The College of Arts and Sciences
Academic Conduct Code

All students entering Boston University are expected to maintain high standards of academic honesty and integrity. It is the responsibility of every student in the College of Arts and Sciences to be aware of the Academic Conduct Code’s contents and to abide by its provisions. In the College of Arts and Sciences, the Academic Conduct Committee, which is composed of students and faculty, has jurisdiction over all charges of academic misconduct brought against students.

In all charges of academic misconduct against a student, the student is entitled to full procedural fairness in any disciplinary proceedings. The Academic Conduct Code details the guidelines governing disciplinary proceedings. It also articulates the College’s philosophy of discipline, defines violations of the code, and enumerates penalties applicable under the code.

The attention of all students is further directed to the statement in the Undergraduate Programs Bulletin that, by vote of the College of Arts and Sciences faculty, the penalty against CAS students for cheating on examinations or for plagiarism is expulsion from the University, or such other penalty as may be recommended by the Academic Conduct Committee and subject to approval by the dean.

I Philosophy of Discipline

The objective of the College of Arts and Sciences in enforcing academic rules is to promote a community atmosphere in which learning can best take place. Such an atmosphere can be maintained only so long as every student believes that his or her academic competence is being judged fairly and that he or she will not be put at a disadvantage because of someone else’s dishonesty. Penalties should be carefully determined so as to be no more and no less than required to maintain the desired atmosphere. In defining violations of this code, the intent is to protect the integrity of the educational process.

II Academic Misconduct

Academic misconduct is conduct by which a student misrepresents his or her academic accomplishments, or impedes other students’ chances of being judged fairly for their academic work. Knowingly allowing others to represent your work as their own is as serious an offense as submitting another’s work as your own.

III Violations of this Code

Violations of this code comprise of attempts to be dishonest or deceptive in the performance of academic work in or out of the classroom, alterations of academic records, or unauthorized collaboration with another student or students. Violations include, but are not limited to:

A. Cheating on examination. Any attempt by a student to alter his or her performance on an examination in violation of that examination’s stated or commonly understood ground rules.

B. Plagiarism. Representing the work of another as one’s own. Plagiarism includes but is not limited to the following: copying the answers of another student on an examination, copying or restating the work or ideas of another person or persons in any oral or written work (printed or electronic) without citing the appropriate source, and collaborating with someone else in an academic endeavor without acknowledging his or her contribution. Plagiarism can consist of acts of commission – appropriating the words or ideas of another – or omission – failing to acknowledge/document/credit the source or creator of words or ideas (see pp. 10-14 below for a detailed definition of plagiarism).

C. Misrepresentation or falsification of data presented for surveys, experiments, etc.

D. Theft of an examination. Stealing or otherwise discovering and/or making known to others the contents of an examination that has not yet been administered.

E. Unauthorized communication during examinations. Any unauthorized communication may be considered prima facie evidence of cheating.

F. Knowingly allowing another student to represent your work as his or her own. This includes providing a copy of your paper or laboratory report to another student without the explicit permission of the instructor(s).

G. Forgery, alteration, or knowing misuse of graded examinations, quizzes, grade lists, or official records or documents, including but not limited to transcripts, letters of recommendation, degree certificates, examinations, quizzes, or other work after submission.

H. Theft or destruction of examinations or papers after submission.

I. Submitting the same work in more than one course without the consent of the instructors.

J. Altering or destroying another student’s work or records, altering records of any kind, removing materials from libraries or offices without consent, or in any way interfering with the work of others so as to impede their academic performance.

K. Failure to comply with the sanctions imposed under the authority of this code.

IV Faculty Action

Faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences who have reason to believe that a student has violated this Code shall meet with the student, inform the student of the suspected violation and document the student’s response. The faculty member shall then notify the dean of the suspected violation and the student’s response to the alleged violation on the Form entitled “Report of Academic Misconduct.”

