Adil Najam
Read Update on this post here.
According to a news report in the Daily Times (22 June, 2006) a professor at the Punjab University’s (PU) Centre for High Energy Physics (CHEP) and four of his PhD students (who also teach there as Lecturers and Assistant Professors) would probably be fired after an investigation team found them guilty of plagiarism. This is because a soon to be released investigation report finds them guilty as charged; however, they will be given time to respond to the charges.
CHEP Director Dr Fazal-e-Aleem and members Maqsood Ahmed, M Alam Saeed, Sohail Afzal Tahir and Rashid Ahmed are alleged to have copied their research papers from international professors and reproduced them in their names at international conferences. The CHEP teachers allegedly reproduced plagiarised papers in the American Institute of Physics Conference proceedings held in 2004; plagiarised research papers by the former director of European Council of Nuclear Research (Centre European pour
la Recherche Nucleaire - CERN); plagiarized a Canadian University work paper; reproduced parts of the 10th day lecture of core courses given in the Faculty of Education at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta and reproduced parts of the Canadian varsity coursework in the Second International GIREP Seminar. The Higher Education Commission has asked for a detailed investigation into the allegations with strict punishments if the teachers are found guilty.
An earlier story on the subject had detailed the allegations and quoted unnamed sources as saying: “This incident is proof of this (ongoing plagiarism) and rumour has it that this is just the first in a large cache of stolen articles published by CHEP faculty members over the years.” At the time, that story (27 April, 2006) had also reported:
CHEP Director Prof Dr Fazal-e-Aleem, who is also the supervisor of three of the four accused PhD students, dismissed the plagiarism allegations. He said that the charges were “political, defamatory and rubbish”. The students had conducted “quality research”, and no one had so far presented proof of the alleged plagiarism to him, he said. “This is all defamatory propaganda, and we can talk about it if the charges are explained to the students rather than being taken to the media” he said, urging those levelling such charges to approach him directly. “We cannot even imagine taking the risk (of plagiarising),” he said. The Punjab University and Higher Education Commission (HEC) has hard and fast rules against plagiarism.”
Plagiarism is a serious academic problem all over the world, including in the West. It is becoming particularly serious in Pakistan because:
- the internet makes stealing easier; although, plagiarists beware, it also makes catching plagiarism earlier (see: essay originally published in GC University Magazine, Ravi and also available on the blog Light Within);
- newer and higher incentives to steal because the Higher Education Commission (HEC) rewards publication (thankfully, the HEC seems to be aware of this and has a ‘zero tolerance policy.’); and
- in at least some cases researchers may never have been taught how to distinguish right from wrong; the difference between research that builds on other’s ideas (by referencing) and plagiarism that steams from others (by taking credit for other’s ideas).
There is need, therefore, to keep a careful eye on this issue. Corruption is one thing, intellectual corruption is another. Neither is very becoming, and both must be curtailed.
Read Update on this post here.
AQ Khan has built a career on stealing other people’s ideas and his own country’s resources. So now this plagiarism comes as no surprise!
Plagiarism, or theft of intellectual property, has become part of our culture. Read the letter in the link below and you will get an idea. This letter appeared in The News, 24 August 2009, and is written by a Pakistani doctoral student at Carnegie-Melon University.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=194555
Saw this in the “2 Years Ago” section and realized how long this has been on. I hear that the chief culprit in this case has now been PROMOTED and has become the Dean at a different university.
I guess, cheating pays!
Hec’s List of Black-listed Teachers … sadly the list is apparently “very” incomplete :\
Being a student of punjab univserity i do belive that allprofessors those were found gulity of plgiarism should have resigned earlier.If they don,t then Vice chancellor should have sacked them .
save our souls for our dignity!!!
Good article on this in The Daily Times:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008 3\12\story_12-3-2008_pg3_2
Well done HEC! —Ijaz Hussain
HEC should be commended for putting in place legislation to combat plagiarism seriously. However, this alone is not sufficient because the issue is quite complex. HEC and the universities must devise ways and means to build a strong body of opinion on campuses that acts as a watchdog against this scourge
Late last month the governor of Punjab, who is also Chancellor of Punjab University, ordered compulsory retirement of five faculty members of the Centre for Higher Energy Physics (CHEP) and suspended the Head of the Psychology Department on charges of plagiarism.
This led to an uproar in the university. The Academic Staff Association (PUASA), while paying lip service to condemning plagiarism, rejected the governor’s action on the ground that it violated the university’s autonomy. It argued that instead of deciding the case himself, the governor should have referred it back to the syndicate for review. It also accused him of wangling a report of his choice from the inquiry committee. Lastly, it criticised his action on the plea that it led to penalising the accused twice that, in its opinion, was contrary to the principles of justice. It threatened to launch a protest movement in case the governor did not take the decision back.
To comprehend the issue fully, we need to look at its antecedents. The controversy started last April when John Ellis, advisor to the DG, European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN), complained to the VC of Punjab University against some CHEP faculty members for plagiarising an article that was under copyright. The university set up two committees one after the other to investigate the matter, both of which found the accused guilty as charged.
