Should Plagiarists Remain Anonymous?

In Singapore, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon has opted to deanonymize the name of a legal grad who was denied admission to the bar for failing to disclose past plagiarism incidents.

The graduate in question, Pulara Devminie Somachandra, graduated from a school in the United Kingdom in 2019. To be accepted to the bar in Singapore, she needed to pass two separate exams, Part A and Part B.

She failed two papers in the Part A exam in 2020 and resat the exam. However, her answers were found to be similar to another candidate’s, identified only as Ms Tan, and it was determined that she had colluded with Tan on the test.

Somachandra eventually passed the Part A exam in 2022 and the Part B exam in 2023. However, when applying to the bar, she did not disclose the 2020 incident. The Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE), Attorney-General and Law Society all objected to her admission.

As such, she was denied admission to the bar and must wait five years before reapplying.

However, she requested that her identity be kept anonymous when publishing the grounds of the decision. She included a memo from a doctor stating that she had suicidal ideation and that a non-anonymous publication was an “immediate risk” to her mental health and safety.

Menon initially published the grounds anonymized. However, Attorney-General’s Chambers and the SILE both objected to the anonymization. Ultimately, Menon sided with them and republished the grounds, this time with Somachandra’s name.

But was it the correct move? That is a difficult question.

Plagiarism, Ethics and Anonymity

Plagiarism is a serious ethical infraction and, in some spaces, it absolutely should be disqualifying, at least to some degree.

But, as we discussed previously, there is no one standard of plagiarism. Some fields, such as the legal field, are more tolerant of copying than others.

However, this speaks more to whether the field focuses on originality of content rather than quality or persuasiveness of the argument. As one lawyer put it, “exercising originality in word choice is often damn near malpractice.”

The legal field still has a robust set of ethical standards, and for good reason. An unethical lawyer can do incredible amounts of damage to their clients and the legal system as a whole. That is why there is an entire infrastructure around hearing allegations of unethical behavior and addressing missteps in the legal field.

To that end, Somachandra violated the field’s ethical standards. Regardless of what one thinks about copying others’ words for legal filings, collusion with another student for the bar exam is a definite violation. Failing to disclose that infraction compounded the issue.

Her future clients have a reason to be aware of this issue. However, she was denied acceptance to the bar. She cannot practice law in Singapore. Is she still a danger, and if so, do the risks outweigh the potential harm?

When Do We Let it Go?

The tension is obvious. Plagiarism is a serious ethical infraction, and there is an inherent need/right to know when someone commits it. This is especially true in spaces like the legal field, where an unethical person poses a significant risk.

But “naming and shaming” also has its own risks. The practice harms people and, oftentimes, that harm never goes away. While it’s difficult to be sympathetic to plagiarists, we can’t ignore the fact that plagiarists have to keep on living and working after the scandal fades.

People often move on from plagiarism scandals. Kaavya Viswanathan, for example, is now a lawyer. However, she is still best known for her 2006 plagiarism scandal involving her book. Similarly, Jayson Blair is still best known for his 2003 scandal at the New York Times, but has been working as a life coach since 2007.

However, those scandals aren’t relevant to their current professions, and neither of them has made new plagiarism-related headlines for nearly two decades. Is it fair that they are both so tied to the past?

When do we let plagiarism go? It’s a difficult question that I’ve struggled with. I created a content removal policy that attempts to strike some balance with this site. However, it’s only been applied about half a dozen times.

Simply put, there are no easy answers. Plagiarism is important and serious. But the internet is forever. It’s possible for a plagiarism scandal to stick around for much longer than a felony would on a background check.

That seems unbalanced, but the alternative may be much worse.

Bottom Line

In an ideal world, we could discuss plagiarism with nuance and clarity. However, we don’t live in that world.

Personally, I agree with Menon’s decision. I believe in erring on the side of transparency. Somachandra was entering a field with strict, clearly defined ethical standards. She violated those standards first by colluding and then not disclosing the issue.

While I am immediately sympathetic to anyone with mental illness, as someone who suffers from their own conditions, it shouldn’t absolve you of the consequences for your actions. If she knew that what she was doing was wrong, and I don’t see how she couldn’t, she should face the consequences.

We can, and should, argue about whether those consequences are fair. But there do have to be consequences, and, given the severity of the actions, those consequences need to be severe themselves.

What we ultimately need is a more balanced conversation around plagiarism. But that is unlikely any time soon.

So, I’m personally following a path toward transparency mixed with compassion. Yes, we should call out plagiarists, but also understand that they have to live their lives once the scandal dies down.

Yes, there is a right and need to know, especially if they are continuing to work in the same field and/or have repeated problems. But if we are going to require that they move on from it, we have to do the same.

It’s a difficult balance and I haven’t found a perfect one yet, but the main point is to at least try.