A. Cases of Undisputed Academic Misconduct by First-Time Offenders

If the student has admitted to the academic misconduct and has never been found guilty of an academic conduct violation at Boston University, the faculty member may request the dean’s authorization to sanction the student by means of a grading penalty. In such a case, a student who has admitted to academic misconduct may agree to a grading penalty as determined by the faculty, up to and including a failing grade in the course. The faculty member will inform the dean of the proposed grading penalty.

The dean will ascertain whether the student has previously signed a CAS Admission of Academic Misconduct Form or has any prior record of academic misconduct in any College or School in the University. If so, the dean will refer the charges and supporting evidence to the Academic Conduct Committee, which shall then proceed with a hearing. If not, the dean, at his or her discretion, and taking into account the nature of the infraction, may grant written permission to the faculty member to enter into an agreement with the student for a grading penalty in lieu of proceedings before the Academic Conduct Committee.

If such permission is received, the faculty member will inform the student of the option to agree to a grading penalty. If the student chooses this option, the agreement between the faculty member and student must be formalized through the College’s “Admission of Academic Misconduct” Form. An accused student is not compelled to sign such an agreement and may choose to exercise the right to have his or her case heard by the Academic Conduct Committee.

B. Cases of Disputed Academic Misconduct or Cases of Repeat Offenders

If the student disputes the charge of Academic Misconduct or if the dean denies permission for a grading penalty because the student is a repeat offender or because of the nature of the offense, the dean shall then refer the charges and supporting evidence to the Academic Conduct Committee, which shall then proceed with a hearing.

V Penalties

A. Students Who Sign Approved Admission of Academic Misconduct Forms

Students who sign Admission of Academic Misconduct Forms shall receive the grading penalty noted on the form. Students will also receive a letter of reprimand from the dean. The form and the letter of reprimand will be retained in the student’s file at the CAS Dean’s Office, but shall not be recorded on the student’s permanent academic record. The reprimand will not be made public when records or transcripts are sent out. It may, however, be considered when imposing sanctions for future offenses.

B. Students Whose Cases are Referred to the Committee

Students who are not allowed the option of a grading penalty or who elect to have their cases heard by the Academic Conduct Committee may receive the sanctions of Reprimand, Disciplinary Probation, Suspension, or Expulsion only through action of the Academic Conduct Committee. For cases referred to the Academic Conduct Committee, students may be penalized for academic conduct violations only through action of the Committee. However, faculty members always retain the right to assign grades reflecting their principled and equitable assessment of students’ work. In a case in which the Academic Conduct Committee has found a violation of the Code, the grade assigned by the faculty member may also reflect the faculty member’s determination of how seriously overall course goals and expectations of the academic discipline are compromised by work involved in an incident of academic misconduct, and how that work should in consequence contribute to the final course grade.

C. Students who believe that a faculty member has penalized them for alleged acts of academic misconduct without having followed the procedures set forth in this Code should make their concerns known as soon as possible to the dean.

D. If the accused is found guilty by the Committee, the following penalties may be imposed:

1. No penalty for minor violations that do not warrant sanction.

2. Reprimand

a. For violations of a minor nature or mitigated by extenuating circumstances.
b. A copy of the reprimand shall be placed in the student’s file but shall not be recorded on the permanent academic record. Past reprimands may be considered in imposing sanctions for future offenses.
c. Reprimands are not to be made public when records, transcripts, etc., are sent out.
d. Reprimands place no restriction on the student’s participation in academic or nonacademic College or all-University activities.

3. Disciplinary probation

a. For violations deemed serious enough to warrant some abridgment of the student’s rights and privileges.
b. Given for a specified period of time.
c. Recorded on the student’s permanent internal record.
d. Prohibits the student from being an officer in any recognized all-University or College student organization, and from participating in intercollegiate activities during the specified probation period.

4. Suspension

a. For violations deemed serious enough to warrant separation of the student from the University community for a limited time, but not serious enough to warrant expulsion.
b. Given for a period of one to three semesters.
c. Recorded on the student’s permanent internal record; the student’s external record shall carry the statement "withdrawn."
d. The student must apply to the Dean of Arts and Sciences for readmission, making a satisfactory statement concerning his or her interim activities and his or her intended future conduct.
e. No academic coursework may be undertaken for Boston University credit, nor may any Boston University degree be conferred, during the period of suspension.

