- Yes, the punishment did fit the crime but not adequately. Punishment for plagiarism varies with jurisdiction whereby it is mostly considered a misdemeanor by most state laws and a felony by others. However, one of the most effective punishments is to take away any gains made from plagiarized work. In this case, Marion Wallingford had her MPA degree taken away while Professor Wallingford retuned the salary increase he had received after publishing the article. However, more should have been done. Hence Marion Wallingford should have resigned from her job.
- No, it is not likely, that professor Henry Wallingford acted in good faith. While he may not have had prior knowledge about the works being plagiarized, his decision to work on the article was likely motivated by his gain, including building a good reputation and even obtaining a salary increase. The fact that his name appeared first on the article is enough proof. This is because the order of authors is dependent on the amount of contribution. Hence, Professor Wallingford’s name should have come in second, having made the lesser contribution.
- The reason for insisting that the matter be kept out of the press was to avoid damaging the reputation of the state college. If such a report reached the general public, it would put into question, the quality of education offered at the college.
- Yes the college could have disciplined a professor for disclosing information to the press on, let’s say the basis of a breach of confidentiality.
- No, Professor Geddes had no obligation to become directly involved in the case. He was indeed Marion’s major professor, and also kept the old term papers which were major evidence. However, he was not present at Marion’s paper defense hence he could not have stopped her.
- Yes, the Midwestern review of education should have been contacted by the college and informed of the situation and the necessary corrections. This would have included giving proper recognition for the right author of the article. It is neither fair nor right, that future readers will think that the paper was written by the Wallingfords.
- Yes, the university was obligated to ensure that amends were made to Dewey Frieze. This could have included notifying the Midwestern review of education, that Frieze was the actual author of the article in question. The university should also have asked the Wallingfords to offer Frieze a formal apology for plagiarizing his work
- No, if kept quiet the situation will not have any instruction value for student and professors. It is therefore necessary to make it available as a reference case study for future purposes to ensure that such an incidence does not repeat itself.
- No, the city manager was not correct. Marion Wallingford actions show that she lacks ethical conduct hence she may not carry out the duties assigned to her in a moral way. Her behavior is therefore related to her job and she should have lost it.
Save your time – Order a paper now!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines
Chapter Ten: Boss We’ve Got a Problem
- Yes, it was unethical. Upton’s statement did not count as an admission of guilt. At the same time, the village administrator had no right to pronounce Upton guilty as only a court of law can do this.
- Yes, the village administrator should have informed the village council of the situation immediately. This would have ensured broad consultations on the best course of action.
- No it was not appropriate. Tim Bell, the village administrator was likely to act emotionally and with bias given that Upton coached his son’s football team. Thus the matter should have been left to the police chief.
- No, by rehearsing their questions to the media, they were likely not to give the full truth, especially the details that would portray a bad image.
- No, it was not appropriate for the superintendent of schools to respond that it was not a concern of theirs. A case of child molestation should be a concern to the whole school fraternity.
- Yes, it was unethical. Despite Upton’s charges, he had worked hard to deserve his accumulated pay. The village administrator should have then gone ahead to pay Upton.
- No, it was not unethical. Given the nature of Upton’s charges, the village administrator was right not to reinstate him. Even if the majority of the council members had directed him to reinstate him, I still stick to my answer that Upton should not have been reinstated.
Chapter Eleven: Sometimes it’s Tough to Explain
- Yes, the city was obligated to fit wells back into the workforce as per the law. They were required to make the necessary arrangements and reasonable adjustments to enable Wells stay in work.
- No, although he could have probably performed the process server job, the position was already filled and it would have been unfair to remove the incumbent holder of the job.
- No, Wells should not have been fired after expending his time. Even though he was not able to report back to work, his sickness was justifiable and the doctors had said that he could return to work soon.
- Yes, the news media had an obligation to fully cover the story. Instead, they only covered it from Wells perspective hence presenting it as a case of victimization. Their failure to cover both sides introduced bias into the coverage and did not fully inform the general public.
- Yes, although they were not obligated to, the city should have put in some effort to find Wells a non-police job.
Get a similar assignment here https://gpatargeter.com/order/