thanks guys, I'm addicted to the saga now. FWIW, I hope she's learned her lesson. I'm sure many of us have been tempted when faced with a bland or difficult topic, but this was neither and she actually followed through. For shame.

After 2 non-plagiarized BS degrees, I start my non-plagiarized MS degree in September!

This is the first press I've seen on this whole thing...

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/03/31/plagiarize

I'm ambivalently in the this-is-a-hoax crowd.

If it turns out to be a hoax, it's a real beaut, and that's why I check in for updates.

Some aspects of the case just don't feel right, and some of my skepticism can't get around the fact this is all being played out on a sketch-comedy group's site so close to a near-holiday dedicated to pranks.

At any rate -- whether I'm right or wrong -- the process has certainly revealed interesting perspectives on plagiarism, ethics, and culture.

Cheers,

greville

It's not a hoax. I've talked to her. Repeatedly, in fact. Bitch won't go out with me, and now she's not answering her phone.

Nate,

I'm not usually inclined to post comments on these things, but I wanted to tell you that I believe you handled the situation admirably. I felt slightly sick when I read that, apparently, a fair number of people on this thread want to see "Ms. Krishna" expelled, publicly flayed, drawn and quartered, et cetera. As a college student working my ass off for an English degree, I have no respect for this girl, who is obviously mentally deficient and completely lacking in ethics and "personal integrity," as one fellow put it, but she is, above all, just a stupid kid who did a stupid thing. And, if she is, in fact, the Antichrist, this whole debacle will probably only compel "Ms. Krishna" to become a better liar, regardless of the severity of the punishment that is ultimately meted out.

Low morals are not adequate justification for public crucifixion beyond (mostly) benign internet infamy and possible course failure and suspension. Besides, this girl is obviously retarded and will have to deal with enough consequential hardship throughout the rest of her life. So, whatever, Internet People, get your panties out of a twist.

To the point, Nate, I commend your decorum (truly classy) and I think it's great that you've been able to provide an exceedingly clever object lesson for all of academia. Good luck with your theatre troupe.

~Joanna

P.S. Your friend Tex is hilarious. The thread just wasn’t complete until someone referenced Deliverance.

By continuing to propagate this, you will go to hell Nate.

Enjoy seeing someone in pain? Go torture some Iraqis in Iraq.

To save space here for serious comments by new posters I put my latest rant here.

http://forwardho.blogspot.com/2005/03/cheater-and-bully.html

LexusNg,

Nowadays compassion is more difficult to channel than arrogance.

But on to my anecdote:

Many years ago, my youngest brother had to do a paper for high school. Our middle brother was home on leave from the Navy and was asked to write the paper for him, as the youngest was ill and had come home from work to sleep til time for school. So middle bro writes it up, all legit until the last sentence, where he wrote the following about the teacher: "Mr. James is ugly and looks like a groundhog with glasses!"

From what I remember, he thought the youngest brother would read it, but he didn't and got suspended for 3 days.

Quick question: See your sketch comedy, is it anything like this? Because I'm not sure I'd want to go and see 30 seconds of light humour followed by 14 and a half minutes of some guy reading out a bullet point list of apologies.

I've been a faculty member for ten years, and I've dealt with my share of cheating and plagiarism in that time.

Mr. Kushner, please put aside any doubts or regrets you may still have about this incident. I (and every other professor) have seen students exactly like Laura - adults (not "kids"!) utterly devoid of any ethics, and completely willing to look you right in the eye and lie repeatedly until confronted with the ironclad evidence of guilt.

Forget Laura's tears and pleading - those are standard tactics for her type. Had those tactics worked, and had she succeeded in somehow making this situation go away, she would now be laughing with her friends about how she got away with it, and what a fool and a pushover you were.

And her claims that this was the first time she ever did something like this? Two chances of that - slim and none. An honest 21-year-old woman doesn't decide out of the blue to solicit a ghost writer for a term paper, lie to that ghost writer, and cheat him out of his promised payment. She's been at this for a long, long time. It may certainly be the first time she's ever been caught at it, which may say something about the laxity of her professors in enforcing the honor code at her university.

I find the comments of pity and sympathy for Laura's plight rather interesting. I'll bet those same people who condemn you for hurting "poor Laura" also condemn people like Ken Lay (Enron) and Bernard Ebbers (Worldcom). People, where do you think people like Lay and Ebbers come from? That's right, they were once college students just like Laura - people who had absolutely no reservations about lying, cheating, or stealing to get what they wanted, and damn the consequences to others.

The spotlight you've turned on Laura's lack of morality might - I say MIGHT - turn her around, but I doubt it. By the age of 21, a person's moral compass is hard to turn. But hopefully this little saga might convince a few other potential cheaters to think twice.

Given that private religious universities typically have very tough honor codes and strict punishments for cheating, I think Laura is in for a very unpleasant semester. Good. If nothing else, perhaps she'll one day do a better job raising her own children than her own mother did raising her.

And by the way, just in case this is all a hoax - kudos!

ASCP: Would you like some salsa with that chip on your shoulder?

You make a lot of grand pronouncements about what "kind of person" Laura is (from this, I would imagine that you study a worthless subject like Psychology or English Lit), yet I think you doth protest a bit too much. (That's an English Lit quote, in case you're a Psychology professor.) Either you plaigarised heavily yourself throughout college, or have gone easy on those who did. Worse yet, you might have failed to notice one of your students doing so!

Either way, you sound like an embittered borderline psycho.

Enough is Enough.

Chris. On April 1, 2005. ("The Fools Day")
Tomorrow. Start another joke.

Make the mirror turn in other directions.

Everybody else should help you by not posting
any more thoughts of inner Buddhist Delights!

I think your behavior was reprehensible and, frankly, disgusting. We have an immature college student who, for whatever reason, is cutting corners. Maybe there is a family tragedy. Maybe she is suffering from depression. And you, to boost your ego and generate material for your ego-boosting blog, go to great lengths to inflict a disproportionate punishment on her. You do not bother to check into her motivations: you assume them. You do not bother to check whether the name given is the right one: you assume so. You act with guile and lure her into a trap.

What she did was wrong, but in no way commensurate with what you did.

As another professor, I too meet so much plagiarism that I wonder sometimes why I bother giving writing assignments in the first place. Student reactions to being caught cheating or plagiarizing seem to follow the famous 5 Stages of Dealing with Death made famous by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross(Kubler-Ross, E, On Death & Dying, (Simon & Schuster/Touchstone),1969. Below is my modified account.
1. Denial - The "No, not me" stage.
This stage is filled with disbelief and denial. The student will swear that it is not true, will assert that they worked very hard on the paper, and/or talk about his honor and work ethic. They may even offer to provide evidence of their research (which will never appear).
2. Anger/Resentment - The "Why me?" stage.
The student will begin to get aggressive, threatening, demanding proof of these claims. She might begin to argue about the vagueness of the assignment, or the difficulty of the task. She may claim to be picked on because of her race, sex, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, fraternity/sorority membership, athletic participation, etc.. Threats of lawsuits, complaints to department heads, provosts, and parents are not uncommon at this stage.
3. Bargaining - The "If I do this, you'll do that" stage.
He will ask for an opportunity to redo the assignment, or correct it, or even find the 'missing' references. These discussions are usually peppered with the lengthy claims about how hard his life was/is in order to create sympathy, or promises of a greater future effort to do well. At the very least he will argue that he should not be penalized beyond a bad grade. Among a certain group, bribes or offers of other payments are not unheard of at this stage.

4. Depression- The "It’s really happened" stage.
The student may cry, send lengthy confessions, perhaps invoke religious proverbs. She may begin to dramatize the effect of this accusation on her self esteem. She may begin to complain about 'stupid' she is, or how much she regrets this error in judgment. She may suddenly find religion at this time.

5. Acceptance - The "This is what happened" stage.
The student accepts the fact that he did something wrong. The good ones see this as a learning experience, the bad ones quit school, or believe they can get away with it again if they just do it better. I am not really sure how many people actually get to this stage, they are usually gone from my view by then, but presumably it must happen, eventually.

To nk:

Laura had proven exactly what "kind of person" she is - a liar, a cheat, and a plagiarist. Her words and actions, not mine. It's interesting how you condemn me for judging Laura with such ample evidence, yet turn around and judge me while knowing almost nothing about me. Hypocrisy much?

