Friday, August 31, 2007

Not a Real Suprise

The Board of Trustees supports President Poshard in the dispute surround the plagiarism accusations. From the article, the BOT knew it several months ago but apparently didn't think the accusation in and of itself was particularly important.


I did like this quote from Trustee Samuel Goldman:

I am convinced - as I was before it even began - the issue we face I think is the difference between intent and error," Goldman said. "And to be a plagiarist, you have to show intent.

How do you take from 30 sources without intent? I'll be interested in seeing how this shakes out

BTW, here's the Merriam Webster definition of plagiarism.

Labels: , ,


Comments:
The question if intent is irrelevant. Plagiarism is still plagiarism whether or not it was intentional, or at least that is the standard we hold our students at SIU to. To suggest otherwise in Poshard's case is gross hypocrisy. On the other hand, SIU cannot afford to lose another administrator, especially one who has success at raising money for the school. That's the crux of the problem: if Poshard goes unpunished, it is blatant hypocrisy. If he is fired, we're out a capable administrator. Either way, SIU gets another black eye.

Also, if this group bringing all this about has the courage of their convictions, they should reveal their membership. I doubt this will happen, which is a shame, because their lack of transparency makes the group look like a bunch of cowards, and frankly, intellectual terrorists, throwing bombs from the roadside.
 
Why does the identity of the members of AFAC matter? For what other reason would that information be relevant other than to retaliate against them?

Whatever their identities or their motives, the information that they have provided about Poshard's dissertation appears to be true. What does making their identity public add to this issue?
 
Although this is not a legal matter per se, I believe the principle of the accused knowing the identity of his accuser is still a valid principle.
 
Although this is not a legal matter per se, I believe the principle of the accused knowing the identity of his accuser is still a valid principle.

Why? What effect does that have on the issue of whether Poshard plagiarized?
 
You're right, it doesn't have anything to do with the issue of plagiarism, it's just the right thing to do, don't you think?
 
You're right, it doesn't have anything to do with the issue of plagiarism, it's just the right thing to do, don't you think?

Again, I ask - why? So that they can be attacked for exposing the truth? You have heard of whistleblower laws haven't you?

Maybe the person or people in question are university employees and they fear retaliation. The University just had to pay off Joan Friedenberg because administrators retaliated against her for her actions here at the University.

What does having their identity made public have to do with the issue at hand?
 
I think that the members of this vigilante group are the least likely to be retaliated against. In fact, they might welcome retaliation, because it would give even more attention to their "cause" and give them an opportunity to bring legal action against the University.

As for why the accused should have a right to know his accuser, if you don't believe in this principle that is in the Bill of Rights, then there's probably nothing I can say to you that would convince you.
 
We aren't dealing with a court of law, so any reference to the Bill of Rights is ridiculous.

Poshard is being accused - anonymously - of plagiarizing his dissertation.

What rights of his are being violated?
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]