Publication: Independent Online
Issued:
Date: 2008-04-10
Reporter: Latoya Newman
|
Chippy to Contest Degree Decision
|
| Publication |
Independent Online
|
| Date |
2008-04-10
|
|
Reporter
|
Latoya Newman |
|
Web Link
|
www.iol.co.za
|
Shamim "Chippy" Shaik's lawyer will soon take the
first step towards challenging the University of KwaZulu-Natal's decision
to revoke Shaik's PhD in Mechanical Engineering.
Shaik's attorney and brother, Yunis Shaik, confirmed earlier this week that the
planned action comes about a month after UKZN authorities confirmed that Chippy
Shaik's degree would be withdrawn.
The announcement followed months of investigation,
instituted last year, into allegations that Shaik committed plagiarism while
completing his thesis.
In February, the university announced that its senate had accepted the findings
of UKZN's agriculture, engineering and science academic affairs board that parts
of Shaik's thesis were plagiarised.
The board found that chapters two and four of the thesis were "extensively"
plagiarised and that it was unlikely that chapter
three was Shaik's unaided or sole work.
Chapters two, three and four were therefore found not to
meet the standards required of a PhD.
Shaik's 2003 thesis was entitled Refined Theory of Laminated Anisotropic Shells
for the Solution of Thermal Stress Problems.
The alleged plagiarism apparently involved the work of a
Russian author *1. Yunis Shaik said documents contesting the decision
would be presented to UKZN's council *2.
"At this stage, I do not want to disclose the contents of the memorandum, but
suffice to say it is meant to challenge their decision *3,"
he said.
From the outset, the Shaiks have maintained Chippy Shaik's innocence.
In previous interviews, they said references were made for all information used
in the thesis and that the book in question featured *4
in the survey of literature set out in Chippy Shaik's thesis, and that it
was fully acknowledged in the bibliography *5.
Yunis Shaik also previously pointed out that the
author of the book was Chippy Shaik's examiner *6.
UKZN pro-vice-chancellor Dasarath Chetty said the university would not comment
on the matter at this stage.
* This article was originally published on page 5 of The Mercury on April 10,
2008
With acknowledgements to Latoya Newman and Independent
Online.
*1 There were no Russian authors.
There were three Ukrainian authors.
*2*3 Which will have no effect because the decision of the
University Senate is final. Council is merely informed.
*4 It certainly does not feature. There is a passing
reference to the main author's name (there were three authors) and an item
number in the Bibliography.
This does not constitute an acceptable standard for a citation.
Indeed, even if there was no plagiarism and no undue collaboration, the thesis
is so flawed that it would not pass muster at a proper university.
*5 What does "fully acknowledged" in the bibliography mean?
The book is 200 pages in length. It the book in entirety cited?
The reference is in itself and in any case is a word-for-word regurgitation of
an identical journal paper by the three Ukrainian authors and two others which
is indeed plagiarised in almost its entirety.
*6 Not quite. The second author it the student's examiner.
The main author is probably the world's best expert in the subject and probably
the second author's mentor.
The main author was one of the thesis's external examiners.
In all likelihood the student paid his supervisor to assist him in concocting
this thesis.and in all likelihood the supervisor paid the external examiner in
collaborating with this scam.
In all likelihood the student used funds from the Department of Defence to fund
this scam using defence research and development funds and channeled through the
supervisor's private company.
So we taxpayers funded this scam.
As bad, the University of Natal would have received a grant for completion of
the thesis and award of the doctoral degree while the student himself was indeed
given a post-doctoral monetary grant (at least some R60 000 plus pre-award
bursary) for fraudulently claiming the award of the degree.