Try sitting behind my desk for ten years, and deal with these cases like I have. Your perspective will change. If you think I'm being a bastard, or being cruel, boo hoo. "Embittered borderline psycho"? I've been called much worse by the students I've caught, believe me. But I did what I had to do, because otherwise a grade in my class would mean nothing to the students who worked for it. Not to mention the fact that it's my JOB, and my RESPONSIBILITY. Do those words have any meaning to you?

And by the way, I teach engineeering. Funny thing about engineering - when people cheat, or lie, or cut corners, buildings sometimes collapse, or planes crash, or cars flip over. Innocents get hurt, or die, because people like Laura lack the ethics to do the right thing.

It sounds to me like a professor may have once caught YOU doing the wrong thing. Maybe that's why you're so bitter and angry about my comments towards plagiarism, hmm?

To Another Prof:

Your "5 stages" are excellent. I shall definitely have to share them with my colleagues.

ASCP:

Rock on! You tell 'im!

nk:

You're stupid and impudent. I don't know which is worse.

A Somewhat Weird Professor:

I don't need to plaigarise. My degree course is easy, and the coursework load is moderate. Plus, I get good grades anyway, being relatively responsible and of a decent level of intelligence.

Perhaps the reason you have such a problem with plaigarism is that you launch witchunts against students, not unlike the one you tried to deflect onto me in your last reply.

Product Free Cruelty: What does impudent mean? I realise I should know this, but sadly I am stupid.

About eighteen months ago, I caught a plagiarist red-handed when he had an article published in a respected online journal. I read it thinking that it felt strangely familiar, but it wasn't until I got to the end that I realised what his source must have been, because he committed the classic plagiarist's mistake of copying a factual error without double-checking.

So I dug out the piece I thought he'd cribbed from, and my instincts were entirely correct - there'd been a token attempt at rewriting, but it was so superficial that at least 75% of it had simply been copied word for word.

Unlike Nate, I didn't have a blog, and I'm not sure I'd have gone down the name'n'shame route anyway (I think Nate's biggest mistake in this whole affair - the only really serious one, to be fair - was naming Laura from the off), so I simply sent a copy of the original piece to the site editor and suggested he compare it with what he'd published. He replied within the hour, genuinely shocked, having withdrawn every piece by that author pending further investigation.

He was also kind enough to forward me the plagiarist's reply a few days later:

"I have checked through the article and the paragraphs you sent me. The sections in question did not come from [the source I cited] but from two newspaper obituaries that I used in my research and from which I had taken notes. When I returned to the original newspaper sources, I have to agree that my notes were close to the original."

Both the editor and I agreed that "close" was a bit of an understatement - and the pieces weren't reinstated.

The really shocking thing was that this wasn't some wet-behind-the-ears college kid, but someone with a PhD (allegedly) who clearly had ambitions towards being taken seriously as a writer. I occasionally google the name to see if there's any sign of his writing career taking off - though I haven't yet decided what I'm going to do if he's ever commissioned by someone I know and/or respect.

What's particularly outrageous about all this isn't just the fact that he ripped off another writer for personal gain but the fact that in so doing he also opened his editor up to a plagiarism suit. And had I e-mailed the original author instead of the editor, that might well have happened - it was only sheer laziness on my part in that the editor's e-mail was much easier to track down that ensured it didn't!

The really sad part about this is that academia must be rife with plaigarism. I'm about to finish my BA, and I've had it drummed into me constantly since day one that plaigarism will not be at all tolerated at my uni. But it seems to be a massive problem.

One of my lecturers last year told me that there is a section in a rather popular volume written by an ex-colleague of his, that basiclly copies sentence-for-sentence an article he himself wrote a couple of years prior. Apparently this was a mistake, and the guy was in "writers mist" and thus didn't even know he was remembering and writing out someone else's work. But how many more people will do things like that deliberatley?

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I also checked out these newspaper obituaries, which were also sourced from the original article (which was a biographical piece that could easily be reworked as an obituary).

There was one crucial difference, though - they were edited by, and of course credited to, the original author.

"The really sad part about this is that academia must be rife with plaigarism. I'm about to finish my BA, and I've had it drummed into me constantly since day one that plaigarism will not be at all tolerated at my uni. But it seems to be a massive problem."

The problem is that it's just too damn easy to find, cut and paste pieces on just about any subject - I simply didn't have that kind of freedom when I was a student in the 1980s. If I was that way inclined, at the very least I'd have to sit down and physically copy out the text I wanted to plagiarise, word by word. Which is one of many reasons why it wasn't worth doing: the amount of effort saved would have been pretty minimal when set against the potential problems of getting caught.

"One of my lecturers last year told me that there is a section in a rather popular volume written by an ex-colleague of his, that basiclly copies sentence-for-sentence an article he himself wrote a couple of years prior. Apparently this was a mistake, and the guy was in "writers mist" and thus didn't even know he was remembering and writing out someone else's work. But how many more people will do things like that deliberatley?"

It's a tricky one, and I do sympathise - I myself have an excellent memory for phrases, sentences and paragraphs, and it's not at all implausible that I might inadvertently have recycled the work of another writer without attribution in my own work.

But we'd be talking phrases or sentences at most - I can't believe someone's recall would be so good that it would permit them to recycle whole paragraphs from memory without having at least a vague idea of their source, even if it's only along the lines of there being a source in the first place.

You Sir, are a cunt!

Your in America, your all retarded anyway!

Weatherby Pond makes an important point about referencing -- you can use other people's work as long as you attribute it properly. And this makes me wonder if it's really possible to do completely original writing?

In many subject areas, it seems to me that all has already been said (and then some). Kind of like this blog on plagarism, and the perspectives about ethics and morality it has generated.

I think it's unlikely that any of the opinions and views expressed here are truly original in the sense of never having been conceived of before; I'm pretty sure that other thinkers have had and expressed identical views, although not likely in identical words.

So.... when seeking originality -- what are we really looking for? New wordings for old ideas.... or totally new ideas? The former seems almost trivial in comparison to the latter. Even though new wordings may have value -- perhaps they communicate the idea more clearly or elegantly. I can also see the value for students in terms of gaining mastery over a subject area -- becoming familiar with what's already been said so that you are in a position to actually judge whether your perspective is truly something original.

The value of true originality, by contrast, strikes me as breathrough brilliance of a totally different order. Maybe we can't expect it from student essays but maybe it is what we should be looking for when we assess the value of cholarship.

Not-an-original

In response to nirvarly...

WTF???

nirvarly:

Take a lesson. Your=your as in "Your brain must be made of dog poo." You're=you are as in "You're an idiot."

nk: Its pretty clear from your attitude that you have never created anything or done anything of value. Hope you enjoy bending over when the Lauras of the world come to rip you off.

cheers.

I suppose it depends how you define "value."

I'm tremendously impressed that, even though this is on the internet, some people still have useful things to say. Repetetive as hell after 3 days worth of comments, but at least there are some slight variations on themes.

Let's remind everybody at this point who can't be bothered to read that "Krishna" is not her real name, and there is therefore no point in saying, "C'mon, it's a hoax, her name is Krishna!"

Okay, carry on.

Ignore the trolls. They're not worth your mental energy.

Nate, as someone who has been falsely accused of plagiarism during my undergraduate career, can I just say...you obviously have WAY too much time on your hands and/or a really small dick.

You need to get laid. And no, that's not an offer.

It's interesting to me that my 10 and 12 year old daughters felt that Laura deserved Nate's treatment, yet many of the posters to this blog are quick to defend her.

"If Laura was in elementary school, then she might have an excuse for doing something that stupid. If she's old enough to be in college and still thinks cheating is okay, then maybe it will take a serious punishment to teach her a lesson." My ten year old daughter Ashley, 2005.

Good for you, Nate. The only thing I would have done differently is to have refused to remove her real name from the site. My daughters are both college students, and I would be incredibly disappointed if either of them had cheated as Laura did. I'd have helped them deal with any fall-out of their actions, but I sure would not have tried to minimize the fall-out. Yes, I'm a nice lady. But when you're a parent, natural consequences are your friend.

By the way, my lovely and talented daughter Johanna is also in a comedy sketch troupe in St. Louis, the NonProphets, who just finished a two-year run of their show, The Miliatant Propaganda Bingo Machine. I suggest that everyone here who supports Nate (and therefore, by some logical process which I cannot describe here, supports comedy sketch artists), plan to take a trip to St. Louis and see the NonProphets perform.

Thank you

Nate,

Dude, you're totally breaking your promise by leaving the "P" word in the links to some of the previous entries on this blog. Looks like you're going to need to fire up phpmyadmin and get on down to brass tacks with some database editing. Good luck!

