Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Ohio University Lied to Us

On March 28, 2007 Ohio University announced the end of their plagiarism investigations with a quote by Industrial Engineering professor Dr. David Koonce, "I see no need to investigate further."

Based on my previous knowledge of plagiarism cases at Ohio University, I knew that they were attempting to cover-up the real situation. Over the past years I have been collecting information which proves that Ohio University's plagiarism problems are ongoing and the problems are much more serious than most probably know.

Also, over the years I have made numerous efforts to convince Ohio University leaders of their responsibility to their honest students, alumni, professors, and the public in general to hold their cheating students and professors accountable. Unfortunately, I have been unsuccessful.

I have now decided to catalog my findings through this blog.

One of my more recent and very important discoveries is that Ohio University leaders chose a professor who is directly involved in allowing plagiarism as their Plagiarism Hearing Committee chairman, Dr. David C. Ingram. Back in 2007, I questioned the selection of Dr. Ingram because I knew that two of Dr. Alam's students who worked in Dr. Ingram's lab published the same experimental procedure in their theses (plagiarism in my opinion). Dr. Angie Bukley eventually tried to tell me that the experimental procedure was attached to the machine and was therefore public domain. She did agree to let Dr. McLaughlin make a final judgement, but President McDavis ordered a stop before it occurred. (I will plan to post all the pertinent emails later).

Since then, I have noted additional ethics violations committed by Dr. Ingram. I tried to get President McDavis to act on those violations in an April 9, 2009 letter I wrote to him. In the letter I clearly show that the Honesty Hearing Committee has blatantly violated the president's thesis rewrite policies. Initially, The Higher Learning Commission (Ohio University's accreditor) acknowledged "potential accreditation issues." However, President McDavis had no problem dismissing my complaint without offering any explanation. A month later, The Higher Learning Commission also dismissed my complaint. Note that Ms. Solinski implies that Ohio University's legal troubles give them license to disregard their own policies.

The bottom line is that Ohio University has repeatedly told the public that cheating students would be rewriting their theses and that all thesis submissions would be scanned for plagiarism. The fact that Honesty Hearing Committee approved theses with deletions (not rewritten) and at least one thesis with pages of plagiarism proves that Ohio University lied to the public.


Anonymous said...

tom, post more links to their letters, and examples!

Anonymous said...


Post Ghost said...

When the gutted Adlakha and Ghanta theses were discovered the Post (campus newspaper) published an article about them on February 4, 2008.

Plagiarism investigations: Rewritten theses contain large deletions

And the following reader comment was published in the online edition of this article but it is no longer archived online:


“The rewritten plagiarism and massive deletions reported in this article are disgusting. Would any other university accept theses like these? They certainly aren’t up to any respectable graduate level standard. Would those now approving them find them acceptable models for their own writing and their own graduate students’ theses? What other professors at Ohio University and elsewhere would approve of them? What sort of students anywhere would write them? Is there anyone anywhere that is proud of them?

Shame on OU’s engineering faculty. From the very beginning of the scandal, their public silence (qui tacet consentit) and careless inattention to it has been disgraceful.

Perhaps like Tom Matrka, someday someone else will find theses with plagiarism, rewritten plagiarism and massive deletions in Alden Library and resurrect the scandal (assuming it ever ends). What a sad legacy this will be. And what a disservice all of this is to OU’s past and future graduates, students, faculty and the Ohio citizens the university is supposed to be serving honorably.”


Then three days later, on February 7, 2008 the Post published the following editorial:

Editorial: Easy way out

And the following reader comment was published in the online edition of this editorial but it too is no longer archived online:


“See for yourself that…

Although both of the two defective theses reported by The POST on Monday include a signed approval page for the original version of each thesis, there is no such page for the revised documents themselves. Did Dean Irwin approve the revised theses? Is Professor Prudich the thesis advisor who approved them? Why aren’t the answers to these questions made clear by including documentation in the revised theses identifying the individuals responsible for authorizing their republication in Alden Library?




Anonymous said...

You should put this on your blog. When did you write it?

Your turn: Plagiarism scandal allowed to fester by inaction, irresponsibility