Woki-Leaks website strikes again, and claims Board of Regents plagiarism policy may have been violated

SD Woki-Leaks strikes again in their latest article as they call for an investigation to determine if the Board of Regent’s policy on plagiarism was violated when a memorandum on “implicit bias” was written:

In this article, we will highlight another serious problem with the memorandum: It appears to violate South Dakota Board of Regents (BOR) policy on academic misconduct and plagiarism. The memorandum, which presents itself as being evidence-based, borrows a significant amount of content from a previously-published research brief written by “gender equity” activists. The Provost’s memorandum acknowledges this only with a fine-print disclaimer buried at the end, while misleadingly portraying the borrowed content as the author’s own research/writing in the rest of the document. This violates the spirit, and, possibly, the letter, of BOR policy on academic misconduct and plagiarism.

and..

Given that students are not allowed to plagiarize or engage in academic misconduct, and may be sanctioned for doing so, it seems quite fair and appropriate that USD – preferably in conjunction with the BOR – initiate an investigation into Provost Hackemer’s “Implicit Bias” memorandum, to assess whether it indeed violates BOR policy.

Read the entire article here.

6 thoughts on “Woki-Leaks website strikes again, and claims Board of Regents plagiarism policy may have been violated”

  1. The plagiarism claim is a stretch at best, though no surprise wokileaks sucks at scholarship

    1. The Provost of a University is their Chief Academic Officer. They should know how to properly cite a source.

  2. I’m not a fan of what’s happening at the universities, but even I can be objective enough to see that Wokileaks continuously distorts the evidence (which they provide!) to make their case. We can do better than this two-bit critique.

    1. Why would they misrepresent the evidence when they provide said evidence for people to consult on their own? Where do they do that? Their interpretations of the evidence seem pretty reasonable. These people are doing a service by shining a light on how biased academia has become. I don’t see many other people doing that. If you can do better, why don’t you? (Unless you do don’t ACTUALLY have reservations about what’s going on at the universities).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.