Cheers,

10 and 12 year old children should believe that she deserved what she got. They are children. Adults, even adult comedy blog writers should understand that we all have responsibilities to those that are less wise, less experienced, less capable then ourselves. That responsibility does not include the kind of behavior that has been demonstrated here.

It is my duty to Nate and all those who do not understand the grievious nature of both the girl's and Nate's actions. She was wrong. Nate was wrong. They both knew better. The old saying two wrongs do not make a right is painfully apparent here.

If we are to expose our lives and society 'Jerry Springer' style. Let's at least chose to listen to people that make good choices and try to help people before that person is buried under a pile of doo-doo that we helped them create. In short a little maturity and compassion are needed. It might not be funny, but it is right.

This site is all about's Nate's ego

From the reading of this saga, I observe that Laura knew enough to avoid giving the name of her school. To me this suggests that she's done this before.

I can't say I'd do anything like Nate has done, but I do hold honor high on my list of personal virtues. I dropped out of college, twice in fact, before I finally got my life on track well enough to tough it out. Not once did I consider cheating as a means to an end.

Cheating & bitchin' are easy. Any asshole can do them. Doing stuff, THAT takes character.

If it were the middle ages I'm sure Nate and his supporters would have strung her up and ripped out her sweatbreads -- it's comforting to know that even today, any one fuck-up will not go unpunished. Everyone cast their stones at Laura! Burn her, we're the virtuous ones!

Umm, maybe you can close comments on this now? I mean really. You've gotten your 15 minutes of fame, as well as a few other (arguably more deserving) people's 15 minutes; call it a day and move on.

OK, so I just read the two updates, and I've got to say: Nate, you really wimped out at the end. Let's recap:

1.) Laura IMs a total stranger to write a college paper for her, for money.
2.) Laura accepts the paper & says she is sending payment.
3.) Later, Laura denies ever talking to Nate or emailing him, claims never to have made the request. Also, it becomes clear that Laura is not going to send any payment for the paper.

Let's pause here for a moment. Ignoring everything else for the moment, Laura's actions have been to cheat(1), lie(2), and steal.(3)

4.) Someone reading the blog emails the Dean, doing what all the readers already thought Nate did, and emailed the dean, who now has the website. The dean now gets to investigate Laura.
5.) Nate gets back in contact with Laura, who admits she lied at point #2, but then lies again about what she's told the Dean. So her credibility isn't so great.
6.) Both Laura and her mother say this is the first time Laura has ever done anything like this. Bearing in mind points #2 & #5, this claim looks especially doubtful.

Now, in some idealized world, the college would be able to review Laura's OTHER work, and check it for plagarism, to determine if #6 is a lie as well. But that's probably never going to happen, so let's move on to some more reality-based considerations.

She could be expelled. With a black mark on her transcripts. Yup. She "bought" a paper on-line, (without actually paying for it) and handed it in without actually reading it, knowing that all colleges have an Academic Code of Honesty. If you decide to drive through a red light at an intersection, you have to know that its possible you could get a traffic ticket, be in an accident, or both.

If Nate wanted to expose her as a plagarist, he could have very easily written "By the way, I paid a person to write this paper for me" instead of "I made a doody".

Could Laura get expelled? That's one possibility, but not the only one, and if this really is her "first time" plagarising, then it's not a very likely outcome. Other possible outcomes are
1.) She gets a failing grade (0 points) on the paper, and cannot redo the paper. This will hurt her grade for the class, but that's not the end of the world.
2.) She gets a failing grade in the CLASS, but can retake the class again to replace the grade. This could hurt her scholarships, if they're merit-based awards, but then, if she has merit-based scholarships & she cheats...
3.) She gets a failing grade in the class, as above, and is placed on Academic probation, meaning another failing class grade means explusion from the university.

In any event, Laura's schoolwork MAY be subject to higher scrutiny for the next school term. Then again, given the possible size of the college and the workload of the staff, she might not be too.

As for her name being on the internet, look, somewhere out there "Libby Hoeller" is getting on with her life. The Star Wars kid is still alive, well, and moving on. The internet has replaced TV for providing 15 minutes of Fame, and this is Laura's 15 minutes.

nk,
As a prof for only a couple of years, I have to tell you that I do not go on "witch-hunts" for plagiarism; I typically assume that most students would be like you and understand that this is not acceptable. This leads to an even greater sadness when I uncover plagiarism, and go through exactly what the profs you so angrily derided have described. Denial typically comes followed by tears and pleading. I have had students note that the word for word replay of online texts (and not even good ones at that-- couldn't they at least be selective?) must be due to those paragraphs sticking in their heads. Unfortunately, this skill rarely plagues them in quizzes and exams.
Expulsion or suspension? I wish. The administration has grown excessively lax as the students have become customers. Why kick out a paying guest? Excuses are made consistently, and sadly, no one even sits and talks to the students about these consequences and the reasons why plagiarism is a problem.
For those who fret about Laura K., be comforted that many profs, at least me, do approach students not with accusation but first with a query about personal tragedies, illnesses, etc. "Is everything OK?" is typically a first question, followed by "Is there anything you'd like to talk about?" And please, this is already a kindness for a student for whom "money is no object" although in retrospect, that must have been due to her intention to dodge the bill. But tragedies or traumas may be a reason, but they are not an excuse. I have students going through all kinds of troubles all the time and yet they do not cheat. It takes a special kind of person to do that.
Anyway, care is not Nate's obligation; he was solicited on the web in order to be cheated out of a paper a student would use for cheating. I don't see anything wrong with what he did as he laid bare the actions of a student that are probably all too typical. This opens an interesting question of ethical obligations on the web, but I have to admit that for the life of me, I see nothing wrong with what Nate did. I almost wish I did, but this wouldn't have happened had this girl never started up-- and had she even read his profile carefully. "Eating Hindu Sculpture"-- please. And isn't this kind of posting an "it takes a village" method of socializing a youngster? She was not only set on cheating, she was careless and thoughtless to boot. Seems to me that she should be taking some responsibility here. This "precious children" approach is really taking us all down.

Val seems to suggest there were threats and blackmail involved. Is that so? I must have missed those. That would change things, but still, there is a lesson to be learned. Don't cheat and read carefully. That apparently goes for me too.

People were looking her up and calling her? What fucktards. Comedy good, harassment bad.

Hey man, can I get you to write a paper for me? Ha, just kidding.

The professor is correct, and all you apologists for Laura are just like her. You think this is no bid deal, because you probably are as guilty as she.

And for the loser who has to attack the professor on what he might teach, you are particulary pathetic. Such attacks are classic tactics of people like Laura.

Note that once Laura contacted our now famous comedian, she at first did NOT want him to talk to the Dean. Why? Because she had fed him another lie. She said "Hm, let me check into this." Or something like that. A blatant avoiding of the truth. She contiues to try to maintain the lie, because she knows it will destroy her academically to admit to her plagiarism.

When I went to graduate school, journalism at the University of Missouri - Columbia, the penalty for plagiarism was simple. You were out. Period. No second chance. Why should this be true for only some schools? The penalty has to be stiff, because so many people seem to be practicing it on a large scale regardless of the price of getting caught.

These are the people who are going to run our world some day. Ken Lay being the perfect example by the professor. He destroyed a pension plan for many people. He put businesses out of commission in California (indirectly through his employees who were following orders from the top) and he cost many people much too much money to satisfy his greed. He should live in poverty for the rest of his life for what he did.

And Laura should pay the price for what she did. And then get on with her life. She'll do just fine. But unless she pays the price she. and others, will think that it's easy to skate by. Do you want the person running the nuclear plant near your home to be one who skated by?

I didn't think so.

Get of your hypocritical high horses, you Laura apologists, and give the professor a break. He knows what he's talking about, unlike so many whiney cry-baby girley men who think Laura should be allowed to get away with it "just this once."

When we all now it's just a plea for yourselves deep down. Come on, you lazy fatty people. Pump yourselves up!

It would be very easy for this to be proved a hoax. All it takes is for Lewis University to say, it didn't happen here. When given the opportunity to do that, they didn't. They simply cited student confidentiality rules.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/03/31/plagiarize

Here's another story, about another cheater, for those who'd like to see a bloodier ending:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/292646p-250502c.html

Nate, you ought to IM this to Ms. Krishna.

Rt

I can understand someone having sympathy for Laura. Although some feel plagiarism is a terrible crime. Others do not. Reasonable minds can differ.

