News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Oct. 17, 2005
The academic integrity policy at Saint Louis University defines plagiarism, in part, as a student “submitting materials authored by or editorially revised by another person but presented as the student’s own work.” Punishments can include suspension and dismissal from the university.
Some students at the university want to know if the policy applies to homilies given by the president, the Rev. Lawrence H. Biondi.
The student newspaper and The St. Louis Post-Dispatch have reported that Father Biondi took substantial portions of his homily last month to open the academic year from the homily given by the Rev. Stephen A. Privett, president of the University of San Francisco, to open the 2004-5 academic year at his institution. Saint Louis University and the University of San Francisco are both Jesuit institutions, which typically hold a special Mass of the Holy Spirit to mark the beginning of an academic year.
The University News, the student newspaper, first broke the story. Father Biondi told the paper that he and Father Privett have an agreement to exchange homilies and to use them, and that such exchanges are common among priests. Father Biondi declined to talk to The Post-Dispatch for its article and a spokeswoman for Saint Louis University said on Sunday that the university would not discuss the matter.
Father Privett, who could not be reached for this article, confirmed to the The Post-Dispatch that he traded homilies with Father Biondi and said it was not the least bit unusual. “We are both university presidents, we both have Masses of the Holy Spirit, and neither one of us has an unending source of wisdom and knowledge,” Father Privett told The Post-Dispatch. Father Privett added that he had never used any of Father Biondi’s material as his own, but that “for Larry to take some part of my homily to use — I just don’t see that as unethical at all.”
Not everyone agrees. The article in The Post-Dispatch — which said that about one-third of the homily by Father Biondi was “taken directly” from Father Privett — quoted numerous experts on homily ethics. While many said that sharing of homilies is in fact common, they said that such sharing should be acknowledged and that the acknowledgment — even if not as formal as a footnote in a scholarly paper — is what makes the practice legitimate. (There was no indication in Father Biondi’s homily that any of the material originated with another homily.) Others said that uncredited use of another’s homily might be OK for a parish priest, but not for a prominent figure like a university president.
Andrew Ivers, editor in chief of The University News, said that he had attended the opening homily by Father Biondi and been moved by it. An anonymous tip led him to compare an audiotape of the homily with a transcript of last year’s address at San Francisco. Ivers said he’s disappointed in his president.
“If he had just said that he was riffing off this other guy, I would have had no problem with it,” Ivers said. “But I personally think he should take the time to write his own homilies.”
Ivers said that even if homily-trading is common among priests, and even if Father Privett said it was OK to use the material, that doesn’t get around Father Biondi’s role as an academic leader in additional to being a religious leader.
“I understand Father Biondi is a busy man, but we are still an academic institution and a cornerstone of that is learning from others and building on others’ ideas in part by crediting their work,” Ivers said. “Taking so much from someone else and essentially passing it off as your own when you stand up there and deliver a homily, I really don’t think that’s a good example.” Ivers said that the incident was particularly grating because it happened right after classes started, when students heard about academic integrity from all of their professors.
John Griesbach, president of the Faculty Senate at Saint Louis and an associate professor of law, said he did not view the homily as a case of plagiarism because it was a homily, not a scholarly paper; it was a speech, not something written down; and it reflected an understanding between Father Privett and Father Biondi. But Griesbach said it was “unfortunate that Father Biondi didn’t say that he was using language from his friend Father Privett.”
Griesbach said that the “ambiguity” the incident creates in students’ minds is part of what makes the lack of credit “unfortunate.”
A historian who blogs under the pseudonym Hiram Hover took issue with the argument that the nature of the homily as a non-scholarly address lessens the seriousness of using someone else’s work.
When graduation speeches have been copied, Hover wrote, people have taken it seriously. Those speeches are “also inspirational and not really academic works, but commencement speakers don’t get a religious exemption,” he wrote.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
This story is definitely humorous! It’s a good way to start the day off with a smile.
Father Privett and Father Biondi had an agreement to share information and did just that.
The real problem is not that Father Biondi used portions of a speech from Father Privett without explicitly giving credit to him. It’s the fact that Father Biondi could not write his own speech.
It’s alright to share ideas but is it really that difficult for a highly qualified university president to sit down for a couple hours and write a speech?
Students have a right to be angry because it’s a little embarrassing. However, it’s really not that serious.
Regards, Donnell Duncan, Founder and President, The Cracked Door, “If the Door is Cracked, the Door is Open”
Donnell, Civil Engineering (Structures) Graduate at Georgia Instititute of Technology, at 6:42 am EDT on October 17, 2005
Much ado about nothing.
Robert Kaffer, Regis University, at 10:50 am EDT on October 17, 2005
Do you hope to make INSIDE the Fox News of Higher Education? I agree that the failure to credit another for the homily was not good, but a lead story? Sorry. I’m afraid this has given me a negative first taste of your website.
I don’t watch Fox News. . . either
John Daniels, at 11:19 am EDT on October 17, 2005
Like the president of the United States and the CEOs of many corporate boards, it’s not unusual for university presidents to have someone else write their speeches. The problem comes when those presidents hire a freelancer who farms out his/her work to numerous people and institutions, sometimes writing the same speech over and over, just plugging in different names and details. It’s a profitable business for the freelancer, but pretty scary for the purchaser of those speeches. If I were to hire a speech writer, I would make sure that I had a signed contract saying my speech was original and that no part of it, not even a phrase, was in anybody else’s speech, and that no part of it would ever be sold to anyone else. This should serve as a warning to university presidents who have someone else write their speeches!