5. Expulsion

a. For extremely serious academic misconduct.
b. Recorded permanently on the student’s academic record.
c. Expulsion is permanent.

6. Other sanctions

a. For fraudulent use of College transcripts or degree certificates, or similar serious misconduct, recommendation of the committee may include withholding of transcripts or revocation of the degree.

VI Dissemination of Information

A. Notice of probation, suspension, or expulsion is sent to the parent or guardian of dependent students.

B. Dissemination of information is governed by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. Copies of this act are available in the University Registrar’s Office.

C. Penalties imposed through the Academic Conduct Code may be reported to graduate and professional schools to which a student seeks admission.

D. Efforts will be made to ensure that students receive a copy of the Academic Conduct Code at their first registration in the College. Copies of the code will also be available in the College of Arts and Sciences Academic Advising Office, CAS Room 105.

Student Academic Conduct Committee

I Procedure

A. Proceedings before the committee are instituted when the dean forwards the complainant’s report to the chair of the committee. The committee shall consist of faculty members appointed by the Dean of Arts and Sciences and undergraduate students of not lower than junior-year standing, appointed by the associate dean of the College. This committee has jurisdiction over every alleged act of academic misconduct on the part of (a) any student enrolled in the College of Arts and Sciences, and (b) any student enrolled in a course taught in the College, whether that student is enrolled in the College or some other School at this University or any other college or university. The committee will also have jurisdiction over every alleged act of misconduct pertaining to documents of or course credits earned in the College by any person. This shall include any person who has received a baccalaureate degree from this University.

B. Faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences shall, after discussing the matter with the student in question, notify the dean of any documented violation of the code. The notification shall include the student’s name and I.D. number, the course in which the alleged violation occurred, and a statement indicating any and all supporting evidence upon which the professor has relied. (See Section IV: Faculty Action, above).

C. If the dean refers the case to the Academic Conduct Committee, the dean’s office shall inform the student (by hand-delivered or certified letter with return receipt, to be sent at least twelve days prior to the hearing) of the following matters:

1. The charges.

2. The date, time, and location of the hearing.

3. The fact that the student may request to reschedule the hearing for a valid reason.

4. The fact that the student may be accompanied by an advisor of his or her choice, who may be an attorney. At the discretion of the committee chair, the advisor may be allowed to make a brief statement on behalf of the student. The advisor may not participate directly in the hearing.

5. The fact that he or she shall have the right to examine the person bringing the charges, to have access to all documents that have been introduced as evidence, to have copies prepared, and at the discretion of the chair and in a manner to be prescribed by the chair, to examine all witnesses.

D. Hearings

1. Members of the committee shall be excused if the case might involve a conflict of interest (e.g., kinship, teacher-student relationship, etc.).

2. The dean may appoint pro tempore members to replace regular faculty members who are unable to attend, or who have been excused.

3. A representative from the home College of any non-CAS student shall be invited to attend, but will not vote.

4. No student shall be found guilty except on the vote of a majority of the voting members present at a hearing.

5. The quorum for hearings shall be five voting members of the committee, at least three of whom shall be faculty members.

6. The chair shall be counted as a voting member, but shall cast his or her vote only in order to break a tie vote.

7. A hearing shall proceed in the absence of the accused student only if:
a. The student waives the right to be present or
b. The committee is satisfied that proper notice of the hearing was given to the student and that there is no legitimate cause for the absence.

8. The hearing shall be recorded either by a stenographer or by sound recording. The records are to be preserved for one year. Any participant in the hearing may obtain a copy of the recording or the transcript of the hearing at actual cost.

9. The order of the hearing shall be as follows:
a. Presentation of charges by the committee chair.
b. Presentation and examination of material evidence and witnesses by the committee and by the accused student(s) but excluding material relevant to sanctions to be imposed. In appropriate circumstances the chair may take steps to protect a witness through actions such as sequestering, withholding a witness’s identity, or taking testimony prior to a hearing.
c. Statement by the accused student.
d. After excusing the accused student, and advisor, and witnesses, deliberation of the committee.
e. Formulation of the judgment and assessment of any appropriate penalty by a majority vote of the members present.

