B.U. Sues Term Paper Service After Investigation

Boston University (B.U.) filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on Monday against eight on-line companies that sell term papers to students in Massachusetts.

The university claims that these companies are violating statues on mail and wire fraud by selling and distributing fraudulent term papers via these methods.

The companies' actions constitute a "pattern of racketeering activity" and are in violation of federal law, according to a B.U. press release. In addition, the companies are charged with breaking a Massachusetts law prohibiting the sale of term papers and other research materials, according to the release.

A principle from one of the leading purveyors of research papers-which was named in the suit-who spoke under the condition of anonymity, claimed that his company is not in violation of any law, and that B.U.'s attempt to censor its material in the state of Massachusetts is a breech of its First Amendment rights.

The suit, which marks the first legal action taken against such companies operating on the Internet, is being pursued in federal court because the companies are based outside of Massachusetts.

In the suit, B.U. asked the court to order the cessation of sales by the companies and extract punitive damages.

The suit was filed after a several month-long, on-line sting operation conducted by B.U. in the investigation, the university-using online search engines-tried to identify companies which sold papers to students over the Internet.

Because the practice of selling term papers and other research materials is illegal in Massachusetts, administrators and staff of B.U. said they were worried about the implications of companies on the Internet selling term papers to students living in Massachusetts, according to Kevin Carleton, director of public relations at B.U.

"The faculty and deans were aware that [the Internet] was an avenue by which people could obtain term papers, as opposed to the traditional ways [of

selling these papers] using mail or direct delivery, and the president asked the staff to look into it," Carleton said.

After identifying these on-line "term paper mills," the university's office of the General Counsel contacted some of these companies to further investigate their activities.

According to B.U., staff members posed as students requested a paper which they could submit as their own work for an English class.

Although the companies which are cited in the lawsuit print multiple disclaimers that their products are to be used for "informational" or "research" purposes only, the university alleges that these companies provided them with a completed product after being informed of the intended plagiarism by the supposed student.

In some cases, the paper came with a personalized cover page, including the name of the student, the professor of the class, the date and the specific title, Carleton said.

The unnamed representative argued that B.U.'s actions constituted entrapment.

Responding to the question of why the format of their product is similar to that of a standard term paper, the representative argued that the product was just underlying research, not a ready-to-go term paper, regardless of how it looked.

"Would the problem be solved if we e-mailed this out in 16pt or 4pt type. Is that the problem?" the representative said. "Do we solve the problem by sending them in some sort of Arabic-looking font?"

The source compared the product which his company offers with that of Cliff's Notes and Encyclopedia Brittanica.

"B.U.'s bookstore sells Cliff's Notes which have no disclaimers about plagiarizing," he said. "I wonder why Bob Smith [from B.U.'s Office of the General Counsel] has not sued Cliff's Notes. Possibly because there he will be up against heavy money...and he knows he's treading on thin ice."

One Company's Reaction

The unnamed source cited in the suit said he was outraged by the legal actions taken by B.U.

"[I am angered] by the high handedness of the effort on the part of B.U.," he said. "They take it upon themselves to censor on behalf of the entire state of Massachusetts as to what they may and may not read."

The source claimed that the suit was an infringement on the company's First Amendment rights.

"What we are selling is totally harmless," the source said. "What we are providing is not a Web site that tells you how to build a suitcase atom bond, not pornography and not one of the 250 racial and ethnic hate sites. What we are offering for sale are such dangerous items as a paper on the relationship between Hamlet and his mother."

The source's company voluntarily halted sales to Massachusetts since they became aware of the lawsuit, he said.

"We turned down today [a customer requesting research] on the economic impact of the Russian grain harvest failure in 1990-95," he said. "Boston University feels that this info should not be available to anyone in Massachusetts...because of the possibility that some people [who] are students may purchase a paper and plagiarize it".

The source denied any legal infractions, citing in part the multitude of disclaimers which pervade his Web site.

"We don't condone [plagiarism]. We have [the customers] sign an order form which [states] that they understand that the product is for research purposes only," the representative said. "That notwith-standing, Bob Smith [of the General Counsel's Office] wants no one in Massachusetts to have access to [research on the Russian grain harvest]."

Not all of his company's business comes from selling research to students, the source said.

The representative's company-which he described as a provider of underlying research-derives about 50 percent of its business from non-academic customers.

If the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, the representative's company would lose less than 5 percent of its total business.

