Chronology of plagiarism investigation
Through an open records request submitted by The Post, the following e-mails, interoffice communication and letters provide a better insight into the timeline of the plagiarism investigation in the Russ College of Engineering and Technology.Timeline of investigation
Tom Matrka came to university officials in July 2004.
NOTE: Matrka spurred the investigation when he alerted university officials of the problem in July 2004.
Judy Piercy, then director of University Judiciaries, sent an e-mail shortly thereafter, notifying other university departments of the allegations.
(Oct. 14, 2004) Jerrel Mitchell, now the chair of the Academic Honesty Oversight Committee, responded to Piercy's e-mail and recommended to College of Engineering Dean Dennis Irwin that the cases be forwarded to the mechanical engineering department because those in that department are better suited to evaluate to the extent that material taken from one thesis and used in another has compromised the satisfying of the degree requirements of the students involved. Outside parties could be hired to review the allegations as well, according to the e-mail.
NOTE: Graduate students have advisers who work with them throughout their research. Their advisers approve their final work. A graduate student who plagiarized could have had an adviser that would have approved his or her thesis in the mechanical engineering department. In effect, professors in the mechanical engineering department could have been reviewing plagiarized theses they approved.
(Oct. 19, 2004) Irwin writes to Jay Gunasekera, chair of the mechanical engineering department, that he concurred with Mitchell's recommendations, noting that several theses ... that have been accepted by various thesis examination committees has come into serious question. Irwin wrote that he wanted Gunasekera to determine if plagiarism occurred and also wanted an outline of procedures ... that will avoid such issues in the future.
(Dec. 6, 2004) An official in the university's Ombuds department, Elizabeth Graham, responds to an e-mail from Matrka, telling him that the college is investigating his allegations and that they are doing their job and that justice will be served.
(Jan. 12, 2005) Khairul Alam, a professor in mechanical engineering, wrote to Irwin in an e-mail that he has a list of students whose theses date from 1998 to 2000, which will be reviewed by a committee.
(July 28, 2005) Graham, from the Ombuds office, writes to Irwin that a Post reporter had been trying to call her about the Tom M. situation/allegations etc. ... I do not plan on sharing anything with the reporter (confidentiality of the office).
(July 29, 2005) Irwin tells Graham via e-mail that one case of plagiarism had been identified and admitted to in writing and that we are still waiting on a modified and acceptable thesis. This is the same former student mentioned in the story above who still has not resubmitted a corrected thesis. In the same e-mail, Irwin discusses some of the actions the college will take in the fall, such as a training session with incoming graduate students. Also, Irwin said he wasn't aware of any new issues, but if Tom (Matrka) is spending his time in the library comparing old theses
who knows?
(Sept. 5, 2005) Greg Browning, chairman of the OU Board of Trustees, wrote to Matrka and told him that Dean Irwin informs me that he expects a final resolution by October.
The Academic Honesty Oversight Committee was formed at the beginning of the 2005-2006 academic year.
(Oct. 7, 2005) Roger Radcliff, professor and graduate chair of the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, e-mailed all of the EECS graduate students, informing them about the Statement of Originality. I do not have any sympathy for anyone who conducts plagiarism. I must give you a friendly warning that if plagiarism is detected and substantiated the student will be summarily expelled from any degree program in EECS.
(Oct. 26, 2005) Irwin responds to an e-mail from Mark Mecum, Graduate Student Senate president. Mecum expressed concern about the different standards that the College of Engineering might have. Irwin explained, saying the only exception possibly being a bit of tolerance of the re-use of diagrams of experimental apparatus etc. and then directed Mecum to the college's policy on its Web site. Irwin also wrote as of today
only four or five (cases) are known by us
and that if any other cases were brought forward, the college would investigate them as well.
(Oct. 31, 2005) Janusz Starzyk, a professor in electrical engineering and computer science, wrote to Irwin: I recently had a case of academic dishonesty from my graduate student that I was dealing with ... I was surprised how little awareness and sensitivity students have to this issue.
(Nov. 14, 2005) Irwin writes to OU Provost Kathy Krendl that he found six other cases that Matrka had. I have looked at one of them and there is egregious plagiarism of a textbook
noting that there were probably a number of these. Irwin said that they would certainly be removed from the library.
NOTE: Many of the questionable theses brought to the attention of The Post by Tom Matrka have been checked out of the library.
(Nov. 15, 2005) Mitchell writes to the Academic Honesty Oversight Committee ' Roger Radcliff, Valerie Young, David Koonce, Khairul Alam and Eric Steinberg ' thanking them for agreeing to be on the committee and laying out the group's mission: It is not our charge to go looking for plagiarism cases. The charging person must be very specific
i.e.
he/she must tell us who is charged and specifically where to find the plagiarism.
(Nov. 15, 2005) In another e-mail, Mitchell tells Irwin that the committee had been formed and that Mitchell had seen the theses. It took me less than an hour to form conclusions. In my opinion
the cases are very clear.
(Jan. 4, 2006) Angie Bukley, interim associate dean of the college, and Barbara Nalazek, assistant director of Legal Affairs, had exchanged e-mails several times, and Bukley suggested that the college crack down on plagiarism. After the college gave a detailed explanation of what plagiarism is, students should certainly be aware of what plagiarism is and shouldn't do it. If they do
the consequences should be more than a slap on the wrist.
(Jan. 8, 2006) In an e-mail to Krendl, Irwin lays out what he thinks the punishments should be for the students that plagiarized. He recommends several things, including the revocation of degrees for former students and expulsion for current students.
(Jan. 31, 2006) Alam e-mails Irwin, telling him that none of the theses have plagiarized research results.
(March 1, 2006) Koonce e-mails the committee members about the practicality of scanning old theses. He figured that a team of students could convert about six an hour.
(March 8, 2006) Irwin updates Krendl in an e-mail, noting among other things, he has a faculty member (Koonce) checking on automated means to check all theses. This is probably feasible
but I think it would incur more risk than simply dealing with what we know