10. The chair shall make the necessary determination of the scope of the inquiry with a view to according full and fair exploration of relevant material.

11. Because the hearing is not a court hearing, the committee is not bound by legal rules of evidence. However, every effort will be made to conduct hearings as fairly and expeditiously as possible.

12. The hearing shall not be public, and information gained at the hearing shall be treated as privileged information by all participants. This does not bar the disclosure of the findings and recommendations of the committee to those authorized to receive such information. Inasmuch as this provision is for the protection of the accused, it does not bar him or her from disclosing the proceedings, if he or she wishes to do so.

13. At the request of the accused student, the chair of the Academic Conduct Committee may, at his or her discretion, elect to admit parents or legal guardians and may, at his or her discretion, allow a brief statement on behalf of the student by a parent or legal guardian.

14. The hearing shall be conducted with proper decorum. The hearing may be recessed by the chaiir if:
a. Additional evidence or witnesses are needed.
b. It is apparent that a fair hearing cannot be held because of disturbances, illness, or similar causes.

15. The College may, from time to time, make public the facts and decisions of cases that come before the committee. However, such reports shall not reveal the name of any student, professor, or course involved in a case that has been heard by the committee.

E. Recommendation

The complete recommendations, including a statement of the charges, evidence, and judgment, shall be transmitted to the dean as soon as possible after the hearing at which the judgment was made. The dean shall review the report and the appropriateness of the recommended sanctions. The dean may refer the matter to the committee for further consideration and/or elaboration, or may request the transcript or recording of the hearing and/or the evidence. However, the factual findings of the committee shall not be replaced by findings more damaging to the student unless the dean has submitted new evidence for a rehearing. Similarly, the dean shall not impose more severe sanctions than those recommended by the committee. In the case of non-CAS students, the dean shall transmit recommendations to the dean of the student’s college. In the event that the dean of said college shall deviate substantially from the recommendations of the Dean of Arts and Sciences, the latter may, upon the recommendation of the Student Academic Conduct Committee, and after consulting with the dean of the other college, prohibit the student in question from taking courses in the College of Arts and Sciences for a period of time that shall reflect the intent of the original recommendation.

F. The dean shall notify the student by certified letter of the judgment and penalty imposed and that such findings and sanctions are subject to final review by the provost after all appeals within the College have been exhausted. The letter shall also inform the student that there is a procedure for appeal.

In the case of non-CAS students, appeals with respect to the judgment shall be filed through CAS; appeals with respect to the penalty shall be filed through the student’s college. In the event that a student appeals both the judgment and the penalty, the appeal should first go through CAS and then through the student’s college.

II Appeals

A. Within two weeks of the receipt of the dean’s final response to appeals within the College, a student may appeal the judgment or the penalty to the provost. Appeals are to be in writing, setting forth the basis of the appeal and whether the student is appealing the judgment, the penalty, or both.

B. The provost shall review the documentation or refer the appeal to the committee for clarification and comments.

C. Normally, a rehearing will be ordered only if new evidence is presented. The procedure at a rehearing is the same as described above in section I.D.9.

D. After the hearing, a recommendation to the provost is to be made, as described in section I.E. (“Recommendation”), above.

E. Before making a decision, the provost may conduct his or her own investigation if he or she feels it is warranted.

III Non-CAS Violations

When CAS students are called before academic conduct committees of another College in the University:

A. A CAS representative should be present at the hearing and deliberations. The dean of the school or college holding the hearing shall inform the dean of CAS of the nature of the charge and the time of the hearing.

B. After such hearing, the dean shall review the report and judgment and, at his or her discretion, may refer the case to the Academic Conduct Committee. Unless special problems are apparent that should be discussed by the committee, the dean shall reach a judgment and assess an appropriate penalty.

C. The CAS student shall be notified in the same manner as specified in section I.F., but a copy of the letter should be sent to the dean of the College in which the original hearing was held.