But I just can't get over the fact that she wasn't going to pay for the paper. What kind of person does that to someone else. She might be able to rationalize her plagiarism as a victimless crime, but not the stiff. She knows how much work you did on that paper (since she did not want to do it herself). How infuriating that she would not pay.

Although it is a small crime, to me it is one of those crimes that just shows something about someone's true character. I have no sympathy for her at all.

As a lawyer (and not just a comments sections lawyer, I really went to law school), I have small tip to all the readers regarding legal advice: if someone is trying to give you legal advice about a subject (such as plagiarism), it is generally wise to avoid the opinions of those who can't spell the word they are giving legal advice about.

Incidentally, how many of the people defending plagiarism have ever been plagiarised themselves?

A couple of years ago, I was doing some idle Googling with the aim of writing a follow-up piece to an online article I'd written the previous year. I turned up something that looked quite promising and started to read it... and gradually realised (it's always a gradual realisation in these situations, which is why plagiarism is so damnably hard to detect) that I was substantially reading my own work, which had been cut and pasted with virtually no changes onto someone else's site and passed off under his name.

To add insult to injury, when I did a Google search on the name of my plagiarist, I discovered that he'd submitted this very same piece to another site, which had accepted and published it. This was easily resolved - its editor was very helpful (they usually are in these situations, since they're usually innocent third parties in a hugely embarrassing and reputation-affecting situation) and agreed that the evidence was cast-iron, namely that:

1. The original date of publication predated his by several weeks;
2. The writing style was so different from this guy's usual semi-literate scrawl that it was inconceivable that it had come from him;
3. The plagiarist had helpfully appended a comment to the original piece, dated long before "his" version was published.

So that was easily dealt with. Getting the piece off the plagiarist's own site was a fair bit tougher, as he refused to reply to any of the numerous e-mails sent by both myself and my editor. Eventually - after numerous warnings and some entirely reasonable deadlines - we contacted his ISP, pointing out that a site they were hosting was in clear breach of copyright. I don't know whether there was any connection, but a few weeks later the site vanished altogether.

To tell you the truth, I wasn't especially fussed by this - in a way it was weirdly flattering that someone thought my work was so good that it was worth passing off as his own. But there were two crucial factors at play here: firstly, it turned out to be relatively easy to get the plagiarised version out of circulation given that it was only available in electronic form, and secondly, no money changed hands at any stage.

Had this involved paid print journalism, or anything in the academic sector, or had this guy responded with aggression ("fuck you, it's my site and I'm not changing it for nobody") instead of total silence, we would have been talking lawsuits. And believe me, I'm not joking.

For all the people who have defended Laura by saying she might have been depressed, in a tight position, extremely stressed, or any other number of excuses;

I'm an undergrad at an intensely academic and very difficult university in Michigan. Last quarter my baby sister almost killed herself, my grandma almost died, a student committed suicide on my campus, and I was having trouble in a couple of my classes.

Was I depressed? Yes. Was I having trouble concentrating/completing work? Yes. Was I stressed? You'd better believe it, I still have a phobia about answering my phone because for 10 weeks it was just more and more bad news.

I didn't cheat. I didn't plagiarise. My situation was horrible, my sister was two states away going through the hardest time in her life, and all I wanted to do was go home and help her. Yeah, my life could have possibly been easier if I'd faked some of my work. I didn't, and if I had, even if I had used all of those very real and very emotional excuses, I would have still been wrong, and I would have deserved any punishment meted out (up to, and including, online vigilante justice.)

I was just thinking: to all the people who say that the rise of the internet is helping students to plaigarise, with this, I totally agree. But in the same vein, it makes it a lot easier to TRACE plaigarism as well. Wetherby Pond's post above exemplifies this perfectly. It's a two-way street.

Anyway, if Laura ends up being a better person by the end of this scenario, I'll be amazed. I find it very odd how the witchhunt brigade is so eager to dish out mob justice on the internet in the hope that she will no longer coast through life, yet relies heavily on comparing her to total villains like Ken Lay to prove that this "type of person" is simply evil. Maybe I'm interpreting it wrongly, but it seems like the two are not compatible.

Anyone wanna go grab some chinese food?

I'd bloody love to; sadly, I'm still studying for my upcoming finals. (Actually, at this present moment, I'm trying to find why West European Politics 26:2 isn't available online, when every other issue past 1999 is. Not for plaigiarism purposes, you understand :)

i'm amazed at the people defending ms krishna. "i made a doody"? not even reading over the paper you (didn't) pay for? wtf? she's a victim how, exactly? this blog saga is the equivalent of the "thief caught red-handed" segments occasionally provided for your entertainment on the local news.

also, is her name really supposed to be "krishna"? am i missing something?

I can't wait for the Law & Order episode. The Laura character can kill the Nate character!

No, Laura's mom's character will kill the Nate character.

And the Dean won't be able to say anything because of "confidentiality" until Briscoe rises from the grave and slaps the Dean around a bit. "This is a MURDER investigation."

I can't wait to see Ice-T read Laura's paper. "I made a doody??"

Great example Liz pointed out a few posts up! There is NEVER an excuse to plagerise.

Let me add yet another story to the bunch:

I started college in '99, and in addition to the normal stress of deadlines on a full courseload, I had to contend with social anxiety, panic attacks, depression, and regular psych visits to deal with these problems. I didn't lie and cheat to get through school, and I ended up fluking out, despite the added pressure to excell because I'd entered college as a straight-A "nerd" from which everyone expects sucess. I continued counseling, I put a handle on my problems, went to a crummy community college until I could get back into my previous university, and now I'm almost done with a Bachelors.

I didn't take shortcuts, and I flunked out. But, I still have my integrity, and soon I'll have my degree as well, if a couple of years later than expected. Hopefully, this whole LKK saga lends credence to the idea that cheaters never win.

Only graduate level advanced English and computer science courses teach how to spell the words "you" and "why" correctly (using all three letters) when using IM.

As someone who has been plagerized...I find this whole thing hilarious! I had a paper that was published in a local journal. It was copied and published under someone else's name in a different local journal only about 2 weeks after the original publication. What? Did they think I only read one periodical in the area? I just wrote the editor who printed a nice apology and made the idiot who plagerized me look like a fool.

Exactly what Nat has done with Laura. If this had been a publication rather than a college class, Laura would be in the same and possibly facing a civil lawsuit.

Nat, what you did was great. You gave Laura every chance in the book not to hang herself. First, she could have written her own paper. Second, had she read the paper you wrote, she wouldn't be where she is now. Third, had she paid attention to the internet (because believe me, this story is EVERYWHERE), she would have had forewarning of the coming storm. Fourth, had she been honest with the Dean, she might not be in as much trouble as I imagine she is now. Fifth, had she worked with you and let you talk to the Dean, she (once again) might be in a better situation.

Something I don't see addresses in the comments much: I can't believe her mother didn't agree to let you speak with the Dean and insist that the girl tell the truth. Nice mom, but lacking in morals herself.

"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" NO SYMPATHY for Laura K. Krishna.

If Nate hadn't done what he did:

1) Laura would have gone to someone else
2) Submitted the dodgey paper, got her grade
3) (probably stiffed the writer for his $75)
4) Repeat 1-3 through the rest of college

Even if Laura was under tremendous pressure, that's something for her to discuss with her Dean when she's facing expulsion.

Maybe she really was in dire straits. That doesn't mean we don't turn her in.

Gosh, Isa, I can honestly say that that's something I never thought of before, that perhaps this is no different than what happens to people who plagiarise in print media.

Great comment. I didn't think there was anything else to be added to this debate, but there you go.

Joe said, with regard to Laura going into the deal meaning to screw over Nate for his check:
"She might be able to rationalize her plagiarism as a victimless crime, but not the stiff."

It would be ironic if she stiffed him in order to teach *him* a lesson about the evils of selling papers on-line.

"But in the same vein, it makes it a lot easier to TRACE plaigarism as well. Wetherby Pond's post above exemplifies this perfectly. It's a two-way street."

Only up to a point. Certainly, without Google I'd almost certainly never have discovered the plagiarism at all - but, by the same token, it was a total coincidence that I happened to stumble across it, just as the other bit of plagiarism that I uncovered was equally coincidental. If I was specifically LOOKING for plagiarism, I'm honestly not sure where I'd start.

