Lies #10: The plagiarism and intellectual dishonesty of Prof Amupanda
Documentary series on the lies of Job Apumpanda
The University of Namibia recently promoted Dr Job Amupanda to an assistant professorship in the Politics Department, certainly an achievement for any aspiring academic. A self-described public intellectual, his promotion offers an opportunity to reflect on his teachings and academic work.
The plagiarism of Prof Amupanda
On 1 June 2021 Dr Amupanda published an opinion piece, called ‘Towards a Namibian Local Authority Family.’ It was suspect from the outset for a number of reasons. Firstly, because he did not acknowledge his obvious sources. Secondly he lied, several times.
The first proof is in his opening where Amupanda claims that:
To understand any society, one needs to study its organising principles. One is kinship. Sociologist Anthony Giddens simplifies that kinship is culturally learned “connections between individuals, established either through marriage or the lines of descent that connect blood relatives (mother, father, offspring, grandparents, etc)’. Kinship rules, norms and ethos thus organise society and establish institutions… kinship remains an organising principle of society…”
Compare that paragraph — ostensibly reflecting the thoughts of Dr Amupanda — to the article by Puja Mundal: ‘Kinship: Main Organizing Principles of Human Society’, in which the writer says of kinship:
It is one of the main organizing principles of human society… According to Anthony Giddens (1997), ‘kinship ties are connections between individuals, established either through marriage or the lines of descent that connect blood relatives (mother, father, offspring, grandparents, etc.). Kinship is culturally learned.
As I reported at the time, it appears that Dr Amupanda simply copied and pasted Mondal’s work but slightly rearranged the words, without crediting his source, making it appear as if he put forward his own analysis of Giddens’ theory on kinship.
The Oxford Dictionary defines plagiarism as ‘the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.’
In the second instance of such academic malpractice, in that article he wrote that:
German philosopher Ferdinand Tönnies already reached this conclusion in his 1905 text ‘The Present Problems of Social Structure’. He argued that society cannot successfully operate using outdated methods of social management. The best outcomes for a modern society, he submits, can be achieved by applying advanced techniques and reliable statistical data to social systems.
Compare Job’s claim to the Wikipedia entry on social engineering, which states:
‘German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies in his 1905 study The Present Problems of Social Structure, proposes that society can no longer operate successfully using outmoded methods of social management. To achieve the best outcomes, all conclusions and decisions must use the most advanced techniques and include reliable statistical data, which can be applied to a social system.’
Any competent authority would confirm that these two examples of the use of unacknowledged sources meet the definition of academic plagiarism, and actual scholars know that it is better to borrow and humbly acknowledge those to whom you are indebted than to take their work and present it is your own.
A few other facts are noteworthy. Besides that his own public statements against ;plagiarism imply he was fully aware of what it means for academia and public discourse generally, he was never taken to task over it by the editor, or forced to retract as another Unam professor guilty of plagiarism had to.
Further, one Unam academic often cited in the media condoned such copy-and-paste methods in response to a query by this reporter and said it was “normal.” We must, however, dispute that it is normal to present other people’s work as your own.
Distortions
It is surprising to discover so much mischief in just one opinion piece by Amupanda, because in that same article he goes on to severely distort the meaning of the simple words of Italian revolutionary writer and martyr Antonio Gramsci, to make his statement mean the exact opposite.
Dr Amupanda goes on to plagiarise another Wikipedia entry and blatantly misinterprets the ideas of Antonio Gramsci to suit his purposes when he says:
Organic intellectuals are talkers and practically minded directors and organisers whose work on social life transcends epistemological and ontological rules. Through a variety of methods, they articulate the masses’ feelings and experiences which the masses are unable to articulate.
Leaving aside for the moment his claim to want to transcend epistemology (theory of knowledge) and ontology (the concept of being), it is clear that he lifted the above phrase in bold directly from a Wikipedia entry.
The Wikipedia post similarly states that, ‘He (Gramsci) saw ‘modern intellectuals not as talkers, but as practical-minded directors and organisers.’ Please note, the original said “NOT as talkers”.but Amupanda omitted that important detail (‘not as talkers’) to suit his purpose or his understanding and in effect made Gramsci say the opposite of what was intended by the author,
The wiki-article says in Gramsci’s view organic intellectuals “articulate, through the language of culture, the feelings and experiences which the masses could not express for themselves.” —from where we may infer the origin of Amupanda’s phrasing that they ‘articulate the masses’ feelings and experiences which the masses are unable to articulate.. Yet unfortunately he again fails to reference his source: Wikipedia.
These three examples should suffice as evidence of plagiarism.
Lying as public health risk
Finally, one point may help to demonstrate the serious consequence of intellectual dishonesty for public discourse in general but — more pertinently — for public health.
In that same article, Amupanda told us he was busy with “social-engineering.” As noted earlier, he favorably cited German “philosopher” Tönnies, to the effect that ‘To achieve the best outcomes, all conclusions and decisions must use the most advanced techniques and include reliable statistical data.’
Prior to that statement, on 24 April 2021 I published a letter to Amupanda to ask whether the municipality had done any research or impact assessment on its policy of enforcing water cut-offs and installation of prepaid water meters on poorer households and those in debt. He ignored the question.
City spokesperson Harold Akwenye had told me in writing on 20 April:
The City of Windhoek has not carried out an Environmental Impact Assessment for prepaid water meters for residential usage…’ ‘The City has not carried out a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) on the prepaid water meters…”
Thus it is clear that no research was done prior to implementation of this major new policy reform on water rights. But here Dr Amupanda, then as mayor, is in the papers saying policy decisions must be based on advanced research and “reliable statistical data”, while in practice he was doing the very opposite: making major policy decisions on water access without any health and epidemiological research or data.
Amupanda’s social engineering amid the pandemic amounted to the adoption of a two-tier system of municipal service delivery — a type of economic apartheid, with one level of service for the rich and one for the poor — without an iota of research data to inform such a fundamental change in public water policy, which means basic water services would be available to only those with an income and cash to pay for it.
The public health consequences proved to be disastrous.
Access to water would no longer be considered a human right in the new world that Amupanda was aiming at, but a privilege afforded only to those who can pay upfront.
“We will have our money before anyone uses,” he told Council in April 2021, quite the opposite what he had argued in academic papers published around the same time.
In “his” opinion piece — which came at a critical time when the impacts of Covid 19 and the water cuts were taking hold — our professor went on to present himself as a radical leader who wanted to create “prosperity, fairness, justice and happiness.”
Whether prosperity, fairness, justice and happiness are what followed his term in office we can leave to the reader to decide, but one thing that is beyond reasonable doubt is his non-acknowledgement of his sources, and that he made himself guilty of academic plagiarism and distortion, which are ways of lying.