D. Within two weeks of the receipt of the dean’s letter, a student may appeal the judgement or penalty to the provost. Appeals are to be in writing, setting forth the basis of the appeal and whether the student is appealing the judgement, the penalty, or both.

IV Request for Reinstatement

Requests for reinstatement after suspension shall be made no sooner than ten weeks and no later than eight weeks before the proposed date of readmission. In the case of readmission, a student is normally placed on disciplinary probation during the first semester of his or her return and removed from probation at the end of the term. The student seeking reinstatement shall inform the dean of his or her activities during the time of suspension, indicate what steps have been taken to satisfy any conditions imposed during the time of suspension, and state his or her future academic plans.

V. Reporting and Documenting Procedures

All evidence must be carefully documented in accordance with the guidelines set forth below:

A. The person originating the charges shall present them in writing, accompanied by suitable exhibits, to the Office of the Dean. That person shall make himself or herself available to the dean for prehearing conferences if necessary, and shall appear at or be available for the Student Academic Conduct hearing whenever possible.

B. Witnesses to the alleged infraction of the Student Academic Conduct Code may be requested to file a report on the incident and shall make themselves available for prehearing conferences and Student Academic Conduct hearings.

C. The following are the guidelines for obtaining evidence of violations of the Student Academic Conduct Code in connection with:

1. Examinations. If an irregularity occurs during an examination, the person who originally notes the irregularity should attempt to have his or her observations corroborated by others who are also in the room (e.g., proctors). The person(s) making the report shall provide specific information such as the time of the observation, type of irregularity observed, number of times it took place, exactly which sections of the examination were affected by the infraction, the name of each individual participating in the irregularity, and the extent of participation by each individual.

2. Papers and Reports. If the misconduct is inferred from the appearance and/or content of a paper or other assignment where the professor or proctor has had no chance to observe the actual process, specific reference should be made to each section that gives evidence of misconduct. Where possible, copies of pertinent sections and copies of any other pertinent material (original sources from which section or sections were allegedly plagiarized, and so on) should be submitted with the report to the dean.

3. Other types of academic misconduct. Reports should be prepared using the same rules of careful observation and accurate documentation as outlined above.

D. The Dean of Arts and Sciences will be responsible for:

Investigating the charges.

Convening the hearing when appropriate.

Administering other procedures which may be required by the finding of the investigation.

A Definition of Plagiarism

The following definition of plagiarism is taken from H. Martin and R. Ohmann’s The Logic and Rhetoric of Exposition, revised edition, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

“The academic counterpart of the bank embezzler and of the manufacturer who mislabels products is the plagiarist, the student or scholar who leads readers to believe that what they are reading is the original work of the writer when it is not. If it could be assumed that the distinction between plagiarism and honest use of sources is perfectly clear in everyone’s mind, there would be no need for the explanation that follows; merely the warning with which this definition concludes would be enough. But it is apparent that sometimes people of goodwill draw the suspicion of guilt upon themselves (and, indeed, are guilty) simply because they are not aware of the illegitimacy of certain kinds of "borrowing" and of the procedures for correct identification of materials other than those gained through independent research and reflection. . . .

“The spectrum is a wide one. At one end there is a word-for-word copying of another’s writing without enclosing the copied passage in quotation marks and identifying it in a footnote, both of which are necessary. (This includes, of course, the copying of all or any part of another student’s paper.) It hardly seems possible that anyone of college age or more could do that without clear intent to deceive. At the other end there is the almost casual slipping in of a particularly apt term which one has come across in reading and which so admirably expresses one’s opinion that one is tempted to make it personal property. Between these poles there are degrees and degrees, but they may be roughly placed in two groups. Close to outright and blatant deceit -- but more the result, perhaps, of laziness than of bad intent -- is the patching together of random jottings made in the course of reading, generally without careful identification of their source, and then woven into the text, so that the result is a mosaic of other people’s ideas and words, the writer’s sole contribution being the cement to hold the pieces together. Indicative of more effort and, for that reason, somewhat closer to honest, though still dishonest, is the paraphrase, an abbreviated (and often skillfully prepared) restatement of someone else’s analysis or conclusion, without acknowledgment that another person’s text has been the basis for the recapitulation.”