Consider: many plagiarists do at least make small changes to the original text, meaning that you'd have to doggedly type in assorted phrases and go on numerous fruitless searches to uncover something that may not have happened. Multiply that by the number of papers that a teacher/professor typically deals with, and you have a workload that they really shouldn't have to deal with. And there's also the strong possibility that plagiarism might have occurred with materials that aren't traceable via Google or other search engines because they've never been scanned and OCRed.

So although technology helps to a certain (to be fair, a very great) extent, gut instinct and a good memory still have a crucial role to play. (Both plagiarism examples I turned up relied on my memory - in one case my memory of someone else's writing style!)

Ok, I've read the prank, and read the first 300 comments, then I got tired because they keep repeating themselves. (by the way I linked here from collegehumor.com so I have no idea about anything Hindu).
First I would just like to say that this person is getting what they deserve. Would you not report a murder or a rape? A crime is a crime. If you don't like the punishment, don't fucking do it. Everyone gets the plagarism speech. Everyone. They know what they're getting into. I pull all nighters whenever I have a paper due, so don't give me bullshit about being under pressure.

Now as to any potential lawsuits, I am currently studying to be a lawyer, and my father is in civil litigation. That being said, verbal contracts are indeed valid in many states. (They can be recorded for proof, dumbasses.) Just as when you sign a contract, and someone tells you the gist of if, but fails to mention an important part, you can indeed break out of the contract because they lied to you about it.
First of all, any contracts for illegal acts are unenforceable by courts. This means for instance, you can go out and hire 20 hookers for a night, charge it to your gold card, and refuse to pay, and legally there isn't shit they can do about it. (Probably not a good idea though... I'm sure they have other means of getting the money out of you)

As for any potential lawsuits filed by Laura against Nate, they wouldn't stand a chance. Nate did nothing wrong except perhaps defamation of character. This wouldn't hold up either, due to the amount of evidence in Nate's possession he could reasonably interpret the facts to the view he has presented. There is no !gross negligence or maliciousness! - key parts of this type of lawsuit. The lawsuit will fail, as most lawsuits of this type do. Now everyone else shut the hell up, cause your wrong.

Self-righteous much? You sir, are an asshole, regardless of any wrongdoing by Laura. Karma is a bitch, and you've made a heavy withdrawal.

"Nate, honestly, forgive yourself. It's good that you took down her name, but the fact that she's now a scared kid who cried shouldn't manipulate you. Believe me, plagiarists ALWAYS:

CRY

SWEAR IT's THE FIRST TIME

EXPRESS PHONY REMORSE WHILE TRYING TO EVADE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS"

Sounds like me when my parents caught me smoking pot. Well done, Nate.

Jon is completely right. A crime is a crime.

She should be expelled, that's what she deserves. If she had taken a bat to the Dean's car cause she was stressed and hitting things helped her relax, received her punishment, would some of you still feel sorry for her? She makes a mockery of academic honesty, and as someone less than 2 months away from having a degree in Fine Arts I am horrified to think that students in the same boat as me would ever do this. She was an adult, made an adult decision and knew the game. I had a professor that said if he ever heard of us cheating or thefting art, he would make it his job to see us expelled. He is one of my favorite professors at my university.
Now I have to go to class, some of us actually earn our degrees the real way, through hard work.

wow, it is finally settling down, i still want laura by the way...

I am not currently a college professor but I have been one. The profound revulsion I felt toward plagiarizers came not mainly from any feeling that their hard-working classmates were being ripped off (although their hard work and hard-won grades were diluted), but that they were wasting my time and expressing contempt for me. Lying to someone's face (which is, at base, the affront of plagiarism: you lie to your teacher) should not be so easily forgiven. Those of you who feel college is just a degree factory may not believe it, but a lot of people, including those who teach, believe it is actually a place to learn things.

Certainly, without Google I'd almost certainly never have discovered the plagiarism at all - but, by the same token, it was a total coincidence that I happened to stumble across it, just as the other bit of plagiarism that I uncovered was equally coincidental. If I was specifically LOOKING for plagiarism, I'm honestly not sure where I'd start.

There are several Web-based pay services that allow you to search text strings from your students' essays if you suspect plagiarism. Obviously these things are only as good as their databases, so I hope a lot of universities sign up for them and start requiring that their students submit writing assignments in electronic form.

Oops: middle paragraph there was supposed to be italicized. Imagine it in quotes

.

Legally speaking...

There seems to be some confusion between illegality and dishonesty. It's dishonest to turn in a paper that you didn't write. It's legal to hire someone to write a paper for you.

Laura and Nate had a valid contract, enforceable by either party. It is true that contracts for illegal actions are not valid, however there was no illegal action. People are often hired to write papers for all kinds of reasons. Nate was contracted to write a five-page paper on Hinduism by a certain date. He did not. He wrote a paper full of intentional innaccuracies and jokes. This goes beyond producing a sub-par product. He intentionally produced work intended to deceive and humiliate his employer, Laura.

Laura, therefore, is perfectly within her rights to collect damages from Nate except for one small thing. She didn't pay him. She might argue that she withheld payment because Nate didn't fulfill his responsibilies. Based on the story told, this is less than convincing, but she could conceivably make the case.

Now, writing a paper under contract for someone does not necessarily give them permission to reprint your work verbatim. It may or may not, depending on the contract. I beleive it can be reasonably inferred that Nate's permission to reprint is implied based on their dialogue.

Having said all this, it has nothing to do with her cheating. Nate had a perfect right to blog the incident and would have had no legal problems whatsoever had he contacted her school.

You are both huge assholes. You for lying and her for lying. Now no one can trust either of you.

Hey Nate....now that this whole Laura thing's wrapped up, let's go eat sushi or something!!!

Wow, everyone's riled up over this. It's rather idiotic to start calling people names and start personal attacks. Just voice your opinion and leave it at that.

As for my two cents, a lot of people cheat in school, some get caught, some don't. Laura just happens to be one of the "unlucky" ones who got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Too bad, oh well. And please don't cry about the whole "maybe she's depressed or had a family emergency". Nothing is ever set in stone, she could've gone to the prof and asked for an extension. Professors are usually fairly understanding. I've started 5-8 page papers the day before it was due, it wasn't too bad. If I (an engineering major) can do that and get a decent grade on an English paper, so can she!

To follow on from Mouthpiece's excellent post, who now owns the copyright in Nate's work? I'm not familiar with US copyright law, but I'd assume that in order for an arrangement like this to be workable, Nate would automatically transfer all rights in the material over to Laura along with the paper itself - this is certainly the case with the authors I edit, and their contracts explicitly spell this out.

But this would be conditional on the contract having been fulfilled - i.e. Laura handing over the money. Since she didn't, does this not mean that Nate still owns all the relevant exploitation rights, and will continue to do so until she coughs up? And, by the same token, does this not mean that Laura is in breach of copyright for printing a copy of Nate's work?

Dear self-appointed spokespeople for Nate's karma:

Do you also stand at the bottom of cliffs and yell "GRAVITY'S GONNA GETCHA!" at people who contemplate jumping?

The universe is perfectly capable of turning on its cogs and wheels without all the cheerleaders trying to smugly (and, perhaps, wrongly) announce predictions of its direction.

(At the very least, let's try to restrain the karma comments to those who actually understand the concept. I mean, come on, JR, does the religion in question actually posit a karmic "bank" from which you make withdrawals? Seriously? Pshh.)

I was wondering when we'd get around to copyright and IP.... only in America would this sad tale of poor judgement, shabby behaviour and loose character (on Laura's part) turn into a legal debate. But I forgot... Laura threatened to sue you didn't she, Nate?... So we've been in law-law land for sometime.

Unless specifically relinquished, copyright is retained by the author. Nate gave her implied permission to reprint the work, but he retains full copyright.

There isn't such a thing as "breach of copyright". Laura simply did not fulfill the contract because she didn't pay.

>> I have to tell you that I do not go on "witch-hunts" for plagiarism;

That's good to know. That's what graduate assistants are for afterall. While I do not necessarily condone Nate's method, as I have already discussed, I do enjoy busting those that commit this crime. As a film master's major, I find them surprisingly easy to bust. Most people simply copy crap straight out of imdb.com sadly.

"only in America would this sad tale of poor judgement, shabby behaviour and loose character (on Laura's part) turn into a legal debate."

Not really - I'm not American and haven't set foot in the US in nearly a decade.

But as a professional writer-editor working for a government-funded organisation with an international reputation for quality, I'm well aware of the legal and copyright implications of plagiarism - in my field, it's not just unethical, it's career-threatening, with no ifs, buts or qualifications.

