Formal investigation Pál Schmitt academic misconduct controversy

1 formal investigation

1.1 members of fact-finding committee
1.2 majority report

1.2.1 procedure
1.2.2 thesis
1.2.3 conclusion


1.3 minority report
1.4 reactions report

1.4.1 pál schmitt
1.4.2 government coalition
1.4.3 klaus heinemann

formal investigation

on 11 january györgy bazsa, president of hungarian accreditation committee stated investigation needs conducted university issued title. károly rácz, head of semmelweis university doctoral council did not wish comment on allegations of plagiarism regarding schmitt s dissertation, stating dr. univ. degree not awarded doctoral school issues phd titles introduced in 1993.

on 13 january miklós tóth, dean of faculty of sport sciences @ semmelweis university issued statement claiming evaluation , issuance of dr. univ. title conducted according standard procedures , according experts content of dissertation adhered requirements @ time. further stated there no reason assume thesis committee did not deliver well-founded decision when assessed schmitt s 1992 dissertation.

on 17 january tivadar tulassay, rector of semmelweis university instructed miklós tóth, dean of faculty of sport sciences, assemble committee of inquiry investigate circumstances under pál schmitt’s doctoral dissertation came being.

on 21 january népszabadság reported experts qualified assess allegations turning down requests participate in work of committee of inquiry. in opinion of népszabadság due politically sensitive nature of issue.

on 24 january népszabadság reported semmelweis university exploring possibility asking experts outside country examine paul schmitt s doctoral dissertation. these experts investigate whether quotations in dissertation form georgiev s , heinemann s works have been used correctly , according regulations. argued if suspected plagiarism confirmed, easier carry out necessary administrative , legal measures.

the same day hvg.hu wrote sources confirmed earlier reports experts turning down requests participate in work of committee designated investigate allegations of plagiarism in schmitt s dissertation. according sources of heti világgazdaság, reason experts reluctance fear may suffer disadvantage in careers. university sources did not confirm reports university considering ask participation of experts outside country. semmelweis university ordered news black-out but, according sources of heti világgazdaság, university see case closed possible, although investigations prolonged until autumn 2013.

on 25 january miklós tóth, dean of faculty of sport sciences @ semmelweis university announced five-member fact-finding committee had been set up, , deliver report 28 march. committee included both external , internal members, experts in linguistics, law, sports , social sciences. members of committee remained anonymous duration of investigation.

members of fact-finding committee

the members of fact-finding committee were:

miklós tóth: dean of faculty of sport sciences, semmelweis university
Ákos fluck: lawyer
jános gombocz: department of physical education theory , pedagogy, semmelweis university
etele kovács: department of athletics, semmelweis university
károly rácz: president of doctoral council, school of doctoral studies, semmelweis university

issues of conflicts of interest have been raised regard fact-finding committee; népszabadság found problematic miklós tóth became dean , member of mob after fidesz-kdnp government took office, , became vice-president of olympic committee during course of investigation.

majority report

the committee released 3-page summary of 1,100-page report public on 28 march. report states 197 pages in question indeed verbatim copies of georgiev s , heinemann s respective works. however, report states lack of citations , references formal mistakes should have been addressed supervisors, who, failing so, have led schmitt believe thesis met requirements. semmelweis university, citing privacy reasons, has not made majority report public. heti világgazdaság filed complaint university s argument hungarian national authority data protection , freedom of information. summary, after establishing legal context awarding dr. univ. title @ university of physical education, has following sections.

procedure

the report notes conspicuously (although not against regulations), defense took place barely month after registration. missing documents, however, imply formal irregularities. namely, thesis proposal, report on comprehensive examination, , minutes of thesis committee not found. report faults thesis advisor , examiners not alerting candidate inappropriate or absent citations, largely typical of thesis. further procedural errors implied lack of proper bibliography (5 out of 21 cited references not identified; out of 23 self-citations, 10 not found, , 3 cited wrongly).

thesis

the report asserts author did not indicate sources anywhere in thesis. text uses neither quotation marks, nor author names in parentheses, nor footnotes, nor endnotes. committee notes thesis not contain acknowledgments of support collaborators. report notes in particular textual identities klaus heinemann s work, figures , tables copied (with occasional minor modifications) nikolay georgiev s manuscript, , further 180 text pages partially matching same work.

conclusion

the report draws conclusion thesis procedure was, notwithstanding procedural shortcomings, in accordance practices of university of physical education @ time. thesis based on word-by-word translation of unusually large extent, should have been detected @ defense. report faults university of physical education leading author believe thesis met requirements.

minority report

the external member of fact-finding committee, Ákos fluck, submitted minority report became public on evening of 27 march. minority report notes has been established figure 1 of schmitt s dissertation photocopy of figure on page 10 of georgiev s work. report notes @ 1 time schmitt refers figure 10 in text, while dissertation not have ten figures; part of text direct translation taken georgiev s work, indeed has figure 10. in minority report, Ákos fluck wrote: based on fact-finding work, investigation possibility of, procedures for, withdrawing doctorate title candidate advised. minority report recounted schmitt had received fact-finding committee s chair in office. chair communicated schmitt s opinion other committee members: schmitt s faith should not questioned, since not alerted advisor , thesis committee possible shortcomings, echoing fact-finding report s conclusion.

reactions report

the report has met considerable controversy upon release, members of opposition claiming semmelweis university caved in political pressure.

pál schmitt

pál schmitt attending 2012 seoul nuclear security summit in south korea @ time three-page summary of fact-finding committee made public. speaking of report schmitt told mti final conclusion kind of satisfaction [him]: right 20 years ago, because wrote thesis best of knowledge , in keeping circumstances , requirements of time . said did not moment think resign, qualities other doctorate reasons election. schmitt returned summit hungary @ 10:30 pm (cet).

government coalition

on 27 march fidesz spokesperson gabriella selmeczi said given report of fact-finding committee of semmelweis university, fidesz considers case closed . in press release christian democratic people s party (kdnp) stated report can bring satisfying closure allegations questioned originality of president s dissertation .

klaus heinemann

in letter index.hu, klaus heinemann called report s majority conclusion ridiculous nonsense . in opinion, had committee appointed investigate allegations of plagiarism of zu guttenberg come same conclusion—that is, putting blame on university itself— have won prize excellent cabaret-joke , still laughing @ them day . according index.hu, heinemann unaware schmitt s doctorate had been revoked university senate.