Examples of Plagiarism

[From H. Martin and R. Ohmann, The Logic and Rhetoric of Exposition, revised edition, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.]

The examples given below should distinguish between dishonest and the proper use of source material. If instances occur which these examples do not seem to serve as a model, conscience will, in all likelihood, be prepared to supply advice.

The Source

"The importance of the Second Treatise of Government printed in this volume is such that without it we would miss some of the familiar features of our own government. It is safe to assert that the much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court obtained its being as a result of Locke’s insistence upon the separation of powers; and that the combination of many powers in the hands of the executive under the New Deal has still to encounter opposition because it is contrary to the principles enunciated therein, the effect of which is not spent, though the relationship may not be consciously traced. Again we see the crystallizing force of Locke’s writing. It renders explicit and adapts to the British politics of this day the trend and aim of writers from Languet and Bodin through Hooker and Grotius, to say nothing of the distant ancients, Aristotle and the Stoic School of natural law. It sums up magistrally the arguments used through the ages to attack authority vested in a single individual, but it does so from the particular point of view engendered by the Revolution of 1688 and is in harmony with the British scene and mental climate of the growing bourgeoisie of that age. Montesquieu and Rousseau, the framers of our own Declaration of Independence, and the statesmen (or should we say merchants and speculators?) who drew up the Constitution have re-echoed its claims for human liberty, for the separation of powers, for the sanctity of private property. In the hands of these it has been the quarry of liberal doctrines; and that it has served the Socialist theory of property based on labor is final proof of its breadth of view."

Charles L. Sherman, "Introduction" to John Locke,
Treatise of Civil Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration

1. Word-for-Word Plagiarizing

"It is not hard to see the importance of the Second Treatise of Government to our own democracy. Without it we would miss some of the most familiar features of our own government. It is safe to assert that the much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court obtained its being as a result of Locke’s insistence upon the separation of powers; and that the combination of many powers in the hands of the executive is contrary to the principles enunciated therein, the effect of which is not spent, though the relationship may not be consciously traced. The framers of our own Declaration of Independence and the statesman who drew up the Constitution have re-echoed its claims for human liberty, for the separation of powers, for the sanctity of private property. All these are marks of influence of Locke’s Second Treatise on our own way of life."

In this example, after composing half of the first sentence, the writer copies exactly what is in the original text, leaving out the center section of the paragraph and omitting the names of Montesquieu and Rousseau where he takes up the text again. The last sentence is also the writer’s own.

If the writer had enclosed all the copied text in quotation marks and had identified the source in a footnote, he would not have been liable to the charge of plagiarism; a reader might justifiably have felt, however, that the writer’s personal contribution to the discussion was not very significant.

2. The Mosaic

"The crystallizing force of Locke’s writing may be seen in the effect his Second Treatise of Government had in shaping some of the familiar features of our own government. That much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court and the combination of many powers in the hands of the executive under the New Deal are modern examples. But even the foundation of our state -- the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution -- have re-echoed its claims for human liberty, for the separation of powers, for the sanctity of private property. True, the influence of others is also marked in our Constitution -- from the trend and aim of writers like Languet and Bodin, Hooker and Grotius to say nothing of Aristotle and the Stoic school of natural law; but the fundamental influence is Locke’s Treatise, the very quarry of liberal doctrines."

Note how the following phrases have been lifted out of the original text and moved into new patterns:

"crystallizing force of Locke’s writing"

"some of the familiar features of our own government"

"much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court"

"combination of many powers in the hands of the executive under the New Deal"

"have re-echoed its claims for human liberty . . . property"

"from the trend and aim . . . Grotius"

"to say nothing of Aristotle and . . . natural law"

"quarry of liberal doctrines"

As in the first example, there is really no way of legitimizing such a procedure. To put every stolen phrase within quotation marks would produce an almost unreadable, and quite worthless, text.