Cindy, at 2:22 pm EDT on October 17, 2005
No, the story is fine, actually. Yes, Biondi should have given explicit credit to his source, but given that his source indicated there was an existing agreement, I am less inclined to recommend harsh punishment.
What is distressing is the utter disregard the first three commenters have for academic honesty and all that such violations imply. Mr. Duncan, we are back the cracked foundation: what do you say when, later this academic year, a student borrows extensively from a friend’s paper, intent on being caught and using the same defense as Biondi? Do you let him off because it’s an OK defense now? And please, no one suggest that students were pondering making a statement in just that fashion from the moment the story broke.
Something light? Plagiarism is no laughing matter. Not worthy of a lead story? What, pray tell, is worthy of a lead? We are looking at a practice that, when caught in the classroom, must be dealt with strictly and according to a clearly defined set of rules ("I didn’t know” and “I didn’t mean to” are not valid defenses in my classroom). Maybe it is OK for parents to lead by exceptions to the rule, too. Their children will sort it out after mom hoses down the walk the next morning, right?
Andrew Purvis, at 2:34 pm EDT on October 17, 2005
Astonished that few readers care that the president of the university cribbed his homily. Is it okay because he’s a holy minister? At his level, he should be twice as virtuous as the rest of us unwashed secularists. If he did the same thing on a freshman comp paper, he’d be given an F, well, supposedly. Well, maybe not.
Marion, Ph. D., at 5:34 pm EDT on October 17, 2005
I do not share the view of Prof. John Griesbach (SLU Law prof and President of the Faculty Senate) that what Fr. Biondi did was OK. Perhaps he is considering strictly “legal” definitions, rather than relying on moral reasoning? I don’t know from what sources he or others who find no fault with this practice are getting their definition or understanding of plagiarism, but there is a wealth of sources (including those used by the NIH’s Office of Research Integrity) that would not agree with their point of view. (see: http://ori.hhs.gov/policies/plagiarism.shtml)Plagiarism is not restricted to written material, nor is it “permissable” under certain circumstances in public fora. If you use the words, ideas, constructs of another person, you MUST GIVE DUE CREDIT, particularly in public fora where you convey the impression to the listener that the words, ideas, constructs are your own, derived from your own intellect and wordsmanship, rather than from another. If you lift, wholesale, entire passages from the work of others without due attribution, it is egregious. When you are the president of an academic institution (and, in this case, also a religious leader), addressing the university community, I would say it is at least expected that you come up with your own own words and ideas. There’s nothing wrong with deriving inspiration from the work of others, or quoting their work..... but to verbalize the work of others with no attribution or indication that you have directly quoted someone else is just WRONG... PERIOD! Those who (in these website blogs) have tried to minimize that fact are, at best, misinformed.... at worst, they are as bad as the plagiarizer.
St. Louis Guy, at 3:14 pm EDT on October 18, 2005
St. Louis Guy, I am not sure whether the use of capital letters and saying the word “period” makes your argument any stronger or not, but I can tell that you feel strongly about the issue.
I need to take issue with a few points that you make. First of all, whether something is “legal” or “illegal” according to many scholars relates directly as to whether it is “moral” or “immoral” since they see the law as a way to organize “moral reasoning.” In general, I can probably point to some “moral” principle out there that will justify any behavior. Indeed, there are few (if any) people who don’t think that what they are doing is somehow acceptable and probably “moral.” However, legal reasoning will, at a minimum, provide people with some guidance as to how to go about discerning which moral principles do apply. You didn’t provide your “moral” reasoning in your post, so I have difficult knowing why you think that “moral” reasoning would reach a different result.
Secondly, discerning whether a person uses the “ideas” of others is often quite difficult. Take the paragraph above. Do I need to give credit the natural law theorists who endorsed such a vision of law ? Or is there an “obviousness” exception to your rule ? Of course, what is “obvious” to us, might not be obvious to someone else. (E.g. right now we think “obviously” a state can’t prevent a white man and a black woman from getting married, but this was a contentious issues 40 years ago.)
Finally, while you demand that people use “moral reasoning” you seem to condemn people who reason and then come to an opposite conclusion as you come to. In fact, you say that they are as bad as the plagerizer. I wonder what the point of employing any mode of reasoning is, when you conclude that they all require condemnation for not reaching your conclusion.
LArry, at 11:07 am EDT on October 20, 2005
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
Tenure track, full time position that will teach introductory art and architecture history, undergraduate modern art and ... see job
Urban College with 21,000 students at the base of Rocky Mountain, in Colorado. see job
Hillsborough Community College is a public, comprehensive multi-campus, state-supported community college located in the ... see job
HACC, a leader in education in Central PA, is a comprehensive, multi-campus community college, providing quality instruction ... see job
Founded in 1848, Rhodes College is a highly selective, private, residential college, located in Memphis, TN. Rhodes offers an ... see job
Requisition Number: 2958 Number of Positions: 1 Full or Part-Time: Part Time; 12 month position; Grant Funded Wage: ... see job
Nursing Instructor — Physical Therapist Assistant Instructor MATERIALS NEEDED Interested applicants must submit a San Juan ... see job
Founded in 1898, and affiliated with what is now New York-Presbyterian Hospital since 1927, Weill Cornell Medical College ... see job
Job Summary Roosevelt University seeks an accomplished academic leader to serve as the first Gerald W. ... see job
Posting Description: The University of Colorado at Boulder is seeking to complement strengths in ... see job
sharing
I recited the pledge of allegiance today. Must I cite attribution? Most of us don’t have original thoughts; we only move the words around to make a point. I feel if you are getting paid for speaking or writing & don’t give tribute to the author, that’s wrong. Otherwise, big deal.
steve, at 1:10 pm EST on February 18, 2008