Early in 2024, Claudine Gay, then president of Harvard University, was called out for numerous instances of plagiarism found in her doctoral dissertation and other published papers. The Harvard board, a school subcommittee, and an independent panel charged with investigating the plagiarism allegations against Gay found "a few instances of inadequate citation" but "no violation of Harvard's standard for research misconduct. While some were critical of her, many academics came to her defense, as did members of the public. A writer in the online newspaper The Guardian went so far as to say, "While Gay more than anyone should have known better, it seems unfair that she should be the one to take the fall when her errors were missed by the institutions that published her" (Lawrence, 2024, para.6)

Case 1 Questions:

• Has the reaction from Harvard and other academics tended to minimize the seriousness of plagiarism? If no one at Harvard, where she received her doctorate, found instances of plagiarism, should she not be held responsible? Does this mean if no one detects plagiarism, it's okay?

Keep in mind that this discussion is not about whether or not Dr. Gay should have resigned from the presidency of Harvard. The discussion is about public and academic reactions to plagiarism and the seriousness of plagiarism.

Case 2: Professor Lang vs. Professor Marks

Is the way that colleges design courses, especially undergraduate general education courses, encouraging cheating?

According to Lang (2013), course design can encourage cheating. These include required courses that students just want to get out of the way so they can take the classes they really want to take. High-stakes assessments put intense pressure on each of those grade-earning opportunities and ratchet up the incentive to cheat on each one. Emphasizing gradesperformance over learning in large or online classes can create an impersonal environment.

Students who are driven by extrinsic motivation seek external rewards for their learning: grades, for example. Students driven by intrinsic motivation, by contrast, seek to understand the course material for its own sake. Students driven purely by extrinsic motivation are more likely to cheat. "If they don't see how the course material is relevant to their livesor if the instructor cannot help them see itthey never develop the intrinsic motivation that leads to deep learning and makes cheating less likely." (Lang, 2013, para. 10)

Or is it a question of character? According to Marks (2013), "Lang shies away from the question of character. Instead, his book is about helping 'faculty members to respond more effectively to academic dishonesty by modifying the learning environments they [have] constructed" (para. 4). "If we think of our students as subjects in our laboratory, to be manipulated and nudged toward desirable behaviors, how can we develop in them the qualities of character they will need to govern themselves in environments we do not control?" (para. 6)

Case 2 Questions:

• Who's right, Professor Lang or Professor Marks?
• Should colleges make sure students don't cheat, or should students make sure they don't cheat?