3. The Paraphrase

The preceding comparison shows how the writer has simply traveled along with the original text, substituting approximately equivalent terms except where his or her understanding falters, as it does with “crystallizing,” or where the ambiguity of the original requires too much ingenuity to decipher, as it apparently does as in "to encounter opposition ... consciously traced" in the original.

Such a procedure has its uses; for one thing, it is of value to the reader. How, then, may it properly be used? The writer might begin the second sentence with "As Sherman notes in the introduction to his edition of the Treatise, one can safely say . . . " and conclude the paraphrase passage with a footnote giving the additional identification necessary. Or he or she might indicate directly the exact nature of what is being done, in this fashion: "To paraphrase Sherman’s comment . . . " and conclude that also with a footnote indicator.

In point of fact, this course of action does not particularly lend itself to honest paraphrase, with the exception of that one sentence, which the paraphraser above copied without change except for abridgment. The purpose of paraphrase would be to simplify, or to throw new and significant light on a text; it requires much skill if it is to be used honestly, and should be used rarely by the student except for the purpose, as suggested above, of personal enlightenment.

4. The "Apt" Term

"The Second Treatise of Government is a veritable quarry of liberal doctrines. In it the crystallizing force of Locke’s writing is markedly apparent. The cause of human liberty, the principle of separation of powers, and the inviolability of private property -- all three major dogmas of American constitutionalism -- owe their presence in our Constitution in large part to the remarkable Treatise which first appeared around 1685 and was destined to spark within three years a revolution in the land of its author’s birth and, ninety years later, another revolution against that land."

Here the writer has not been able to resist the appropriation of two striking terms -- "quarry of liberal doctrines" and "crystallizing force"; a perfectly proper use of the terms would have required only the addition of a phrase: "The Second Treatise of Government is, to use Sherman’s suggestive expression, a "quarry of liberal doctrines." In it the "crystallizing force" -- the term again is Sherman’s -- of Locke’s writing is markedly apparent."

Other phrases in the text above -- "the cause of human liberty," "the principle of the separation of powers," "the inviolability of private property" -- are clearly drawn directly from the original source, but are so much matters in the public domain, so to speak, that no one could reasonably object to their reuse in this fashion.

Since one of the principal aims of a college education is the development of intellectual honesty, it is obvious that plagiarism is a particularly serious offense, and the punishment for it is commensurately severe. What a penalized student suffers can never really be known by anyone except that student. The student who plagiarizes and "gets away with it" suffers something less public, and probably less acute, but the corruptness of the act, the disloyalty and baseness it entails, must inevitably leave a mark on him or her, as well as on the institution.

5. Making a Bibliography or Works Cited Page; Using Footnotes

[Adapted from H. Martin and R. Ohmann, The Logic and Rhetoric of Exposition, revised edition, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.]

Documenting Sources
Essays written for college courses generally require the use of sources: books,
periodicals, internet sites, and other documents containing information relevant to the topic of the essay to be written. Such sources are both documented within the essay, as either footnotes or parenthetical citations, and appended to the essay, in either a works cited page or a bibliography.

Very simply, a bibliography lists all the books, periodicals, internet sources, and other documents the writer looked at to prepare the essay, whereas the works cited page lists only the material the writer actually used to write the essay; a footnote or a parenthetical citation indicates very precisely the source of a quotation, specific statement, or idea occurring in the text of the essay. For all such documentation, standardized systems have been developed so that readers anywhere can turn quickly from the footnote or parenthetical citation to the works cited or bibliographical listing to find the proper source for the material at hand. The three most frequently used formats are derived from the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), the Modern Language Association Handbook for Writer’s of Research Papers (MLA), and The Chicago Manual of Style.

Students are obligated to discover and adhere to the citation format sanctioned by the faculty, course or department for which the essay is undertaken.

Just as honesty requires quotation marks around any statement copied directly from a written or electronic source, it requires a footnote or a parenthetical citation to indicate the place from which information, ideas, or paraphrased reconstructions have been gathered and utilized in the text.

A fine bibliography or works cited page and careful citation, no matter how ably prepared, will not make up for the deficiency in reasoning, style, and