"Unless specifically relinquished, copyright is retained by the author. Nate gave her implied permission to reprint the work, but he retains full copyright."

That makes sense - the writers' contracts I deal with explicitly relinquish copyright (in considerable detail), which suggests that it's not a given unless spelled out.

I've done quite a bit of writing in my time - papers for school (I have both a music degree and a psychology degree) as well as copy for non-profit organizations I'm a part of.

I work with autistic children and have read enough about autism that I can answer a lot of questions without having to reference any sources. But that ability can be difficult when I'm writing about autism. As a result, my web site (under development) has a "sources" section that people can look at to see where I might have gotten various bits of information. I did that specifically because I don't remember where I learned a lot of what I know about autism.

But... were I to write a paper (or, as I hope to do one day, a text book) about autism, I would thoroughly research each and every point I was making and reference things thoroughly.

I was looking through one of my old music history papers the other day, and the prof kept asking why I had quotes around things. Obviously because I was directly quoting sentences from my research! That prof actually complained that I was referencing my sources too much throughout the paper!

In contrast, I have one psychology paper that has an entire paragraph referenced to one source. I didn't source each point, because the whole paragraph was from the same place, but the prof for *that* course said I didn't reference it enough.

I have never knowingly plagiarized anything, and I am confused that people think it's okay in some circumstances?

Proper ghost writers are paid for their work *and* collaborate closely with the person they are writing for - William Shatner's books are all ghost written.

I don't know that I agree with Nate's actions, but I certainly don't think that Laura should have gotten away with it.

Who has that much trouble writing a 5-page paper, anyway? I've written 20-page term papers without anyone else's help, and done it well and on time.

And I procrastinate.

man you are such a little fucking rat weasel - ratting her out to the school authorities - you little brown nosed authority woshipping rat

Jeez, Cuck, you're not a plagiarst, are you? Don't you know what we do to plagiarsts and plagiarist sympathizers around here?

You know, the thing about Plagiarism is that it's hard to spell... also that it is essentially the first Napster.

I've been Plagiarized before... right in the old corn hole. A comedy monologue I wrote somehow ended up becoming a feature article in a magazine under someone else's name. It hurt. It hurt my ass.

Recently the freakin' Weekly World News took one of our other sketches and reduced it to a headline in their paper... at least they had the common decency to improve it and change enough to make it legal.

Plagiarism sucks balls!

"Immature Artists borrow, Mature Artists steal."
- quote by... ME!

Reading through the many comments, I can't believe how many people are willing to jump to the defense of a young woman who is manifestly nothing less than a pathological liar. You no doubt see yourselves as fair, just, and kind; the Laura Ks of this world see you as their marks and pigeons.

You're such an ass. Nothing better to do than fuck up some kid's life?

People cheat all the time, even in the grown up world, get used to it.

Dear ASDFKD,

I'm going to continue to fight cheaters, and to teach my children to fight them, too.

You get used used to that.

I am so going to use this term paper! Thanks!

Fascinating story. By asking a complete stranger to help her do something dishonest, Laura put herself in an extremely vulnerable position. (She compounded her error by using IM, which logs the conversation.)

Were Nate's actions disproportionate? Did he abuse his power? I think reporting her to the Dean would have been completely appropriate. Same thing with stringing her along by putting together the bogus (and hilarious) essay. If he'd simply turned down her request, he wouldn't have had proof.

But Nate made a mistake by posting the story on his blog, although he didn't realize it at the time, because his blog didn't have a wide audience at the time. He didn't count on the Internet flash-mob effect--everyone loves a story (I found the story via MetaFilter). Once you get a large enough crowd, there's going to be at least a few people who will start looking up phone numbers. Dishonesty is grounds for getting kicked out of school, but it isn't grounds for getting harassing phone calls from strangers. And it's a lot easier to summon a mob (which is what Nate did inadvertently) than to control it.

Moreover, once information is broadcast onto the Internet, it's irrevocable. There's no way to get it back, even if you have a change of heart (as Nate did). Changing Laura's last name on this site to "Krishna" is locking the barn door after the horse has bolted. It's obvious to anyone who knows how to use Google what Laura's real last name is.

Fortunately, there's one thing Laura can do to escape the Google effect: change her last name.

Regarding the issue of academic dishonesty, Hans Morgenthau's comments on the "Quiz Show" scandal are worth reading:
http://tinyurl.com/3nxys

Russil, you're right about not being able to really change what was written, but Nate made sure Laura was aware of that. It was really just a nice thing he did for her after all the morons started calling her and her school.

It's sort of interesting to note that plenty of sites out there have picked up on the new last name. It's actually added fuel to the debate over whether this is a hoax (it's not), since Laura K. Krishna at India Community College sounds incredibly made up.

I have not read through every comment carefully, so if I'm repeating something already uttered, forgive me. It seems the issue here is due process - was Laura afforded the opportunity to defend herself against the "charge," manufactured by Nate, that she committed plagiarism? Is her payment proof of guilt, or is her submission of Nate's paper? This process of "citizen's arrest" (use your own Barney Fife impression here, if you wish) is probably more aptly defined as "citizen's entrapment." Nate saw a solicitation for unsavory services and helped her turn it into a wrong deed. Do we find such services offered freely by anonymous fellow citizens a comforting regulator or a slippery slope? Should we all take on the mantle of defenders of law-and-order and begin aggressively, publicly and even clandestinely "outing" underage drinkers, speeders, shoplifters, and other miscreants? I guess I side with our forefathers (not many American's these days seem to) and err on the side of everyone (even the most self-evidently guilty) being afforded the privilege of having their day in "court," being presumed innocent until proven guitly, being able to face their accuser, etc... Sure, it's not as funny, and it doesn't make for good blogging, but it is certainly the fairest way to accuse, try and punish people for their wrong deeds. This episode illustrated many things - justice was most definitely NOT one of them.

Perhaps this caper, and the posts in support of it, is a preview of things to come.

Reading over some of the comments I am shocked and appalled that there are certain people who don't share my extremist opinion. I formed this opinion to cover all bases. Therefore I know that the facts of this particular instance do not matter and need not affect the application of my overgeneralized standard. Anyone who does not agree my exact standard is an asshole, a fuck wit, and eats his or her babies without even seasoning them properly. In short, I am right and you are wrong. I'm not even giong to waste anymore time talking to you people, so only expect 7 or 8 more posts from me saying exactly the same thing.

If she never sends the IM asking for someone else to do her work, none of this- not the punishment, not the saga, not the ire of some posters, not the defense of either Nate or Laura- ever happens.

With all the analysis, opinions, moral bickering, let's not lose sight of the fact that this whole thing starts with a singular action that didn't need to be taken.

You killed Terri Shiavo, Nate. Yes, you. By this nonsense with Laura K you have diverted media attention away from the dying Terri Shiavo just when she needed it, just when it might have saved her. Now she's dead. Happy now?

"Mrs. Schiavo’s death is a moral poverty and a legal tragedy. This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change. The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today. Today we grieve, we pray, and we hope to God this fate never befalls another. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Schindlers and with Terri Schiavo’s friends in this time of deep sorrow."-- Speaker DeLay

He's talking about YOU, Nate. You, and you alone. He's coming for you Nate.

Now I've read it all and had my faith in humanity virtually destroyed (feel for Laura, I'm a weak-willed cheater-lover; feel for Nate, I'm a sadist). What is it about nuance that the internet obscures so utterly? The subtlety, duh.

Meanwhile, I'm left with two questions. Well, two that I'm willing to ask...

1. Why didn't she just go to one of the gazillion research paper writing "services" so widely available?

2. Why is that legal? I think I'll pose this question to my political representatives. Maybe we can get a Nate and Laura bill passed (I think of them as a couple now) that cracks down on the service that feeds the dishonorable practice of not doing your own damn work.

The third question that I'm not willing to ask because it's not the kind of thing that gets a thoughtful answer is, what if Laura does learn a lesson? What good would that do? By virtue of the timelessness of the digital/virtual world, this moment of idiocy will always be playing. Might as well etch a big scarlet C in her forehead.

Laura's last name is still included in the url. I'd suggest changing that, if no one else has noticed... I was directed here from collegehumor.com, by the way.

You know, I have little sympathy for Laura - like so many others, I did my work and passed or failed based on that. I got through college in six years (including one taken off in the middle involuntarily due to low grades), and did all of my own work. Was I a saint? No. I know that I forgot to cite references and a few times liberally adopted someone else's logic and ideas in my own paper (but in my words, not theirs). Of course, that was back in the days before the internet (my modem was 400 baud then (0.4k for those who think that 56 k is slow) - so internet shoppng for papers wasn't an option.

