This paper examines a case of academic plagiarism involving two students, Reggie and Arnie, who copied work from online sources and submitted it as their own. Through systematic analysis of four key questions, the paper evaluates the relative culpability of the students involved, considers whether failing both students was an appropriate institutional response, and explores the ethical dimensions of websites that sell term papers. The analysis concludes that while students bear primary responsibility for their dishonest actions, institutional factors—including clarity of academic integrity policies and content availability—may contribute to violations. The paper ultimately argues that accountability extends beyond students to include website owners who should clearly communicate that papers are for reference only.
Both Reggie and Arnie were fundamentally in the wrong. Both students severely compromised academic integrity by copying the work of another and presenting it as their own. Reggie did not only copy the ideas and present them as his own—he copied the entire text verbatim. One may argue that under difficult circumstances, he made a poor decision with competing time pressures and priorities that left him insufficient time to write the paper. However, even allowing for difficult circumstances, he undertook a course of action he knew was wrong. This knowledge is evident from his conversation with Arnie, when he explicitly told Arnie not to do the same. This warning was not motivated by moral concern but rather by self-interest: Reggie was attempting to ensure that he was not caught.
Arnie then made the identical decision: to copy from an internet website and submit it as his own work. If Reggie had not informed Arnie about the website, Arnie may never have cheated. However, this does not absolve Arnie of responsibility. Both students made a conscious choice to commit plagiarism.
One might ultimately argue that the students alone are to blame. However, upon deeper examination, several contributory factors merit consideration. The students had substantial reading assignments and do not appear to have fully understood the subject matter, which raises questions about the quality of instruction they received. Nevertheless, this does not transfer blame to the instructor, as the students should have approached their teacher to request help. Similarly, one might argue that if the content had not been readily available online, the students would not have been able to use it. However, this reasoning is flawed: the same online resources have many legitimate uses, such as deepening understanding, and content availability is not the root cause of the violation.
One could also examine the level of warnings that the college provided regarding academic integrity. If these warnings were insufficiently clear or did not adequately emphasize the severity of plagiarism as an offense, they could be considered a contributory factor. However, ultimate responsibility must rest with those who made the dishonest choice. The primary blame resides with Reggie, who discovered the source and initiated the decision to plagiarize, followed by Arnie's independent decision to commit the same act.
One might argue that Reggie bears greater blame than Arnie because he found the website and gave Arnie the idea. By this logic, Reggie initiated the chain of events and bears greater responsibility. However, this analysis overlooks a critical point: Reggie made a decision to copy the webpage, and Arnie made an identical decision. Both students chose to submit work that was not their own. The fact that Arnie's decision was influenced by Reggie's example does not diminish Arnie's culpability.
One could also argue that Arnie's decision to copy from the same website led directly to their being caught, due to the similarities between the two submitted papers. If Arnie had chosen a different source, perhaps neither student would have been detected. However, this argument conflates consequences with responsibility. Both students made the same decision to cheat. Both are equally to blame for the violation itself, regardless of how detection occurred.
"Failing both students was fair given their actions"
"Website owners share ethical duty to prevent misuse"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.