USM PLAGARIZES WEBSITE ON SACS PROBATION? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 11, 2004

USM PLAGARIZES WEBSITE ON SACS PROBATION?

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: mace
"A lot of it is word-for-word. My god.

http://www.ocm.auburn.edu/sacsprobation.html (Auburn's)

http://www.usm.edu/pr/SACS/spsp.html (USM'S)

One of the funny (few) differences between them is the line about Auburn's committment to fixing any of SACS' "legitimate concerns." That got translated into "concerns" for USM..."

Goodness. Is Hanbury back?

Date: Dec 11, 2004

Jeez. This is really pitiful. Even William D. McCain plagiarized with more class than that.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

Capture it fast.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: mace
"One of the funny (few) differences between them is the line about Auburn's committment to fixing any of SACS' "legitimate concerns." That got translated into "concerns" for USM..."

In this case, I think USM made an improvement. Auburn's main contention, IIRC, was that SACS had no legitimate reason to sanction them.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

invictus is right--Auburn challenged SACS right to sanction them.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

This would clearly violate the honor code proposed by the Dean of Students and the Academic Integrity policy adopted by the College of Business. Is there any formal mechanism in the univeristy to make a charge? This speaks directly to Darth Mader's ethics!

Date: Dec 11, 2004

Someone should "screen-shot" it. Unfortunately I have no clue how to go about that, but I have a feeling once wind of this plagarism gets around, the website will suddenly have a whole new look (i.e. one that does not copy Auburn's).

Date: Dec 11, 2004

Copies of both the USM & Auburn pages have been saved as "complete" web pages.

In all fairness to the USM plagiaristic relations department, there aren't a heck of a lot of models for this sort of statement floating around in this world. In all likelihood, the USM writer responsible knew that Auburn's page was "legal" by SACS. And for all we know, a phone call got an official okidoke to copy it.

SACS can be very persnickety about how official statements are worded.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

yes SACS gets very concerned about how things get worded.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: mace
"Someone should "screen-shot" it. Unfortunately I have no clue how to go about that, but I have a feeling once wind of this plagarism gets around, the website will suddenly have a whole new look (i.e. one that does not copy Auburn's). "

I put a copy of it in my email Inbox and also printed out a copy for my files. There is one thing I noted, however, and feel compelled to mention it here: The USM document is dated December 10 while the Auburn document is dated December 11. Could this be some sort of template SACS provides to those schools placed on probation? Or is it really W.D. McCain's ghost returning to his former haunt?

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Blind Date
"I put a copy of it in my email Inbox and also printed out a copy for my files. There is one thing I noted, however, and feel compelled to mention it here: The USM document is dated December 10 while the Auburn document is dated December 11. Could this be some sort of template SACS provides to those schools placed on probation? Or is it really W.D. McCain's ghost returning to his former haunt?"

HOLD THE PRESSES! THE AUBURN STATEMENT IS DECEMBER 11, 2003. THE USM STATEMENT IS DECEMBER 10, 2004. AUBURN'S STATEMENT IS ABOUT A YEAR BEFORE USM'S!!!!! IN MY HASTE I GOOFED BIG TIME.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

RE: RE: RE: USM PLAGARIZES WEBSITE ON SACS PROBATI

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" I initially wondered the same thing. But since USM says that it has received no written notification from SACS (and there would be no reason to suppose that it has, since SACS doesn't send out written notifications of its actions until after New Year's), I don't think this is a template. However, SACS can be pretty picky about what an institution does say, so the person who assembled the USM webpage may have felt that it was wise to copy a page that was known to be OK with the Association. We do not know that USM plagiarized the page. A simple phone call would have been all the permission required. The Auburn page does not carry a copyright notice. It is weird, though. Really weird."

Well, they were working REALLY quickly . . . IThe USM website has undergone some pretty major chnages concerning the SACs issue in the last 48 hours . . .. so people are putting in some sweat time.