I also remember times when I had to pull all-nighters to turn in papers and prepare for an exam in the morning - but I set that up by procrastinating. My last night of school I did just that. I pulled an all-nighter to study and write a five page paper for Art History and then took the 3 hour final for that course, and then drank a soda on my fast walk to take my last exam. Hell, that wasn't even as bad as the time midway through a semester I realized that I was taking two courses that scheduled their 3 hour final exams at the same time and date. I begged both Professors to give me an exam at another time and both refused, telling me to talk the other guy into it. So having no choice I took both exams in the single three hour period, one after the other. The expressions on my classmates faces when I explained later on why I showed up 90 minutes late to the final were precious (got Bs on both exams).

Was Nate cruel, sure. Did his intended lesson get blown way, way out of proportion due to his injudicious posting of too much information - yes. But after reading many of the comments, his follow ups and his replies, I don't think that he intended for quite so much to happen. It is pretty obvious that Nate has learned a lesson too, and has expressed remorse at his own mistakes. But as is typical, is too harsh on himself because he couldn't convince "Laura Krisha" to turn herself in.

As for Laura - if she's read any of this, she's got to realize that her best hope is to admit the plagiarism and try to explain the mitigating circumstances that caused her to break this cardinal rule. Sure it could cost her a failing grade in that course, or she might have to withdraw for the semester. But life goes on and hopefully she'll have learned from this experience. I have a feeling that if she lies or evades responsibility, then there's enough evidence for the school to impose whatever maximum punishment they allow.

Every paper and test that I ever turned in at my little college had a signature block for me to sign. On the printed test booklets it stated that I was attesting that all of the work was my own and that I submitted it under the standards of the schools honor code. That honor code was enforced and I even saw athletes get caught and suspended why they tried to cheat (one example from my sophomore year was 4 guys sharing answers during an exam).

Terry, at like day four and 1000 comments later, yes we've noticed that the URL still contains a dirty word.

I'm sorry, but anyone who devoted more than a paragraph of their time to this whole thing except Nate and anyone who is actually part of his life needs to get some things going in their lives to keep them busy. So much time wasted blabbermouthing about legal issues, large world issues, and other such nonsense about one stupid little twit too stupid to make it through in the 'tough rough real world' of college (LOLOLOL)and how one hilarious man happened to be the ONE she singled out...Too damn funny.

ps-If this turns out to be a hoax, BRAVO!

You know, I'm glad that you do have a heart, even if I approved of what you did to the girl when she plagiarized.

Terry, Sherlock, and whoever else...try now.

"It's a tricky one, and I do sympathise - I myself have an excellent memory for phrases, sentences and paragraphs, and it's not at all implausible that I might inadvertently have recycled the work of another writer without attribution in my own work."

I admit, I have a tendency to do that, but I usually catch myself. For example, sometimes I think I'm paraphrasing something, but I read it back over and go, "Wait now. Didn't the person say it almost exactly the same way I am?" And, of course, they did, so then I have to change it. I've never not caught it yet, though, I don't think. I hope not. :/

It seems that this girl tried to screw Nate over, not the other way around. She made excuses about why she could not pay via paypal, wrote a check with NO INTENTION of sending it to him, yet expected to get a free paper. I have zero sympathy for this "Laura," as she tried to get something for nothing. There are the posters who say "oh, poor girl, she was in a tough situation" or "maybe she felt like she had no other options." Yeah, try cracking open a book and not waiting until Easter Sunday to troll the internet for individuals who might be able to do your work for you. Spend that time writing your own damn paper. Bottom Line: She doesn't deserve to be in college. Her matriculating is taking a spot away from another potential student who might've been waitlisted for this girl. I say if this isn't a hoax, then this girl got what she deserved. Nate sent up several red herrings in his IMs that went unnoticed and she did not even bother to proof-read the paper! Also, anyone in college who types like a 13-year-old with "u" and "y" in the place of the actual word deserves whatever they get, even if it's on an IM.

pla·gia·rism n
1. copying what somebody else has written (FOR THEIR COMMENT) or taking somebody’s else’s idea and trying to pass it off as original...AGAIN, AGAIN AND AGAIN.
2. something copied from somebody else’s work, or somebody else’s idea that somebody presents as his or her own (COMMENT)
3. SEE ALL PREVIOUS COMMENTS IN THIS BLOG.

Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Well, I feel confident that this is not a hoax because there was a Laura **** on the Dean's List for ***** University from O***** Park (and by Googling certain words, you can find the cache of the very page).

As far as Nate's handling of the situation, I think the fact that Laura didn't 'fess up to the Dean is just another EXAMPLE of her character. She's sitting there crying to Nate when on the other end of things, she's STILL not being completely honest. Frankly, if I were Nate, I would have left things as they were, perhaps with the continued requests that there be no further calls to Laura or to her University.

Even though this was a stupid kid who did a stupid thing, what stops me from having ANY compassion whatsoever is that once she was "discovered," she apparently STILL wasn't honest with the Dean. My mom always taught me, you mess up, you fess up. You're that much better off by being honest when you get caught in a situation like this, rather than give only half-truths. If this was a criminal case, well that's another matter we won't get into. In this case, however, she should have laid herself at the mercy of the Dean and made the same emotional plea to him that her and her mother made to Nate. If the Dean didn't go along with it, that's tough and that's the lesson you learn. If you end up having to go to JJC, tough.

One thing to add which was mentioned at some point but not really picked up: It seems a lot of the comments have circled around plagiarism being a crime and wrong (which it is), the question of whether Laura was lazy and dishonest (I tend to aggree) or the victim of unknown outside pressures (unlikely unless you want to make a "not guilty by reason of insanity" argument, and the question of whether Nate gave her what she deserved (yes) or is an arrogant, self-righteous prick (I think not - he's making peanuts in a comedy troupe. I doubt that feeds an inflated ego).

I know that a number of professors and educators have weighed in, but I think that Laura's defenders need to be reminded of something: When a student plagiarizes, it not only demonstrates an intent to cheat the system, but a profound disrepsect for the instructor as well. If you've never dealt with plagiarists (I have on several occasions), put yourself in this position:

You receive a paper that, for whatever reason, you think is plagiarized. You do some searching (Thank you Google!) and track down the source. You confront the student about it, though "confront" usually means you do your best to set up an appointment without sounding sinister. The student usually tries to avoid you. When he does come in, you lay out the evidence. If he denies it, you're essentially faced with someone who is telling you that it's raining while there isn't a cloud outside your window. You can lay out the penalties for plagiarism (failing grade, failed course, academic probation, etc.), but the bottom line is that you probably have to give an incomplete and lodge a formal protest, which the student may fight, thus dragging on the drama for months.

As you imagine yourself in that situation, think about how insulted it feels to have a kid sit across from you and communicate, in so many words, that:
a) your class and your assignment aren't worth his time.
b) He thinks you're so stupid that you won't catch him.
c) He thinks you're so stupid, lazy, powerless, or whatever that he'll be able to talk you out of punishing him once he's caught.
d) Even when he is caught, he thinks so little of you, the college, and the whole school that he keeps trying to get out of any accountability.

Of course, some kids you sit down and show them the evidence, and they fess up immediately. If it's early in the semester, they're the ones that take a zero grade on the assignment but still go on to be some of your best students because they have some ethical fiber and want to make up for doing something stupid. It's the ones who keep trying to avoid accountability (like Laura) who make you angry. They're at a developmental stage where their actions are OK as long as they get away with them. At a certain point, they don't need any sympathy; they need a kick in the ass. Professors don't get their jollies doing this. They freakin' hate it, but it's their job, and they have to stand up for themselves.

On a side note, I think Nate could have done much more with the assignment. Only one "I made a doody," is kind of light. You should have spread a lot more poop throughout for fun.

Does anyone else find high irony in the fact that the fact that this is an example of karma for the student... which, was, after all, one of the key topics of the paper and the course?

I'd say Nate did much better on the irony front than many seem to think.

When I read the first posting about this gal, I laughed so hard.
I am currently attending a Christian college in Minnesota, and have made the Dean's list... but that was all my own doing. I have worked my butt off to get there and when I see undeserving people get the same praise I have worked so hard for, it angers me some.
After reading the latest posting with the "truth" revealed, I feel rather bad for this gal. I guess I just hope she learned from her mistake and hopefullly this does not screw up the rest of her life.

