BY ROBERT E. BIONAZ
Robert Bionaz is a retired Chicago State University professor who made the original investigation about plagiarism in the dissertation of then-Chicago State interim provost Angela Henderson, who received a $694,000 settlement from the University of Illinois at Chicago because they revealed that they were examining her dissertation. This is his response to the Chicago Sun-Times article about the settlement.
Once again, Maudlyne Ihejirika portrays former Chicago State University Provost Angela Henderson as the victim of “false” charges of plagiarism, with me serving as the “politically motivated” accuser. I do not know anything about the Sun Times’ journalistic standards for reporters, but Ihejirika never bothered to contact me about her story. Had she done so, this is what I would have said:
In 2013, the academic integrity standards for the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) College of Nursing read: “using someone else’s exact words must be indicated by enclosing those words in quotation marks . . . or offsetting them in indented, single-spaced paragraphs . . . and giving the exact reference and page number where those words can be found.” The standards concluded with this: “It is intellectual theft to use someone else’s words or work product without giving them credit for the work through adequate attribution. Students who plagiarize in any of their work at the University are subject to Student Disciplinary Action.”
In December 2013, I downloaded Henderson’s dissertation from UIC Indigo, a publicly accessible UIC web site of doctoral dissertations. On page 2, I found two passages, one verbatim, the other nearly verbatim, taken from scholarly sources. They were neither enclosed in quotation marks, nor included page attributions. I then examined the remainder of the dissertation, not by running it through some plagiarism detection software, but by comparing suspect passages in the dissertation with scholarly sources. In total, I found at least 53 passages (on 45 pages) of varying lengths, none of which were enclosed in quotation marks or with specific page references to the work of other scholars, apparently violating the College of Nursing’s Academic Integrity Standards. These passages sometimes included exact language from other works not referenced at all. Based on my analysis of the dissertation, I felt UIC should be apprised of my findings. I contacted the Graduate College and sent them a report including both the passages from the dissertation and the sources from which the material came. I had no further contact with the university.
Subsequently, I was disappointed in the decision handed down by the anonymous “hearing officer” in the secret report that Ihejirika apparently is able to access. In light of that report’s findings, I will say only that Henderson’s dissertation contained numerous irregularities that required investigation. Even Henderson’s complaint against UIC acknowledged the problematic nature of her work. According to her complaint, after a January 10, 2014 meeting, the UIC Graduate College Executive Committee, “unanimously recommended” that she “revise” her dissertation, which she subsequently did “in accordance with the committee’s recommendations.”
When I reported my findings to UIC, I made it clear that I was willing to go on the record, that I had no desire to be anonymous. In contrast, the resolution of my complaint is shrouded in mystery. Who was the “hearing officer”? What were her/his qualifications? Where is her/his report? Why is it not a public document? Where is Henderson’s revised dissertation?
I agree with Ihejirika’s contention that UIC “botched” this investigation. However, that in no way diminishes the necessity for looking into the multiple irregularities in Henderson’s dissertation. While I acknowledge that UIC apparently did not find my interpretation persuasive, I stand by both my analysis of the dissertation and my decision to report my findings to the UIC Graduate College.
