In academic institutions where knowledge is a prime commodity, a well-researched scholarly proposition may sometimes be only a shade removed from an intellectually dishonest argument. This is usually the case when a new idea is a mere mishmash of old and existing ones. Or when a tried-and-tested method of inquiry is borrowed to formulate an entirely original concept.
What then is intellectual dishonesty? What circumstances permit the use of recycled information? To what extent may ideas be mixed and matched (or, in this electronic day and age, “cut and pasted”) with the resulting concept still qualifying as original?
At the University of the Philippines, it can be difficult to distinguish original research from fabricated study because everyone is accorded intellectual freedom. Presumed capable and responsible, everyone is encouraged to explore the unfamiliar and the unconventional in the pursuit of new knowledge. This is probably the reason the University’s policy on intellectual property seems, as may be gleaned from the cases lodged in the Office of the Vice President for Legal Affairs, cautious—careful not to render judgment without putting all facts and circumstances in their proper context.
Quote, unquote
In one case, a professor was charged with plagiarism for quoting passages from a book by a foreign author during a lecture she delivered in 2002. The professor allegedly made the quoted passages appear to be hers when she failed to attribute them to the author.
The UP President, whose office received the complaint, dismissed the allegation on the basis that it was mere hearsay. It turned out that the complainant, also a professor but from another university, simply based his information on a news article which did not even put into context how the UP professor delivered the quotes in question. And since the complainant himself was not in attendance during the lecture, he too could not confirm his own allegation.
Upon dismissing the complaint, the UP President issued the following reminder to complainant: “It is imperative that members of the academe act with justice, observe with honesty and good faith, and duly respect each other’s rights and intellectual freedom. The University frowns upon any kind of abuse of right, such as filing baseless complaints against a faculty member of the University.”
Between the lines
Should there be sufficient evidence, UP still has to determine whether the alleged act constitutes intellectual dishonesty. This is illustrated in the case where a visiting professor, whose collection of poems was published by the UP Press in 1999, charged a PhD candidate with plagiarism.
The visiting professor alleged that portions of one poem in the PhD candidate’s own collection, which was published by a different publishing company in 2005, were copied from his 1999 collection. He called the attention of the UP Press to certain lines from his own poem and the PhD candidate’s poem which, when compared, supposedly revealed plagiarism. The PhD candidate simply changed noun-verb order, added or replaced a noun, adjective, or verb with another but followed the same order of syntax, altered the simile, or adjusted the spelling from American to British.
Vice President for Legal Affairs Marvic F. Leonen, in evaluating the complaint, opined that this was indeed a case of intellectual dishonesty in the form of plagiarism. Citing the Supreme Court in Habana vs Robles, he explained that one does not necessarily have to copy the entire copyrighted work or even a large portion of it to be guilty of plagiarism. The determining factor: when so much is taken from the original work that the value of the original work is substantially diminished, such as when it significantly affects the sale of the original author’s book, causing him “actual damage by way of unrealized income.”
However, Leonen pointed out that not all acts of copying someone else’s copyrighted work without permission are considered plagiarism. Under the Fair Use Principle, it is not a crime to copy, display, perform, modify, or distribute a protected material without permission from the author if it is for purposes such as commentary, news reporting, or teaching. “Fair Use,” in other words, is an exception to the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.
When considering this in relation to the complaint of the visiting professor, Leonen noted that there were differences in the words and phrases used by the PhD candidate in his poem. Thus, “any apparent similarity between the PhD candidate’s poem and the visiting professor’s may be considered fair use,” he said.
Under the Philippine Intellectual Property Code, four factors are considered in determining whether the use of protected material falls within the ambit of Fair Use Principle—the purpose and character of the use (non-commercial use is more likely to be permitted than commercial), the nature of the original work (factual works receive less protection than expressive works such as poems and songs), the amount and substantiality of the portion used may be an infringement if it is qualitatively important), and the effect on the market value of the copyrighted work (an infringement is not likely to be permitted if it supplants market demand for the original). Since there was no substantial reproduction or extensive quoting of the visiting professor’s poems and the value of the original work was not substantially diminished, Leonen said there was no cause of action against the PhD candidate.
Institutional offense
What if a complainant is able to show cause of action against an accused, as in the case of an MA student who successfully proved that his thesis was used by his adviser for the latter’s professorial chair lecture two years ago? The committee which investigated the complaint found that the adviser violated the University’s policy on ethical standards and intellectual property rights.
How does the University proceed from this finding? Or, more to the point, who should file the formal complaint and attend to all those legal procedures? While the case at bar is ongoing, the University is exploring the most feasible options available to it.
Although it was the MA student who was directly offended by the breach, Leonen suggested that the Chancellor should file the complaint on behalf of the University. “Intellectual dishonesty is not an offense committed against another individual,” said Leonen. “It is a transgression of academic integrity. Hence, there should be no private party offended. If any, it is the University or its values that is transgressed.”
Leonen noted that after the preliminary investigation conducted by the committee created specifically for the complaint, the case was ripe for adjudication before the University’s Administrative Disciplinary Tribunal (ADT), where “both parties would be given the opportunity to explain their respective sides in a formal hearing.” The thesis adviser, however, has opted to tender his resignation rather than go through the ADT. According to Leonen, while it is well within the rights of the thesis adviser to choose to leave the University, the Chancellor cannot accept the resignation because under the Rules and Regulations on the Discipline of UP Faculty Members and Employees, “No application for retirement, leave of absence with pay, or resignation by the respondent shall be processed or approved pending the final examination of the case.”
He recommended that the Chancellor should forward the case to the ADT. If the thesis adviser is not satisfied with the ADT resolution, he may file an appeal with the Office of the Chancellor, the Office of the UP President, the Board of Regents, the Civil Service Commission, the Court of Appeals, and all the way up to the Supreme Court. “The point is he has all these forums available to be heard,” he said.
Dear Elizabeth 