses --
Rule 137, which is analogous to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, creates a need for a certification along the following lines:
--As mandated by Supreme Court Rule 137, [_______], certifies that he has read the above pleading and that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.--
As a separate point, related to the point about "warranted by existing law," one notes that the prior report on the issue of plagiarism in Dr. Poshard's thesis, broke new ground in the general understanding of plagiarism and citation, and did not thoroughly discuss several factual matters. For example,
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/10/page-54-of-poshard-phd-thesis-real.html
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 10:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home