The case in summary: A student at Høgskolen i Innlandet was banned for two semesters for self-plagiarism after using two paragraphs from a previously failed home exam in a new exam answer. The ban was upheld by the Ministry of Education and the Oslo District Court, but the Borgarting Court of Appeal upheld the student. The state appealed to the Supreme Court, which has now concluded that the student’s reuse cannot be considered cheating and that the decision on exclusion is therefore invalid. The Supreme Court states that even if, objectively speaking, the student acted in breach of the regulations that then applied to exam answers, it cannot be considered cheating because the hidden reuse in this case was not illegal. Leader of the Norwegian Student Organization, Kaja Ingdal Hovdenak, believes the decision from the Supreme Court is an important victory for students’ legal certainty. Two ministers, Sandra Borch (Sp) and Ingvild Kjerkol (Ap), resigned after text similarities were found in their master’s theses with previous students’ work. The summary is made by an AI service from OpenAI. The content is quality assured by news’s journalists before publication. In the autumn of 2021, a student at Høgskolen i Innlandet was to take an exam in practical pedagogical education again. She used two paragraphs from a home exam she had failed. The student referred to the textbook in the paragraphs, but did not credit her own, previous assignment. Høgskolen i Innlandet believes this is contrary to the current examination regulations. The student was thus banned for two semesters, because what she did was considered cheating. The Joint Complaints Board, the Ministry of Education and the Oslo District Court also thought the same. The woman won in the Borgarting Court of Appeal, but in January 2024 the State decided to appeal to the Supreme Court. – There was a need for clarification of important, legal questions, stated the then Research and Higher Education Minister Sandra Borch (Sp). It was at Høgskolen i Innlandet that a student was banned for a year because of “cheating”. She had copied two paragraphs from a previous exam answer without identifying herself as the source. Photo: Knut Røsrud / news Supreme Court: No cheating The Supreme Court has now concluded that the student’s reuse cannot be considered cheating. They thus state that the decision on exclusion was invalid. The Supreme Court states that, objectively speaking, the student acted in breach of the regulations that then applied to examination answers. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court believes that it cannot be considered cheating because the hidden reuse in this case was not illegal. – The central aim of the ban on covert reuse is to prevent a student from achieving double credit for the same course content. When the text that is reused originates from a failed exam answer, the justification for the ban does not apply, writes the Supreme Court in a press release. Lawyer Magnus Stray Vyrje in the Supreme Court. Photo: Gorm Kallestad / NTB news has tried to get a comment from the student’s defender, Magnus Stray Vyrje. He has not yet responded to the inquiry. Important clarification – This is a judgment we live well with, says Minister of Research and Higher Education, Oddmund Hoel (Sp) to news. The reason why the state appealed the judgment from the Court of Appeal was that they believed it created uncertainty about the cheating rules at colleges and universities. – For the state, it was important to have the fundamental questions clarified by the Supreme Court, and we have now received that, says Hoel. Research and Higher Education Minister Oddmund Hoel (Sp) says the decision from the Supreme Court provides answers to important, fundamental questions. Photo: Ragnhild Vartdal / news In the new Universities and Colleges Act, the rule regarding self-plagiarism has been changed. – If you reuse work for which you have not been paid, then it can no longer be considered cheating, says the minister. – There is no doubt that reuse of one’s own work, even if one has received compensation for it in the past, is now less serious in the new law than presenting other people’s work as one’s own. Hoel understands that the case has been a burden for the student. The state covers the legal costs she has incurred in the case. Two ministers resigned as a result of the case: A BI student was provoked by Borch’s decision to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, and took a closer look at her master’s thesis. It would turn out to contain several parts identical to assignments submitted by previous students, without reference to the source. – The mistake, it is mine, and I take full responsibility for it, said Sandra Borch, and resigned as minister shortly afterwards. Borch is currently working on a new master’s thesis. Textual similarities were also found in the master’s thesis of then Minister of Health Ingvild Kjerkol (Ap) and a fellow student. Kjerkol denied plagiarism, and Nord University, which reviewed their thesis, rejected it. – For the Minister of Health and Care to function well, trust from the sector is crucial. I am sincerely sorry for this decision and for where we are, stated Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre on the same day, when he announced that Kjerkol would resign as minister in April. Kjerkol complained in May about the cancellation of his master’s thesis. – Important victory for the students Leader of the Norwegian Student Organization, Kaja Ingdal Hovdenak, believes the decision from the Supreme Court is an important victory for the students. – This is an important victory for Norwegian students’ legal security. The cheating rules have been and still are quite unclear, she says. She believes it is completely disproportionate that a student is accused of cheating and is dragged all the way to the Supreme Court for having reused two paragraphs from an exam for which she did not receive a grade. – We believe that reuse of one’s own work should not be punished, and that the work should be assessed based on professional quality. Kaja Ingdal Hovdenak, leader of the Norwegian Student Organization. Photo: Rolf Petter Olaisen / news Hovdenak believes the regulations are too weak, and do not ensure the students’ basic legal security. – This case hinges on the fact that we have unpredictable and unfair regulations that do not treat students equally across the institutions. – It is important that the students’ legal security is ensured in a better way than has been done. This is a case that can set a precedent, she says. Published 16.10.2024, at 09.53 Updated 16.10.2024, at 11.32
ttn-69
The decision to expel a student for cheating on an exam was invalid – news Innlandet – Local news, TV and radio
