Cho v. USC
Filed 5/31/06 Cho v. USC CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
| MIN SOOK CHO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. | B180321 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS087746) |
APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. David P. Yaffe, Judge. Affirmed.
Sung Bae Park; Law Offices of Steve S. Oh and Steve S. Oh for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Law Offices of Denise A. Nardi and Denise A. Nardi for Defendant and Respondent.
* * * * * * * * * *
Min Sook Cho appeals from the adverse judgment in her administrative mandate action, which sought to reverse a decision by the University of Southern California (USC) to expel her because she committed plagiarism in her qualifying examination for a doctoral degree. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In September 2002, Min Sook Cho completed an essay examination in order to qualify for a doctoral degree at USC's Rossier School of Education. When the committee reviewing her exam became convinced she had plagiarized material from certain textbooks in answering one of the three essay questions, a student disciplinary complaint was made. Pursuant to USC's Student Conduct Code (Conduct Code), a Summary Administrative Review hearing was conducted by Robert Schnereger, the director of USC's Office of Student Judicial Affairs and Community Standards (student affairs office).
At the hearing, Cho admitted that five pages of her essay were comprised mostly of passages taken verbatim from certain textbooks, and that she failed to place that material within quotation marks, acknowledge the source of that material, or otherwise attribute the material to the authors. Such conduct was defined as plagiarism by the Conduct Code. According to Cho, she did not need to attribute that particular material to its authors because it was common knowledge to all the members of her grading committee. Her conduct was also justified, she contended, because a professor in one of her research courses told her it was proper on one of his take-home exams. Cho also contended the rules against plagiarism applied to only essays or papers, not to take-home essay examinations.
Schnereger rejected Cho's arguments. In a written decision, he found that her extensive verbatim use of textbook passages went far beyond any common knowledge argument, and that Cho represented both the ideas expressed in the materials, and the materials themselves, as her own work. Cho's reliance on the past practice of a former professor was rejected because it was an exception to USC's normal academic standards. The fact that Cho's two other essay answers contained proper attributions of various text materials showed that she knew the other professor's directions did not apply universally. Schnereger also rejected Cho's distinction between take-home essay examinations and papers and essays. Even though the Conduct Code prohibited plagiarism in â€