Laura could always work for Talon News, what with their position of staff plagiarist having been vacated by Jeff Gannon/Jim Guckert.

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/gannon_accused_of_plagiarism_331.htm

No comments for 20 minutes?!!?!?!?

I am disappointed in you all! :(

Of couse this web site is a blast. Vigilante "justice" is highly entertaining, as the large audiences public executions and lynchings draw have illustrated for hundreds of years.

Nate's continued a tradition humankind has had since societies began. He's taken our collective outrage at the millions of tiny injustices heaped on each of us throughout our lives, and poured them out on one person whome he can "blame."

Combine "blame" and "suffering" and voila, you have "justice."

This is all "justice" really is -- an expression of our collective anger at the generally arbitrary, unfair treatment of man toward his fellow man (which we all participate in every day) onto a particular individual, sacrificing them that we all may feel the world is more fair than it is.

oh no... "nate told on us to the teacher. wah~"

bad nate. shame on you.

we're still in grade school, after all.

Nate, I saw the story on BoingBoing and had to read more about it. Great job, I hope the shortcut-taking twits that try this in the future read it as a cautionary tale.

if I ever become a teacher, I will ask my students to give me a short (5-minute) presentation on the topic to show how well they understand it, rather than a paper that they might plagiarize. Though I bet that will be harder to grade in my underwear.

Dear readers, hasn't it occurred to anyone....

Mom's in on the scam!
Laura lies, cheats and steals, and Mom supports her in her practices. Where do you think Laura learned her behavior? Reads like a budding sociopath to me.

Let's get back to the idea of putting Ms. K on Jerry Springer. I love it. Maybe he'd give her a shovel so she could continue to dig deeper and pile it higher. As for Nate--I'm right there with you, Chris Coleman. I think he went above and beyond with his offer to do what he could to get her name off the internet. I wouldn't have lifted a finger or hit the first key on my laptop. She obviously still has a thing or two to learn about indiscretions comitted while on line. My eighth grade English teacher used to remind us that "there are just some folks who refuse to learn a lesson 'til life teaches 'em." And to all the bleeding hearts, "she will survive." If this is the worst thing that ever happens to her in this life, she will still be better off than more than 95% of the other people who live on this planet. Okay. Now we can go out for sushi.

Nate, I have been asked to provide a character reference for Laura because you seem intent on continuing to slander her good name!

I am Laura's toaster, and I can ASSURE you that this is the first time she has ever done anything like this! Laura is a good person! She always shakes out the toast crumbs after using me to make toast! Sometimes she uses whole-wheat bread, sometimes rye, sometimes white bread. She is particularly fond of strawberry preserves on the toast after she makes it.

In the final analysis, Laura is just a poor confused girl who likes toast and jam just like any red-blooded American. Maybe you should think of that next time you point your finger.

- Laura's Toaster

Some years ago when my wife-to-be was in high school she wrote a wonderful essay for a writing scholarship contest that was remarked upon by all concerned as inspired. Her best friend also submitted a remarkable piece.

It was quickly revealed her best friend had plagiarized a New York Review of Books essay (patently stupid even in those pre-Internet days).

Applying guilt-by-association, the powers that be assumed my wife-to-be had also plagiarized, but they could never find the source. Being a school drawn from working class families, the teachers and administrators assumed that it HAD to be plagiarized, what tire builder's kid could write with such insight?

Sadly, my wife-to-be's piece was NOT plagiarized. Her parents and teacher did not support her protest that it was original. The principal withdrew it from the scholarship program without appeal. Frustrated, she decided not to pursue a writing career. After graduation she went into waitressing for several years and only later returned to college in another field.

Does anyone else see a beautifully karmic whole of action and response, cause and effect?

The punishment so perfectly fits the crime.

And in our society, so rarely does that happen. Guilty people get away with murder, while innocent people suffer punishment that was not deserved.

Laura had several opportunities to amend her ways, to not go down the wrong path. And at every turn, from the initial illegal solicitation, to the decision to submit the illegal document to the refusal to take responsibility for her actions, she chose the wrong road.

Nate, you are more optimistic than I, to think that she has learned a lesson. Experience has taught me that it is more likely that she will blame you for her troubles.

xjournalist - no, I'm totally with you. This is a common pattern, too: the parent who wants so badly for their money not to be wasted that they can't bear to see their kid take a bad grade or flunk out as s/he deserves.

What's sad, what that parent hasn't realized, is that if their kid won't do the work and cheats when the work is called for, the tuition is already wasted.

Of course, this point brings us back around to the economics debate. Does the tuition buy the education, or the degree? I think the former, but it's the latter opinion that leads to the sense of entitlement.

"I want to be a lawyer
I want to be a scholar
But I really can't be bothered so just
Gimme it quick, gimme gimme gimme"

-K. Bush

If I believed any of this, I would have to get up from my desk, walk several feet to the window, and jump out. As a bad-tempered old colored woman who never finished college (it was the Sixties, okay? I never expected to live this long...), I spent a good part of the last thirty-odd years in the military and corporate worlds doubled over with stomach cramps, chest pains and headaches from dealing with caucasoid kiddies who considered themselves "educated" and therefore superior to me because they had graduated from "college" although unable to put together a proper sentence in the English language. I learned more Latin in high school than-- well, never mind.

I'm retired. Not my problem anymore. Must go make myself a cup of chamomile tea and order some more automatic weapons for my Barbie dolls.

Be honest, nobody wants this girl to learn a "lesson." What we want is for her to suffer for all those plagiarists we hate who don't get caught. She's paying for their sins, not for damage she's caused.

What "lesson" is she supposed to learn? Surely not that "plagiarism doesn't pay." Because IT DOES. It's just a lottery system where 99 percent of those who do it don't get caught, and the one percent who do feel the full rage of those who are angry at the 99 percent who don't.

For those who don't get caught plagarism pays BETTER than hard work. Hard work is what people do when they can't figure out how to get out of doing hard work. That's all. There's nothing morally admirable about it.

I don't think people who plagiarize are immoral. Personally, I don't plagiarize, but that's because I'm scared of the risk. But there's risk in everything, so the fact that a plagiarist takes risks doesn't make their behaviour wrong.

Every time I get in my car, I risk getting in a brutal car accident and being paralyzed for life. Conversely, I risk doing the same to someone else. That doesn't mean I don't do it. I calculate the risk, and decide to drive. But I'm too chickenshit to plagiarize.

Formal university education is often a complete waste of time -- I've had whole semesters of class where I didn't learn a single thing, but had to sit through it all and do busy work to earn the "credit."

This girl took a risk I'm scared to take. Thus, I slaved away at stupid, useless college assignements while she partied. That doesn't justify feeling glee when she's caught. You could also stand outside emergency rooms and shout "I hope you learned a LESSON!" at those who end up getting in car accidents. Why, though? Because you're scared to drive, and wish nobody else enjoyed the advantages you're too scared to take?

Apparently this girl had no interest in playing the stupid game universities make people play, the little dance they make you do to get a degree.

The people who actually think that little dance is something other than a lazy way for the schools to say they "taught" you something are mad about this. But I don't care, and neither does anyone who doesn't derive their self-worth from how well they dance when their professor says "dance!"

Someone referred me to this site. How funny! I can picture this becoming part of main stream pop-culture. It might appear in episodes of shows similar to The Simpsons.

Miss Laura K. P. (uh, Krishna), is now a famous celebrity. I Google her name, and I find 347 results that pertain to her. (There are 201 for Laura K. Krishna.) She ought to take advantage of her fame... to progress her career.

With Laura K. being such a good lier, she ought to marry "Survivor" Rob "The Snake" C. They would make such a good couple!

Oh yeah, after reading the first batch of comments on the first posting...who ever wrote something about Nate must be a Bush supporter because of his actions, just remember Bush won, so there is justice in this messed up world.

Good job, the morality of our culture has been lacking of late, and while this is a small example of the lack of ethics, it is still a step in the right direction.

She cheated, she got caught, she got what she deserved.

Okay, so I have read everything from everyone. I think Laura deserves what is coming to her. I just don't understand how stupid people are to buy other people's work. I am a hardworking student and nothing ticks me off more than students who cheat.

It was awesome and brilliant of you Nate to post the paper on the Internet so it could be found by whoever her professor is.

• Home
• Latest updates
• Meet AWOK
• Blog
• Photos
• Videos
• Press
• Links
• Contact