The Kjerkol lawyer has previously canceled a previously approved master’s thesis for plagiarism

While Ingvild Kjerkol’s lawyer Marianne Klausen argues strongly that a university do not have the opportunity to enter and cancel a previously approved master’s thesisMarianne Klausen, head of the Joint Complaints Board, argued just as strongly for the opposite four years ago.

At the time, a former master’s student at the University of Oslo (UiO) had appealed a decision to cancel the master’s thesis, a decision made in 2019, to the Joint Appeal Board.

This is shown by the unanimous decision in the case, signed by committee chair Marianne Klausen, which Khrono has been given access to.

The decision has previously been discussed by TV2 ahead of the processing of the case at Nord University in February.

– This does not look good. As a lawyer, you are often on both sides, but as former head of Felle’s complaints board, Klausen has not only argued for what she believes is right or wrong, she has defined what it is. Klausen was actively out as a promoter of a hard line in cheating cases, and then it is clumsy to come afterwards and stand just as hard for the opposite, says lawyer Ruben Haugland.

He sat on the tribunal when the relevant case at UiO was dealt with, and since then has also assisted many students in similar cases.

– Then one can well discuss how the law should be, and it is a discussion that I and several others have welcomed. But as the law is today, there is a reason why the legislature has specified that the option to cancel an assignment does not expire, says Haugland.

Khrono has been in contact with Marianne Klausen, who does not wish to comment on the matter. She reasons that her client does not want to contribute to more media coverage.

— Comparable

The student’s master’s thesis had originally been approved in 2018. Then it had been through the plagiarism tool Urkund, but without the report from there being reviewed, the decision states. For comparison, the plagiarism report for Kjerkol’s master’s thesis was assessed when the thesis was first censored.

But lawyer Haugland believes that this small difference does not matter.

— If you have a report, then you have a report. You have the information. Whether you choose to use the information or not does not matter here. It cannot be the case that what the faculty chooses to do behind closed doors matters for whether your degree is secure or not, he says, adding that he would probably have used the lack of review of the plagiarism report as an argument if he had to assist a student in a similar case. But he adds:

— You put me in a bit of a difficult situation. After all, I am the students’ lawyer, and in principle must speak for the students… If you are going to use the fact that the report was not reviewed as an argument here, then you are also saying that it is the examiners who are responsible for checking the reports. And although it is normally the case that censors detect cheating, the fact that they have not detected it is not the same as saying that it has not occurred.

The UiO student’s plagiarism report was only reviewed in connection with another case where cheating was suspected, over a year later. The conclusion was a textual similarity of 41 per cent between the complainant’s thesis and previously submitted master’s theses.

In the decision, Felle’s appeal board emphasized that the right to cancel a master’s thesis does not expire, and the board canceled the thesis.

“The case is comparable to Kjerkol’s case,” says Tarjei Bekkedal, law professor at UiO.

– As in Kjerkol’s case, the nature and extent of the textual similarity made the tribunal conclude that there was deliberate cheating.

— Uncertainty for the rest of your life

In other words, the fact that it was only long after the thesis had been approved that plagiarism was discovered, as in the Kjerkol case, played no role for the Joint Complaints Board and Marianne Klausen in 2020.

But Marianne Klausen in 2024 sees it differently. In a interview with Khrono after Kjerkol’s assignment was cancelled, she said that legal certainty would be compromised if the decision were to stand.

“Should the law open up access to such revisions, it would then mean that everyone who has submitted an assignment and had it censored and approved will have to walk around in uncertainty for the rest of their lives because their assignment can be reassessed at any time, she said then.

She also pointed out that the reference in the Universities and Colleges Act to the fact that the right to cancel a master’s thesis does not expire is not sufficient.

“For that, the intervention is too big and too unpredictable for the student and those who are affected by a citizen losing their degree,” she said.

The one point where Felle’s appeals board, and Marianne Klausen, in 2020 nevertheless disagreed with the board at UiO, was on the question of exclusion. As there was already a plagiarism report in 2018 which was not checked, the board believed that banning for two semesters was too strict, and adjusted it down to one semester.

At Nord University, the committee decided not to ban Kjerkol because a long time had passed since the thesis was approved.

— The outcome must be the same

— The case shows that the decision of the board at Nord University is in line with current practice, and it shows that there is a confusion of roles when Marianne Klausen represents Kjerkol, says Tarjei Bekkedal and adds:

– She will be confronted with the fact that she, as head of Felle’s complaints board, has made decisions based on arguments that are the opposite of those she is now putting forward in Kjerkol’s defence. It contributes to weakening confidence in the Joint Complaints Board and its practice. Outwardly, it can also create the impression of discrimination.

After former minister Ingvild Kjerkol chose to appeal the decision from the board at Nord University, the board must now look at the matter again. If it chooses to uphold its decision, the case will proceed to the Joint Complaints Board, which currently has a four-month processing time.

Lawyer Haugland is clear about what the outcome should be.

— As there have been no changes in the law, I believe that the outcome must be the same as in the decision from UiO.