Cambridge Professor defends “accidentally” plagiarising his student’s essay

Dr William O’Reilly, an Associate Professor in Early Modern History at the University of Cambridge, submitted a paper to the Journal of Austrian-American History in 2018 which “accidentally” plagiarised the work of his student. O’Reilly told Per Capita exclusively about the circumstances behind the plagiarism of his student’s essay, which he “deeply regrets”.

When we asked O’Reilly whether he would recommend students, who he returns to work in Michaelmas 2023, to use essays written by others as an “aide-mémoire” or a “placeholder” in the manner that he has confessed to, he told us that “the use of placeholders is common, though it is not something that is either recommended or not. Obviously, one would never recommend using essays”.

Elaborating on the unusual circumstances behind the case, O’Reilly shared what he described as a “lengthy statement” with Per Capita.

According to the Financial Times, the plagiarism was discovered by a Cambridge University student in 2021 and reported to the university. However, after a two year investigation, O’Reilly has kept his job as a university disciplinary tribunal found the plagiarism to be “the product of negligent acts but was not deliberate”. The resolution is particularly unusual, given university’s misconduct policy states that plagiarism “normally merits dismissal”. O’Reilly told us that the article generated “another round of hateful messages via email and anonymous letters posted to my home”.

This is not the first dispute regarding a university academic engaging in plagiaristic practice. Academic misconduct claims have been made against Stanford president, Marc T. Tessier-Lavigne. According to the Harvard Crimson, Tessier-Lavigne has been investigated for authoring scientific neuroscience papers that supposedly contain falsified images. Unlike claims made against O’Reilly, this led to the Stanford President’s resignation.

Tribunal Procedure and Resolution

O’Reilly defended the robustness of the decision to remain in post, arguing a “proportionate penalty was imposed”. He told Per Capita that he “looks forward to returning to work in the Faculty of History, as the Tribunal recommended.”   

“The Tribunal concluded that while they upheld the complaint, there had been no deliberate intent on my part to deceive but rather an act of negligence, for which there were mitigating circumstances. In view of this, I informed my solicitor in a telephone call that there had been no finding of deliberate plagiarism,” he defended.      

Professor O’Reilly told Per Capita that he had been “more than willing to apologise” to the student but was unable to do so “while the investigation was pending” into allegations of accidental plagiarism. After he realised the plagiarism had been “accidentally” committed, he told us that “I myself contacted the journal immediately on being informed of the matter to request that the article be withdrawn. The article was withdrawn at my request.”

“Accidental” Plagiarism occured in a Close Student-Supervisor Relationship

O’Reilly told Per Capita that he “worked closely with to formulate” the student’s weekly essays. He was the student’s Director of Studies, a collegiate position in the University of Cambridge where an academic works closely with a student throughout the academic year to support their work towards end-of-year Tripos examinations. The close student-supervisor relationship is what underlies the serious nature of the accusations of plagiarism, “accidental” or otherwise. Students engage in close mentoring with leading academics and doctoral students to hone their knowledge and their essay writing craft, with an implicit understanding that their work is their own intellectual property and stolen or manipulated by their mentors– let alone being submitted in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

O’Reilly researches Early Modern European and Atlantic History. The now-withdrawn paper at the heart of the debate– which was submitted to the Journal of Austrian-American History in 2018, shared close similarities with the work submitted to him by his student. The journal article, entitled “Frederick Jackson Turner’s Frontier Thesis, Orientalism and the Austrian Militärgrenze”. The Journal of Austrian-American History have since published a notice stating that “ it was brought to the publisher’s attention that content in “Fredrick Jackson Turner’s Frontier Thesis, Orientalism, and the Austrian Militärgrenze” by William O’Reilly was presented without credit. Since the author does not dispute that uncredited material is included, the publisher and editor wish to retract the article”.

Documents obtained by the Financial Times uncover handwritten comments that O’Reilly annotated on a student’s essay– such “an excellent piece of work”, he said. “You have coined an original narrative . . . you create a new study”, he elaborated.

Per Capita has learnt more about the nature of O’Reilly’s relationship with the student who later put forward the plagiarism allegations, which paint the “plagiarising” professor in a different light as a supportive supervisor.

At the time, the student emailed O’Reilly after receiving his examination results, thanking him for “the length to which you went to ensure that I was as well prepared for my finals as possible – not just in Borderlands but across all the papers – made Easter term a lot more tolerable than it could have otherwise been …”. The student thanked him for “all [his] support in second year and particularly third year” after being awarded a “good grade” in his Cambridge finals.

“Also, as I have said to you before, Borderlands was also a genuinely exciting and interesting paper, and I know everyone in our seminars thought the same. It was also one of the most diverse I studied in my entire time here”, said the student in testimony shared by Professor O’Reilly with Per Capita. O’Reilly shared an email written by the student, where they expressed that they “really appreciate the tact with which you handled being my DoS [Director of Studies] with everything that has been going on over the last term or so.”

O’Reilly argued that he demonstrated exceptional leniency that allegedly led to the plagiarism allegations. He told us that the student submitted their supervision essays “late”, past the deadline– “one at 2.14 a.m. for a supervision the next day”. This, O’Reilly upheld, was the reason he was unable to distinguish his own work from student’s work which he would have ordinarily deleted after the supervision. O’Reilly told Per Capita that the Student, unusually, sent updated or “final” versions of these essays ahead of O’Reilly writing a “supervision report” on the student’s performance at the end of the term.

Commentary: An Unfair Outcome caused by Exceptional Personal Circumstances

Students across the University may question whether an essay, no matter how “excellent” it may be and regardless of the unusual circumstances of the student’s working practices, could justify academic plagiarism.

“There is a fair bit of disgruntlement”, said one university employee who spoke on the condition of anonymity to the Financial Times– they nonetheless acknowledged that internal processes on plagiarism had been followed.

The outcome– where a plagiarising professor has maintained in post– has unfolded against a backdrop where Higher Education Institutions have tightened their grip on academic misconduct. This includes, more recently, restricting or outright prohibiting the use of Generative AI like ChatGPT in examinations or assignments.

However, O’Reilly told Per Capita that the accidental plagiarism “all happened at a time of great personal stress for me in the year following the death of my elder brother which left me as the primary carer for my ninety-eight-year-old father and other difficult personal and work-related circumstances. The Tribunal also recognised that there was a failure to provide me with appropriate support when undertaking a workload in the History Faculty which far exceeded the expected stint”.

O’Reilly’s defence and details revealed by Per Capita create a murky picture, particularly compared to plagiarism scandals in comparable institutions. The details are far less clear-cut than any equivalent plagiarism scandals. The open acknowledgement of an error of judgement, deteriorating mental health caused by apparent issues with the Faculty of History, and testimony revealing a supportive student-supervisor relationship seem to have impacted the outcome of the University Tribunal, who need to have sufficient grounds for dismissal or more serious penalties.

The “O’Reilly Incident” is not a huge plagiarism exposé, contrary to its depiction in other Cambridge student media. But, its outcome undoubtedly projects a clear message of a double standard between staff and students in the University.

Cambridge may not, and has not in the past, extended such leniency to its students. Yet, the University’s decision, in spite of evidence from the student, has sent a public message that they will protect their own ranks unless there is unwavering and indefensible evidence of malpractice.

Image from Youtube