If one of my students had plagiarized like Richard Muma did in his doctoral dissertation, I would have failed them.
Words and the ideas they represent are important. During my mass communication classes, I emphasized that original research is essential to scholarship. Plagiarism, whether intentional or not, means stealing from others, and the term itself derives from the Latin word for “kidnapper.”
The plagiarism issue surfaced on October 7, when Tim Carpenter from the Kansas Reflector reported that Muma’s dissertation, crucial for his education doctorate, included passages from over 20 authors without appropriate citations. Muma, who has been the president of Wichita State University since 2021, submitted a condensed 88-page dissertation on managerial roles in healthcare, but many passages were improperly attributed.
On the day of the report, Muma sent a letter to the campus community, claiming that these were “technical errors,” affecting only 5% of his dissertation, and stated that an internal review found no misconduct. He also mentioned plans to correct the mistakes.
Such excuses resemble those from students caught cheating. They often claim ignorance about citation rules or assert they had someone review their work, asking for a second chance. These excuses don’t hold up for high school students, let alone a college president.
This isn’t the first instance of academic misconduct tied to Wichita educators. In 1992, a columnist alleged that Wichita’s school superintendent, Larry Vaughn, committed plagiarism in his dissertation, citing numerous issues with citations and writing quality.
The most notorious local case occurred in 2002, when 28 students in a biology class failed for plagiarism after many copied from online sources. Their teacher, Christine Pelton, was later pressured to reduce their penalties, leading to her resignation.
For 17 years, I taught journalism and English, often encountering similar plagiarism incidents as Muma’s. Despite teaching proper citation, some students still resorted to copying under pressure. This type of theft not only undermines academic integrity but also disrespects authorship and original research.
I have personal experience with plagiarism myself, having had my articles and even books stolen. Good scholarship, like good journalism, is built on accuracy and accountability.
While my history with the Kansas Board of Regents and my current litigation is a different story, I don’t know Muma personally nor have any affiliation with Wichita State. My views on plagiarism stem from years dedicated to authorship and teaching.
I faced students who made similar “mistakes” as Muma, resulting in difficult conversations. Some would genuinely not comprehend the expectations, and I would guide them on paraphrasing and citations. However, there were also those who knew better yet insisted they hadn’t done anything wrong.
Muma’s dissertation directly quotes a passage from a 1983 book without quotation marks, using 150 of 255 words without proper citation. This isn’t merely a technical oversight but a clear case of academic dishonesty.
He claimed that while the university’s investigation suggested he should have used quotation marks, it concluded there was no misconduct. A full release of the investigation is warranted, and WSU should consult independent experts to evaluate the situation fairly.
The Kansas Board of Regents should suspend Muma during this inquiry, and the University of Missouri-St. Louis should investigate how such poor scholarship received approval for a dissertation.
Academic integrity is vital for every university. The American Association of University Professors emphasizes the importance of professors being honest in recognizing their sources.
Muma’s actions do not reflect the nuances of unintentional borrowing but rather constitute outright theft of scholarly work. It takes away the essence of authorship and creativity, which undermines the integrity of academic research.
Now, it will be difficult for faculty at Wichita State to uphold high standards of academic honesty when their president has set a different precedent. It raises a serious question: will anyone have the courage to hold Richard Muma accountable?
Leave a Reply