"I am [more] concerned by the spreading cancer aspect [of this suit]," the source said.

B.U. has already received inquiries from unnamed other parties who are interested in bringing legal actions against such on-line term paper companies, Carleton said.

Carleton said that students have also received the lawsuit with open arms.

"Students are pleased to hear the outrage expressed. Most kids do their own work," Carleton said.

Robert B. Donin, University attorney for Harvard's General Counsel's Office, said that Harvard has not yet made a decision as to whether the University will join the legal battle.

"We are studying the complaint and have not made any decisions about whether to get involved," he said.

This is not the first suit brought by B.U. against companies selling term papers.

Twenty-five years ago, B.U. brought a suit against term paper mills. After winning an injunction against several companies, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law one year later outlawing the practice

selling these papers] using mail or direct delivery, and the president asked the staff to look into it," Carleton said.

After identifying these on-line "term paper mills," the university's office of the General Counsel contacted some of these companies to further investigate their activities.

According to B.U., staff members posed as students requested a paper which they could submit as their own work for an English class.

Although the companies which are cited in the lawsuit print multiple disclaimers that their products are to be used for "informational" or "research" purposes only, the university alleges that these companies provided them with a completed product after being informed of the intended plagiarism by the supposed student.

In some cases, the paper came with a personalized cover page, including the name of the student, the professor of the class, the date and the specific title, Carleton said.

The unnamed representative argued that B.U.'s actions constituted entrapment.

Responding to the question of why the format of their product is similar to that of a standard term paper, the representative argued that the product was just underlying research, not a ready-to-go term paper, regardless of how it looked.

"Would the problem be solved if we e-mailed this out in 16pt or 4pt type. Is that the problem?" the representative said. "Do we solve the problem by sending them in some sort of Arabic-looking font?"

The source compared the product which his company offers with that of Cliff's Notes and Encyclopedia Brittanica.

"B.U.'s bookstore sells Cliff's Notes which have no disclaimers about plagiarizing," he said. "I wonder why Bob Smith [from B.U.'s Office of the General Counsel] has not sued Cliff's Notes. Possibly because there he will be up against heavy money...and he knows he's treading on thin ice."

One Company's Reaction

The unnamed source cited in the suit said he was outraged by the legal actions taken by B.U.

"[I am angered] by the high handedness of the effort on the part of B.U.," he said. "They take it upon themselves to censor on behalf of the entire state of Massachusetts as to what they may and may not read."

The source claimed that the suit was an infringement on the company's First Amendment rights.

"What we are selling is totally harmless," the source said. "What we are providing is not a Web site that tells you how to build a suitcase atom bond, not pornography and not one of the 250 racial and ethnic hate sites. What we are offering for sale are such dangerous items as a paper on the relationship between Hamlet and his mother."

The source's company voluntarily halted sales to Massachusetts since they became aware of the lawsuit, he said.

"We turned down today [a customer requesting research] on the economic impact of the Russian grain harvest failure in 1990-95," he said. "Boston University feels that this info should not be available to anyone in Massachusetts...because of the possibility that some people [who] are students may purchase a paper and plagiarize it".

The source denied any legal infractions, citing in part the multitude of disclaimers which pervade his Web site.

"We don't condone [plagiarism]. We have [the customers] sign an order form which [states] that they understand that the product is for research purposes only," the representative said. "That notwith-standing, Bob Smith [of the General Counsel's Office] wants no one in Massachusetts to have access to [research on the Russian grain harvest]."

Not all of his company's business comes from selling research to students, the source said.

The representative's company-which he described as a provider of underlying research-derives about 50 percent of its business from non-academic customers.

If the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, the representative's company would lose less than 5 percent of its total business.

"I am [more] concerned by the spreading cancer aspect [of this suit]," the source said.

B.U. has already received inquiries from unnamed other parties who are interested in bringing legal actions against such on-line term paper companies, Carleton said.

Carleton said that students have also received the lawsuit with open arms.

"Students are pleased to hear the outrage expressed. Most kids do their own work," Carleton said.

Robert B. Donin, University attorney for Harvard's General Counsel's Office, said that Harvard has not yet made a decision as to whether the University will join the legal battle.

"We are studying the complaint and have not made any decisions about whether to get involved," he said.

This is not the first suit brought by B.U. against companies selling term papers.

Twenty-five years ago, B.U. brought a suit against term paper mills. After winning an injunction against several companies, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law one year later outlawing the practice