Acting on the findings, the university syndicate removed the CHEP Director, Prof Fazal-i-Aleem, from his position and withheld two annual increments of Assistant Professor Maqbool Ahmed and lecturers Rasheed Ahmed, Sohail Afzal Tahir and M Alam Saeed who had been found guilty. It also censured all the accused for the wrongdoing.
Upon learning of the punishments, the Higher Education Commission (HEC) was terribly upset as it considered the punishments “mild” given the gravity of the charge. It asked the VC to fire the accused and mounted pressure on him for the purpose but the latter refused to yield.
HEC then retaliated by withholding the university’s annual grant that amounted to more than a hundred million rupees. It also sought the Chancellor’s intervention in the matter who obliged by constituting a two-member committee composed of the VC of the University of Health Sciences, Lahore, and the Director of the PU School of Biological Sciences to investigate the charges against the five accused. It also asked the committee to probe the case of the Head of the Psychology Department who was also accused of plagiarism. The committee did as mandated and found all of them guilty as charged.
Examining the PUASA charge that the Chancellor’s decision to involve himself in penalising the culprits rather than referring the case to the syndicate for review amounted to violation of the university autonomy, a reading of the PU Act of 1973 shows that it is utterly unfounded. Article 11A invests the governor with the power to review the record of the proceedings of any statutory body to satisfy himself of the “correctness, legality or propriety” of any finding and in case he is not satisfied he is entitled to “pass such orders as he may deem fit”. It clearly shows that the governor was acting within his rights and that he was not under any obligation to refer the case back to the syndicate.
Here it may be pointed out that the PU administration last year accused HEC of violating its autonomy when the latter urged it to kick out the cheaters. There may be substance in the charge by the universities that HEC generally transgresses their autonomy but in this particular case, given the way PU conducted itself, it simply cannot be sustained.
For example, the university administration merely removed the Head of CHEP from the directorship, a position that he was holding till further orders as his term had expired in October 2006, but let him retain his position as DG of the School of Physical Sciences. He was not fired from his substantive job as professor. Similarly, four other culprits were let off the hook with warnings in addition to the withholding of their annual increments.
Not only that, the university registrar shamelessly defended the accused by arguing that they deserved benefit of the doubt for the absence of a clear-cut distinction between permissible copying and plagiarism and for lack of awareness of the issue on their part. He particularly supported the younger culprits by arguing that they were “talented and budding physicists of the future” as they had 173 publications in international journals to their credit and the highest impact factor.
He justified the award of mild punishments to the plagiarists on the ground that the university calendar was silent; and that there was no government legislation in the matter. The university administration, by defending the accused, thus virtually encouraged plagiarism and brought Pakistan’s name into disrepute internationally.
As to the charge that the Chancellor wangled a report of his choice from the inquiry committee, it does not stick either because this was not the only committee that found the accused guilty. There were two other committees that found the faculty members of CHEP guilty. They were established not by the Chancellor but by the university administration. Similarly, the plea that it was a travesty of justice to penalise the accused twice does not hold because as shown above according to the PU Act of 1973 the Chancellor was entitled to enhance the punishment, if he deemed it necessary.
How do we explain such abominable attitude on the part of the previous university administration? The explanation for this is to be found in the university’s local politics than anything else. It is reported that the former VC was involved in serious financial and administrative irregularities, which he committed in tandem with the Director of CHEP. Besides, a group of teachers closely allied with the all-powerful IJT of which the Director CHEP was a part rules the roost as it holds almost all positions of power such as the syndicate and PUASA. Through these bodies they protect the wrongdoers while the university administration acts like a silent spectator. The former VC has mercifully left but the group is still intact. That explains why the current PUASA opposes the Chancellor’s decision.
Irrespective of whether or not this reading of the situation is well founded, it is undeniable that the present case is just the tip of the iceberg. Plagiarism is rampant on campuses and involves at once teachers and students. The situation may deteriorate in the future given the lure of money that is available to teachers these days.
Hence, there is a gargantuan task ahead. HEC should be commended for putting in place legislation to combat plagiarism seriously. However, this alone is not sufficient because the issue is quite complex. HEC and the universities must devise ways and means to build a strong body of opinion on campuses that acts as a watchdog against this scourge if they are to succeed.
In the meantime the PU VC, the Chancellor and HEC deserve credit for the remarkable fight in the present case, particularly the last one for its indefatigable perseverance in the matter.
The writer is a former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University.
Mr. Qureshi, how do you come to that conclusion?
Fact 1: There was an enquiry and the enquiry found them guilty.
Fact 2: The papers they wrote and the papers they stole from are both on the web and we can all see what they stole and that they did steal it. So, where is the doubt?
Fact 3: The international research organizations they submitted their stolen material to have also conducted separate enquiries and found that they did, in fact, steal the material.
So, just you saying that you are satisfied is about as credible as they saying they are innocent. All the facts and evidence say otherwise.